Mozart’s

spine 22.7 A: 080607

The stylistic evolution of Mozart’s Viennese instrumental repertory as a whole (1781-1791), closely tied to historical and contextual lines of enquiry, has yet to receive systematic attention. This book fi lls the gap through a study of stylistic re-invention, a practically- and empirically-based theory that explains how innovative, putatively inspired, ideas take shape in Mozart’s works and lead to stylistic re-formulation.

Re-invention comprises a two-stage process: Mozart manipulates pre-existent stylistic features of his music to climactic effect, in so doing introducing a demonstrably ‘new’ stylistic dimension with broad aesthetic resonance; he subsequently re-appraises his style in response to the dimension in question.

From close examination of a variety of Mozart’s works (piano concertos, string quartets and symphonies in particular), supported by study of Mozart’s other chamber and dramatic works, the author shows that stylistic re-invention is a consistent and coherent manifestation of stylistic development. Ultimately re-invention puts centre stage the interaction of intellectual and imaginative elements of Mozart’s musical personality, accounting both for processes of refl ection and re-appraisal and for striking conceptual leaps.

SIMON P. KEEFE is Professor and Head of Music at City University London. He is the author of Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Dramatic Dialogue in the Age of Enlightenment, and editor of three other books on Mozart and a book on the concerto genre.

Jacket illustration: Carl Schutz, ‘The Michaeler-platz in Vienna’ (Austrian National Library, Vienna, Pk 2640, 4).

Also by Simon Keefe

Mozart’s Piano Concertos: DramaticDialogue in the Age of Enlightenment

This masterly study will expand every reader’s appreciation of Mozart’s most original This masterly study will expand every reader’s appreciation of Mozart’s most original Tgenre. Andrew Willis, NOTES

This closely written and thoroughly researched study adds much to our appreciation of the concept of dramatic dialogue in Mozart’s mature piano concertos... What Keefe offer[s] us is fascinating... his book is of value in that the higher meaning of these subtle works is often obscure... he does much to make it clearer. INTERNATIONAL PIANO

The interactive relationship between the piano and the orchestra in Mozart’s concertos is an issue central to the appreciation of these great works, explored in this study in the context of the historical implications and hermeneutic potential of dramatic dialogue. Simon Keefe shows that invocations of dramatic dialogue are deeply ingrained in late-eighteenth-century writings on instrumental music, and he develops this theme into an original and highly positive view of solo/orchestra relations in Mozart’s concertos. He analyses behavioural patterns in the concertos and links them to theoretical discussion of late-eighteenth-century drama and to analogous relational development in Mozart’s operas Idomeneo, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni. Mozart’s piano concertos emerge afresh from this new approach as an extraordinary medium of Enlightenment, as signifi cant in their way as the greatest late-eighteenth-century operatic and theatrical works. 9780851158341

www.boydell.co.ukwww.boydellandbrewer.com

BOYDELL & BREWER LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge IP12 3DF (GB) and668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620-2731 (US)US)US

MOZART’SVIENNESE

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

A Study of Stylistic Re-InventionA Study of Stylistic Re-InventionA Study of Stylistic

SIMON P. KEEFE

SIMON P.KEEFE

BOYDELL

MO

ZA

RT

’S VIE

NN

ESE

INST

RU

ME

NT

AL M

USIC

Mozart's Viennese.indd 1 25/06/2007 16:54:45

Mozart’sViennese Instrumental

Music

A STUDY OF STYLISTIC RE-INVENTION

Mozart’sViennese Instrumental

Music

A STUDY OF STYLISTIC RE-INVENTION

Simon P. Keefe

THE BOYDELL PRESS

© Simon P. Keefe 2007

All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislationno part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system,

published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission of the copyright owner

The right of Simon P. Keefe to be identified asthe author of this work has been asserted in accordance with

sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

First published 2007The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

ISBN 978–1–84383–319–2

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK

and of Boydell & Brewer Inc.668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA

website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

A CIP catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

Typeset by Pru Harrison, Hacheston, SuffolkPrinted in Great Britain by

Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire

Contents

List of Musical Examples vii

List of Figures ix

Acknowledgements xi

Introduction: Mozart and Stylistic Re-Invention 1

I. PIANO CONCERTOS

1. ‘An Entirely Special Manner’: Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb,K. 449, and the Stylistic Implications of Confrontation 19

K. 449 as a hybrid of Mozart’s 1782–83 and spring 1784 concertos 25

The stylistic implications of confrontation in K. 449 34

2. On the Grand, Brilliant and Intimate: Mozart’s Piano ConcertosK. 450 – K. 503 (1784–86) 43

Grandeur, intimacy and brilliance in late eighteenth-centuryconcerto criticism 44

Grandeur, brilliance and intimacy in Mozart’s piano concertos 47

Mozart’s piano concertos K. 450–503 (1784–86) 49

K. 449 re-visited 53

K. 491 and K. 503 55

3. A Complementary Pair: Stylistic Experimentation in Mozart’s FinalPiano Concertos, No. 26 in D, K. 537 (the ‘Coronation’), and No. 27in Bb, K. 595 64

Stylistic experimentation in the first movements of K. 537 and 595 68

Mozart’s stylistic experimentation in context 77


II. STRING QUARTETS

4. An Integrated ‘Dissonance’: Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ Quartets and the SlowIntroduction of K. 465 89

K. 465/i and the ‘Haydn’ set 94

K. 465’s slow introduction as peroration 102

5. Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ Quartets, K. 575, 589 and 590: Towards a NewAesthetic of the String Quartet 105

Musical contrast in the ‘Prussian’ quartets 107


The ‘Prussian’ quartets in musical and aesthetic context 123

III. SYMPHONIES

6. The ‘Jupiter’ Symphony in C, K. 551: The Dramatic Finale and itsStylistic Significance in Mozart’s Orchestral Oeuvre 137

The ‘Jupiter’ finale: reception and context 139

Dramatic dialogue and the late eighteenth-century symphony 144

Dramatic dialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finale 152

The stylistic significance of the ‘Jupiter’ finale in Mozart’s oeuvre 160

IV. CONCLUSIONS

7. Mozart’s Stylistic Re-Invention in Musical Context 167

The Quintet for Piano and Winds, K. 452 169

The piano quartets 174

The piano trios, ‘Kegelstatt’ trio and string trio 177

The piano sonatas and violin sonatas 182

Conclusion: the process of re-invention 188

Bibliography 201

Index of Mozart’s Works by Köchel Number 211Index of Mozart’s Works by Genre 213General Index 215

Musical Examples

1.1 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb, K. 449, 1st movement,bars 228–45 26

1.2 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 12 in A, K. 414, 1st movement,bars 191–95 27

1.3 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 13 in C, K. 415, 1st movement,bars 189–201 28

1.4 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 15 in Bb, K. 450, 1st movement,bars 186–98 29

1.5 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb, K. 449, 1st movement,bars 188–96 31

1.6 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 16 in D, K. 451, 1st movement,bars 187–201 32

1.7 Mozart, String Quartet in G, K. 387, 4th movement, bars 221–33 412.1 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491, 1st movement,

bars 329–46 572.2 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 25 in C major, K. 503, 1st movement,

bars 116–26 603.1 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 26 in D, K. 537, 1st movement,

bars 178–89 703.2 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 26 in D, K. 537, 1st movement,

bars 395–401 713.3 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 27 in Bb, K. 595, 1st movement,

bars 185–204 733.4 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 27 in Bb, K. 595, 1st movement,

bars 338–42 763.5 Mozart, Symphony in G minor, K. 550, 1st movement, bars 99–105 783.6 Mozart, Symphony in G minor, K. 550, 4th movement, bars 125–35 783.7 Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 26 in D, K. 537, 3rd movement,

bars 184–88 804.1 Mozart, String Quartet in C, K. 465, 1st movement, bars 1–5 914.2 Mozart, String Quartet in Eb, K. 428, 1st movement, bars 69–76 994.3 Mozart, String Quartet in Eb, K. 428, 2nd movement, bars 45–8 994.4 Mozart, String Quartet in Bb, K. 458, 3rd movement, bars 14–16 1004.5a Mozart, String Quartet in C, K. 465, 1st movement, bars 13–16 1014.5b Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, 1st movement, bars 65–6 1014.6 Mozart, String Quartet in G, K. 387, 3rd movement, bars 58–62 101

5.1 Mozart, String Quartet in F, K. 590, 1st movement, bars 92–8 1125.2 Mozart, String Quartet in F, K. 590, 1st movement, bars 186–98 1135.3 Mozart, String Quartet in Bb, K. 589, 3rd movement, bars 60–77 1145.4 Mozart, String Quartet in D, K. 575, 3rd movement, bars 31–48 114–155.5 Mozart, String Quartet in F, K. 590, 3rd movement, bars 15–42 115–165.6 Mozart String Quartet in F, K. 590, 4th movement, bars 132–88 119–205.7 Mozart, String Quintet in C, K. 515, 2nd movement, bars 57–68 1275.8 Mozart, String Quintet in Eb, K. 614, 1st movement, bars 87–106 1337.1 Mozart, Quintet for Piano and Winds in Eb, K. 452, 2nd movement,

bars 104–109 1737.2 Mozart, Piano Quartet in Eb, K. 493, 1st movement, bars 106–17 1767.3 Mozart, Piano Trio in G, K. 496, 1st movement, bars 77–88 1797.4 Mozart, Piano Trio in C, K. 548, 2nd movement, bars 31–7 1807.5 Mozart, ‘Kegelstatt’ Trio in Eb, K. 498, 2nd movement, bars 77–82 1817.6 Mozart, Piano Trio in E, K. 542, 1st movement, bars 124–37 1827.7 Mozart, Piano Trio in G, K. 564, 1st movement, bars 49–53 1837.8 Mozart, Piano Sonata in C minor, K. 457, 1st movement, bars 168–76 1847.9 Mozart, ‘Tradito, schernito’ from Così fan tutte, K. 588, bars 29–43 1957.10 Mozart, Concert Aria for Soprano, Piano and Orchestra, ‘Ch’io mi

scordi di te’, K. 505, bars 65–70 198

viii MUSICAL EXAMPLES

Figures

4.1 The tonal and formal arrangement of the ‘Haydn’ quartets 966.1 Dialogue in the Finale of K. 551 153–557.1 Symmetrical distributions of dialogue in the slow introduction,

exposition and recapitulation of K. 452/i 172

For Celia, Abraham and Madeleine

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Queen’s University Belfast for granting me sabbatical leave inspring 2002 to carry out initial work on two chapters of this book, and tocolleagues at City University London (2003– ) for promoting and supporting avibrant research culture. My Mozart-related dialogues with Cliff Eisen are acontinual source of inspiration, and our even more frequent conversations aboutEnglish football’s Premiership (especially the relative merits of Aston Villa andArsenal) a most welcome distraction from the rigours of academic work.

My warmest thanks are reserved for my family – Robert and Virginia Hurwitz,Terry, Sheila and Rosanna Keefe, and my grandmother, Laura Keefe, in anticipa-tion of her 100th birthday in August 2007. To my wife, Celia, and childrenAbraham and Madeleine, I owe far more than traditional avowals of love andrespect can express. I dedicate this book to them, remembering the wonderfulexperiences of times past and looking forward to the years ahead.

I am grateful to the following for permission to reprint versions of my previ-ously published work, revised to incorporate new material: Oxford UniversityPress for ‘ “An Entirely Special Manner”: Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb K.449 and the Stylistic Implications of Confrontation’, Music & Letters, 82 (2001),pp. 559–81; the University of California Press for ‘A Complementary Pair:Stylistic Experimentation in Mozart’s Final Piano Concertos, K. 537 in D and K.595 in Bb’, The Journal of Musicology, 18 (2001), pp. 658–84; Bärenreiter-VerlagKassel for ‘An Integrated “Dissonance”: Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets and the SlowIntroduction of K. 465’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 2002, pp. 87–103; and Bärenreiter-Verlag Kassel for ‘The “Jupiter” Symphony in C, K. 551: New Perspectives on theDramatic Finale and its Stylistic Significance in Mozart’s Orchestral oeuvre’, Actamusicologica, 75 (2003), pp. 17–43.

Simon P. KeefeCity University London

5 October 2006

Introduction

Mozart and Stylistic Re-Invention

The extraordinary popularity of Mozart’s works composed during his years inVienna (1781–91) is a product of, and a factor contributing towards, the intensepublic fascination with the man and his music. Scholarly attention to Mozart, noless remarkable in volume and intensity, is also motivated by, and is a motivatingfactor for, the continued allure of his music as a topic for intellectual investiga-tion. The explosion of secondary literature on Mozart in the last fifty years or so,in musicological sub-disciplines as diverse as source studies, history and context,gender studies, and music analysis (to name but a few major areas), sets thecomposer in as sharp a critical perspective, perhaps, as any composer before orsince. Such fertile scholarly investigation, of course, feeds an insatiable scholarlyappetite – the more information and interpretation we are afforded, the more wecrave. Equally – and perhaps more surprisingly – the proliferation of diversestandpoints, methodologies and approaches leaves major areas of Mozart schol-arship, and basic questions about his music, conspicuously under-represented, oreven misrepresented.

One fundamental area of investigation eliciting little systematic attention inrecent years – and one that will provide the focus for this monograph – is thedevelopment of Mozart’s instrumental style in his Viennese works of 1781–91.While the absence of up-to-date book-length volumes focussing on stylisticdevelopment that traverse the generic boundaries of Mozart’s instrumentaloutput may not be significant in itself, the absence becomes more striking whenrecent advances in our collective appreciation of the aesthetic and historicalcontexts of Mozart’s Viennese works are factored into the equation.1 Study of the

1 Important book-length studies in English include: Elaine R. Sisman, Mozart: The ‘Jupiter’Symphony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Neal Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies:Context, Performance Practice, Reception (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989); David Schroeder,Mozart in Revolt: Strategies of Resistance, Mischief and Deception (New Haven and London: YaleUniversity Press, 1999); John Irving, Mozart’s Piano Sonatas: Contexts, Sources, Style (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997); Robert W. Gutman, Mozart: A Cultural Biography (New York:Harcourt Brace, 1999); Wye Jamison Allanbrook, Rhythmic Gesture in Mozart: ‘Le nozze di Figaro’and ‘Don Giovanni’ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Andrew Steptoe, TheMozart-Da Ponte Operas: The Cultural and Musical Background of ‘Le nozze di Figaro’, ‘DonGiovanni’ and ‘Così fan tutte’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); Daniel Heartz, Mozart’s Operas,ed. Thomas Bauman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990); Mary Hunter, The Culture ofOpera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999); Mary Hunter and

stylistic evolution of Mozart’s Viennese instrumental repertory as a whole has yetto benefit substantially from expanded knowledge of late eighteenth-centuryaesthetic and compositional contexts; the time is right, therefore, for an extendedstylistic investigation that is closely tied to historical and contextual lines ofenquiry. Ultimately, this approach will enable us to probe a series of far-reachingissues – hitherto represented in only haphazard, impressionistic or otherwiselimited fashions for Mozart’s 1781–91 works in total – that have a fundamentalimpact upon our appreciation of Mozart’s Viennese instrumental repertory.Where do apparently ‘original’ instrumental works or movements (in the contextof Mozart’s canon) stand in relation to contemporary aesthetic trends, and howdo the works or movements in question relate to Mozart’s preceding andsucceeding works in the same genre and his contemporary works in other genres?To what phenomena – aesthetic or otherwise – can stylistic changes in works fromthe composer’s final years be attributed (assuming stylistic changes can bedemonstrated in the first place)? How do musical, contextual and aestheticconsiderations bear witness to the exceptional stylistic gravitas and climacticstatus of certain works? And, to what extent is stylistic development in Mozart’soeuvre an inter-generic, and to what extent an intra-generic phenomenon?

Studies of an individual composer’s style, irrespective of historical period ormethodological orientation, must always account, of course, for normative andindividualistic musical practices. Even a cursory survey of late eighteenth- andearly nineteenth-century dictionary entries on style – an important barometer ofprevailing contemporary opinion – reveals that classical writers are just as awareof this fact as preceding and succeeding generations of theorists, historians andaestheticians. J.J.O. de Meude-Monpas’s claim in the Dictionnaire de musique(1787) that style denotes ‘expression peculiar to each individual’ presumes bothexpressive norms and departures from these norms.2 Equally, Jérôme-Joseph deMomigny’s assertion in the Encyclopédie méthodique: musique that every piece bya great composer will have ‘something that makes their style and their mannerrecognizable’, along with John Hoyle’s and Daniel Gottlieb Türk’s remarks thatone speaks ‘of the Bach manner, the Benda manner, the Gluck manner, the Haydnmanner, and so on’, implicitly acknowledges the mutual dependence of thegeneral and the idiosyncratic for understanding style.3 Heinrich Christoph Koch’sbrief, incisive definition of style in the Musikalisches Lexikon (1802) neatly linksthe general and the ‘characteristic’ components of style to the numerous dimen-sions assigned to style (according to level, function, genre, nationality and topicalimplication) in late eighteenth-century discourse. Consideration of the most

2 INTRODUCTION

James Webster, eds., Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997).

2 Meude-Monpas, Dictionnaire de musique (Paris, 1787; reprint Geneva: Minkoff, 1981), p. 192.3 Momigny, ‘Style’, in Encyclopédie méthodique: musique, vol. 2, ed. Pierre-Louis Ginguené,

Nicholas-Etienne Framery and Momigny (Paris, 1791 and 1818), p. 400; Hoyle, ‘Style’, in AComplete Dictionary of Music (London, 1791), p. 242; Türk, School of Clavier Playing (1789), trans.Raymond H. Haagh (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982), p. 399.

important elements of a work establishes its important ‘characteristic’ features,which are classifiable in two ways and lead in two directions: an assessment of thediversity of the treatment of artistic materials, through which passions areexpressed, points towards two stylistic levels, the strict and the free; and an evalua-tion of the passions themselves has an impact upon stylistic function, namelywhether a piece belongs to the church, the theatre or the chamber style.4

For the most part, the relationship between Mozart’s instrumental repertory asa whole and earlier and contemporary stylistic practices and musical trends hasbeen well served by the secondary literature. Indeed, it could be said that the prin-cipal strategy for delineating Mozart’s style in general has remained more-or-lessunchanged, albeit considerably refined, since Otto Jahn’s monumental biographyof the composer in the mid nineteenth century, and involves a determination ofwhat Mozart was taught, what he learned from other composers and where hestands in eighteenth-century musical-historical terms.5 The single most impor-tant landmark in this respect is Georges de Saint-Foix and Théodore de Wyzewa’sepic Mozart: sa vie musicale et son oeuvre (5 volumes, 1912–46), intensely rigorousand systematic in its division of Mozart’s work into 36 periods, in its relentlesssearch for influences on the composer and in its determined exposé of Mozart as ahistorical pinnacle in musical-stylistic terms. Richly detailed and analyticallysophisticated though the volumes are (in the context of early twentieth-centuryMozart criticism), they cannot ultimately answer the oft-cited criticism of proce-dural abstraction. Since influences of one kind or another account for almostevery compositional element in Mozart’s works according to Saint-Foix andWyzewa, we are presented ultimately with ‘a closed system which detaches itselfnot only from the work as a whole and from the intentions and the individualityof the artist, but also from the influences, which may have come from outside themusical data themselves’.6

While Saint-Foix and Wyzewa’s magnum opus suffers from an over-wroughtand tendentious line of stylistic enquiry, life-and-works studies of Mozart havetraditionally painted with a broad brush where stylistic issues are concerned,incorporating relatively little critical or analytical detail in justifying assertionsmade about the stylistic evolution of Mozart’s music.7 Konrad Küster’s Mozart: AMusical Biography redresses the standard imbalance in favour of life-based ratherthan work-based issues in an extended, chronologically arranged survey ofisolated works and groups of works from the beginning to the end of Mozart’scompositional career. Küster’s individual studies are admirably lucid and refresh-ingly free of methodological axe-grinding, but collectively fail to uncover in an

MOZART AND STYLISTIC RE-INVENTION 3

4 Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon (Frankfurt, 1802; reprint Hildesheim: Goerg Olms, 1964), col. 1451.5 Gernot Gruber, Mozart Verstehen: ein Versuch (Salzburg: Residenz Verlag, 1990), p. 121.6 Gernot Gruber, Mozart and Posterity, trans. R.S. Furness (London: Quartet Books, 1991), p. 194.7 Two notable exceptions are the classic twentieth-century biographies by Hermann Abert – osten-

sibly a revision of Jahn – and Alfred Einstein, both of which contain substantial musical-stylisticdiscussion.

explicit fashion underlying strategies that govern the development of Mozart’sstyle over extended periods. To be sure, Küster’s volume has no pretensions tobeing a stylistic study per se; indeed, its fundamental concern for ‘the artisticdevelopment which cannot be separated from the life’8 puts it firmly in the main-stream biographical tradition, albeit with a welcome and long overdue emphasisupon Mozart’s music.

If Küster and Saint Foix / Wyzewa unwittingly demonstrate that musicallybased biographies are apparently not a suitable place for an over-arching thesis(or theses) about the evolution of Mozart’s style, in what type of study should weengage, and in what ways should our study be orientated, in order to develop sucha thesis? A crucial element in the stylistic analysis of Mozart’s music, yet to receivethe systematic attention it deserves and especially relevant to the music of hisViennese period, is the extent to which certain movements represent an originalstylistic approach in relation to Mozart’s own earlier practices. As Gernot Gruberexplains, Mozart’s originality is often either inadvertently (or deliberately)marginalized in stylistic studies – since writers have preferred to consider hismusic in relation to the music of his predecessors – or is simply discussed in anuncritical or reverential fashion. But if we begin from the perspective thatMozart’s music is categorically different to that of his predecessors, Grubercontinues, we no longer obligate ourselves to frame a consideration of his style inrelation to that of his compositional antecedents.9

Even if we side-step broad claims about Mozart’s compositional uniqueness inhistorical-stylistic terms, we can acknowledge that the study of seemingly original,innovative works – judged in relation to his Viennese instrumental canon as awhole and situated in appropriate musical and aesthetic contexts – could helpexplain how, why and in what ways Mozart’s instrumental music evolved in thelast decade of his life. The aesthetic concept of originality, closely linked to that ofcreative genius and supplanting earlier fixation with compositional correctness,takes centre stage in reviews of instrumental music in Germanic music magazinesand scholarly review journals from the 1770s and 1780s, lending hermeneuticweight to discussion of originality in Mozart’s Viennese instrumental repertory.Creative genius and originality are manifest, for example, in ‘vaguely definednovel ideas, . . . witty turns of phrase, . . . modulatory ingenuity, and . . . imagina-tively varied melodic structure’ and – once Haydn and C.P.E. Bach in particularacquire an exalted status – require bold, conspicuous and unanticipated writing.10

More explicit theoretical debate from the mid eighteenth century onwards seesoriginality explained either as ‘innate, introspective and self expressive’ (EdwardYoung through Johann Gottfried Herder, Johann Georg Hamann, Johann

4 INTRODUCTION

8 Küster, Mozart: A Musical Biography, trans. Mary Whittall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. ix.9 Gruber, Mozart Verstehen, pp. 127–28.10 See Mary Sue Morrow, German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century: Aesthetic Issues in

Instrumental Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), especially pp. 99–133.(Quotation from p. 123.)

Joachim Winckelmann and Johann Georg Sulzer) or as process- rather thanproduct-driven (Alexander Gerard and Immanuel Kant).11

References to Mozart’s originality during his decade in Vienna fit comfortablyinto these aesthetic contexts. Stylistic boldness is often associated with the over-whelming momentum his music conveys. Mozart is praised in 1785 for ‘great . . .original . . . compositions’ and for a piano concerto displaying a ‘wealth of ideas. . . variety . . . and contrasts in passionate sounds’: ‘One swims away with himunresistingly on the stream of his emotions.’12 In 1790 his ‘great genius’ is said to‘[embrace] so to speak, the whole extent of the art of music’, his works repre-senting ‘a river in spate which carries along with it every stream that approachesit’.13 And in 1791 Bernhard Anselm Weber, finding the ‘greatest possible original-ity’ in Mozart’s linking of ‘profound knowledge of the art with the happiest talentfor inventing lovely melodies’, explains: ‘Nowhere in his work does one ever findan idea one had heard before: even his accompaniments are always novel. One is,as it were, incessantly pulled along from one notion to another, without rest orrepose, so that admiration of the latest constantly swallows up admiration forwhat has gone before.’14 Writers in the 1780s are collectively undecided aboutwhether the putatively overwhelming nature of Mozart’s original ideas is positiveor negative; in some circles, indeed, criticism of this aspect of Mozart’s musicalpersonality becomes a scholarly tick, even if ‘faults’ themselves are worthy ofpraise.15 At any rate, the originality of Mozart’s music extends to the listening ex-perience for individual works: Die Entführung aus dem Serail ‘produces new fasci-nation with each repeated hearing’ on account of music that is ‘so individual andvaried that on first hearing it is not entirely understandable even to a trained ear’(1789).16 The Prager Oberpostamtszeitung – reporting on the memorial ceremonyfor Mozart in Prague on 14 December 1791 – goes further still, linking repeatedhearings to procedural evolution in the works themselves: ‘Everything that hewrote carries the clear stamp of classical beauty. For this reason he pleases eachtime even more, for one beauty evolves from another, and so he will always pleasefor he will always seem new.’17


11 Thomas Bauman, ‘Becoming Original: Haydn and the Cult of Genius’, The Musical Quarterly, 87(2005), pp. 333–57. (Quotation from p. 338.)

12 Given in Otto Erich Deutsch, Mozart: A Documentary Biography, trans. Eric Blom, PeterBranscombe and Jeremy Noble (London: Simon & Schuster, 1990), p. 233.

13 Ibid., p. 372.14 Ibid., pp. 411–12.15 Well-known examples include Dittersdorf’s claim that Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ quartets ‘deserve the

highest praise, but . . . because of their overwhelming and unrelenting artfulness are not to every-one’s taste’ (Cliff Eisen, New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch’s DocumentaryBiography (London: Macmillan, 1991), p. 54) and Cramer’s explanation that the same quartetshave ‘a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. But then, what great and elevatedideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!’ (Deutsch, Documentary Biography, p. 349). See alsoDeutsch, Documentary Biography, p. 412 and Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 123 for commentsfrom 1791 that offset tentative criticism with fulsome expressions of praise.

16 Given in Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 57.17 Ibid., p. 123.

Explaining precisely how specific movements manifest stylistic innovation inthe context of Mozart’s oeuvre cannot be undertaken lightly, and requires scrupu-lous musical justification in each and every case. The innovation/tradition binaryis not a straightforward one in Mozart’s repertory, with every innovative workremaining convention-laden to some extent;18 this state of affairs is recognized bylate eighteenth-century reviewers of instrumental music who value above all – inthe context of creative genius and originality – ‘the skillful presentation of theunexpected within the confines of the familiar’.19 In addition, a realization thatMozart’s instrumental style does not evolve in a vacuum necessitates an equallycareful consideration of prevailing aesthetic factors pertaining to a particularinnovative stylistic orientation. Only through an approach informed by bothmusical and aesthetic factors will it be possible to ascertain the stylistic signifi-cance of key works in Mozart’s evolving instrumental style.

Stylistic re-invention

An identification and examination of stylistically innovative movements amongMozart’s Viennese works requires an understanding of how stylistic developmentis manifest at various levels. In terms of Mozart’s stylistic practices, for example,we need to establish where striking musical procedures in a specific Mozartinstrumental work stand in relation to musical procedures in his preceding andcontemporary works. Equally, and at a deeper level, we need to determinewhether – and if so how and why – a spirit of stylistic innovation characterizescertain works, and whether Mozart apparently re-appraises his aesthetic views ofa genre on account of stylistic novelties.

There is evidence to suggest that Mozart was acutely self-aware in matters ofstyle, very often with pragmatic concerns at heart. In the first movement of his‘Paris’ Symphony, K. 297 (1778) he freely acknowledges assimilating one stylisticgesture (the premier coup d’archet) in order to accommodate Parisian taste, inspite of a jocular lack of respect for the gesture itself (‘It is really too much of ajoke’), as well as writing ‘a passage that I felt sure must please’ in the middle ofthe movement subsequently re-stated at the end in order to please the audiencestill further.20 And the close correspondences between refined aspects of wind

6 INTRODUCTION

18 For a vivid account of how dependent Mozart’s operas are on opera buffa conventions of the day,see Mary Hunter, The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), especially pp. 247–98 (on Così fan tutte).

19 Morrow, German Music Criticism, p. 123. Johann Georg Sulzer’s discussion of originality(Originalgeist) – albeit not in a specifically musical context – also explains that ‘One can . . . beoriginal and still conform in many other ways to the ordinary.’ See Allgemeine Theorie der schönenKünste, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1771–74), vol. 3, p. 626, as given in Aesthetics and the Art of MusicalComposition in the German Enlightenment: Selected Writings of Johann Georg Sulzer and HeinrichChristoph Koch, ed. Nancy Kovaleff Baker and Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), p. 35.

20 See Emily Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters of Mozart and his Family (3rd edition, London:Macmillan, 1985), pp. 553, 558; letters of 12 June 1778 and 3 July 1778.

orchestration in this movement and French commentary on wind orchestrationin the years preceding his Parisian visit suggest a desire to please connoisseurs aswell.21 Mozart even boasts to his father, a few months earlier in 1778: ‘I am, as youknow, pretty well able to assimilate and imitate every manner and style of compo-sition’.22 His ability to survive as an independent composer depended uponaudiences (and potential performers) finding his music stylistically accessible; thefamous remark to his father in 1782 about the ‘happy medium’ of stylistic quali-ties he strikes in his first Viennese piano concertos (K. 413–415) recognizes this.23

Moreover, the advice that the publisher Franz Anton Hoffmeister gave to Mozartafter poor sales of the piano quartets K. 478 (1785) and K. 493 (1786) – ‘Write in amore popular style, otherwise I can neither publish anything by you nor payyou’24 – lends further evidence of Mozart’s alertness to the fact that stylistic factorsdirectly affected commercial success.

It would be wrong, however, to attribute Mozart’s self-awareness in thestylistic domain purely to pragmatic and commercial factors. His statement thatthe Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb, K. 449, is written in ‘an entirely special manner’has far-reaching stylistic implications (see Chapter 1), as does his identification ofhis piano concertos from No. 15 in Bb, K. 450 onwards as ‘grand concertos’(Chapter 2); similarly his remark about the ‘happy medium’ of stylistic qualitieswitnessed in K. 413–415 has important stylistic as well as commercial resonances(Chapter 2). Given Mozart’s attentiveness to stylistic matters, it is surely not toofar-fetched to suggest that he would always have been alert to the stylistic charac-teristics, implications and resonances of his works, if only to identify those of hisexisting works that might be appropriate for a planned concert or series ofconcerts; consequently, he must have contemplated – even if only in a general way– the musical direction in which he was heading. His Thematic Catalogue, theVerzeichnüss aller meine Werke, begun with an entry for K. 449 on 9 February1784, would have provided him with an excellent aide mémoire of pre-existentcompositions, and, by extension, of their stylistic qualities.

This study, however, will be constricted neither by Mozart’s purported inten-tions regarding style, nor by late eighteenth-century understandings of style.Koch’s definition in the Musikalisches Lexikon outlined above points to theexpression of passions, in other words to communication between musician(s)


21 Simon P. Keefe, ‘The Aesthetics of Wind Writing in Mozart’s “Paris” Symphony in D, K. 297’,Mozart-Jahrbuch 2006, forthcoming.

22 From Küster, Musical Biography, p. 131; letter of 7 Feb. 1778. Emily Anderson gives a slightlydifferent translation in Letters, p. 468. Elaine Sisman has recently identified the ‘real meaning’ ofthis remark as ‘not merely that he was a virtuoso chameleon (as well as a chameleon virtuoso) butthat he actually drew inspiration from the work of others to rise to his own heights; the better themodel the better the result’. See ‘Observations on the First Phase of Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets’,in Words About Mozart: Essays in Honour of Stanley Sadie, ed. Dorothea Link and Judy Nagley(Woodbridge and Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2005), p. 58.

23 Anderson, Letters, p. 833; letter of 28 December 1782.24 As reported by Mozart’s early biographer Georg Nikolaus Nissen. See Gruber, Posterity, p. 12.

and audience. The crucial passages I discuss in this volume as hinges for Mozart’sstylistic development contain especially rich and intense expressive material, andthus by definition constituted powerful means for Mozart to communicate withhis contemporary audiences; but, on account of resonances with earlier and laterworks, these passages also invite us to examine their musical procedures in waysthat do not always conform explicitly with late eighteenth-century critical prac-tices (for example through comparison of specific techniques used across a seriesof works). Theorists contemporary with Mozart nonetheless provide invaluableguides to stylistic issues in his music, not least (as we shall see) because their prior-ities and judgements often overlap with Mozart’s own, highlighting contempor-ary critical expectations of particular genres, and because their views providecatalysts for historically based interpretation of moments of originality in hisinstrumental oeuvre. Writers contemporary with Mozart, then, did not prioritizediscussion of the stylistic development of an extended corpus of works by a singlecomposer – the absence of sufficient numbers of widely available editions by indi-vidual composers in the late eighteenth century would have made the task moreor less impossible – but their insights can still stimulate our own account of thisdevelopment. At any rate, the study of technical features within the remit of style(if not in explicitly comparative or developmental contexts) is never far from thesurface in the late eighteenth century. The rhetorical ‘elocutio’ (usually translatedas ‘style’), one of the five partes of the oration, involves mastering grammaticaland presentational issues as explained by writers such as Aristotle, Cicero andQuintillian, and parallels late eighteenth-century, rhetorically driven discussionof musical periodicity and melodic figures (figurae).25

It is logical to begin an investigation of Mozart’s instrumental style and hisinnovative stylistic practices with the act of creation itself, especially the rhetoricalidea of invention (‘inventio’, or ‘Erfindung’ in German) that permeated so mucheighteenth-century musico-theoretical discourse and in which Mozart a few yearsafter his death is said to possess ‘inexhaustible richness’ (unerschöplicherReichthum).26 Historically, the invention stage of a rhetorical process is concernedwith pre-compositional thoughts and ideas, inspired by a rhetorician’s (orcomposer’s) innate, un-teachable genius.27 In reality, however, eighteenth-century explanations of invention, as well as recent interpretations of itscontinued relevance to scholarly discourse on eighteenth-century music,28 stressthe intertwining of invention and elaboration, the un-teachable and teachable

8 INTRODUCTION

25 On ‘elocutio’ in rhetorical and musical-rhetorical contexts, and applied to several of Mozart’sworks, see Irving, Mozart’s Piano Sonatas, pp. 151–61.

26 See Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 3 (1800–01), col. 31.27 For recent discussions of invention in eighteenth-century contexts see: Laurence Dreyfus, Bach

and the Patterns of Invention (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996), esp. pp. 1–32;Mark Evan Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), passim; Irving, Mozart’s Piano Sonatas, Part 3, ‘Style’,passim.

28 See, in particular, Dreyfus, Patterns of Invention, pp. 1–32.

elements of rhetoric collectively encapsulating the mysteriously inspired and themore industrious, mechanical aspects of the rhetorical/compositional process.Transplanted from a compositional context to one of style, then, the interdepen-dence of putatively inspired idea and industrious, erudite process through whichsuch an idea takes shape provides an aesthetic starting point for understandingstylistic innovation in Mozart’s music. Assuming that a moment or passage can beidentified as stylistically original in the context of Mozart’s instrumental musicnecessarily involves also accepting that a musical process of some kind must havelaid the foundation for this originality – process and product are inextricablylinked. And if musical process and original stylistic product belong together, itbecomes necessary to explain what musical process (or processes) follows an orig-inal stylistic product and whether, in fact, another innovative practice ensues as aresult. The on-going nature of such a model of development – assuming it isshown to exist – would render Mozart’s stylistic ‘invention’, stylistic ‘re-inven-tion’. At any rate, an emphasis on the process by which Mozart’s originality evolves– original stylistic practices come into being, rather than appearing from nowhere– resonates with a famous remark made by Joseph Haydn towards the end of hislife. At Eszterháza, Haydn explains to Georg August Griesinger, he had the oppor-tunity to ‘make experiments’ (Versuche machen) and ‘had to become original’ (somusste ich originel werden). The confluence of originality and experimentationbrings Haydn into line with the ideas of Alexander Gerard and Kant, rather thanwith those of Young, Herder and Sulzer among others who regard originality asinnate and antithetical to the idea of learned genius.29 I contend that originality inMozart’s Viennese instrumental music belongs in a similar, process-orientatedcategory; and writers from 1781–91, who associate Mozart’s originality withdynamic musical procedures as we have seen, would support this view.

Moving from an aesthetic perspective on stylistic development and originality(what I shall call stylistic re-invention) in Mozart’s instrumental oeuvre to a prac-tical perspective requires us to address several key questions.30 Which stylisticfeatures of a particular work are to be foregrounded and why? Which worksassume prominence in a re-invention process and why? And how do localized‘events’ – individual passages, sections etc. – ultimately contribute to a deeperunderstanding of the process of stylistic re-alignment? No doubt claims could bemade for the stylistic significance and originality of events in a whole host ofmusical domains (formal, motivic, thematic, harmonic, tonal, textural andrhythmic) in individual Mozart Viennese instrumental works; requiring suchevents and procedures to be set in historical-theoretical and aesthetic contexts –and thus to be regarded as stylistic means to ends rather than ends in themselves –


29 On Haydn’s famous statement about Eszterháza, situated in the context of discussions of origi-nality and genius in the late eighteenth century, see Bauman ‘Becoming Original’.

30 By ‘stylistic re-invention’ I certainly do not intend the often cynical, modern meaning of the term,whereby a pop artist ‘re-invents’ him or herself primarily for commercial gain or a politician‘re-invents’ him or herself in order to garner the popular vote.

still leaves open numerous avenues of investigation. In determining which proce-dures, events and works to prioritize in my study I am guided by the confluence ofstriking contextual factors relating to Mozart’s situation at a given moment in agiven genre, informed by contemporary aesthetic perspectives that cast light onthis situation. As Leonard Meyer makes clear in the most substantial theoreticaldeliberation on style in recent times, any stylistic study with a historical dimen-sion needs to accommodate factors external to the music under consideration(cultural, aesthetic, ideological etc.) as well as technical features of the music,ideally bringing both ‘internalist’ and ‘externalist’ perspectives to bear on expla-nations of style change.31 Those works that resonate in pronounced ways withfundamental aesthetic features of individual genres (above all concerto, stringquartet and symphony), while also occupying prominent places in Mozart’sinstrumental oeuvre for any number of musical and/or non-musical reasons, thusreceive special attention. My perspective on stylistic re-invention as an on-goingprocess also affects the choice of works accorded significance. If stylistic changearises as a result of the type of process outlined in the paragraph above, then origi-nality will be predominantly ‘strategic’, whereby Mozart devises new ways ofworking with existing stylistic ‘rules’, rather than overhauling them completely ina purportedly more radical act of originality.32

The first six chapters of this book focus on Mozart’s piano concertos (Chapters1–3), string quartets (Chapters 4–5) and symphonies (Chapter 6); discussions ofworks from other genres are included, most notably the string quintets in Chapter5, but come to real prominence only in Chapter 7, which adopts a broad, inter-generic perspective. The genre-centred approach in no way indicates that theconcertos, quartets and symphonies are hermetically sealed entities insusceptibleto stylistic influences outside their immediate generic surroundings; such a view isplainly unsustainable. But for each of the concertos, quartets and symphoniesconsidered in detail in this study, Mozart’s primary stylistic reference pointswould seem certainly to comprise works in the same genre: the piano concerto K.449, left incomplete for over a year, was composed alongside both K. 413–415 andK. 450, 451 and 453; another concerto K. 491 came at the end of a two-year,ten-work sequence (K. 450–491, 1784–86), during which the concerto dominatedMozart’s creative energies and the projection of his public persona; the stringquartets K. 465 and K. 575, 589, 590 were conceived in genre-specific sets (the‘Haydn’ and ‘Prussian’ respectively); and the ‘Jupiter’ symphony K. 551 followshot on the heels of Eb major and G-minor symphonies (K. 543 and K. 550) in thesummer of 1788. Only the final two piano concertos, K. 537 and K. 595,

10 INTRODUCTION

31 See Leonard B. Meyer, Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology (Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1989). Meyer’s principal focus in the later part of this book is the music of theRomantic period.

32 Meyer distinguishes between these two types of stylistic originality in Style and Music, p. 31,defining ‘strategies’ as ‘compositional choices made within the possibilities established by therules of the style’ (p. 20). He also identifies Mozart as one of music’s ‘incomparable strategists’ (p.31).

chronologically detached from Mozart’s main body of work in the genre, aredifferent: as we shall see, internal musical evidence points in any case to Mozart’scloser stylistic engagement with earlier piano concertos than with any of his otherpreceding or contemporary works.

Where Mozart’s early Viennese piano concertos are concerned, the trail beginswith No. 14 in Eb, K. 449 (1782–84). Mozart draws attention himself to a shift inhis stylistic conception of the genre from the small-scale works that could beperformed without wind-instrument accompaniment (K. 413, 414, 415) to‘grand’ concertos (from K. 450 onwards) that feature obligatory wind instru-ments and a larger orchestra. He situates K. 449 – written in a self-professed‘entirely special manner’ – at the precise nexus between these two differentconceptions. Other original features of K. 449 by Mozart’s standards of the time,including formal characteristics of the first and second movements, point to animportant stylistic juncture in Mozart’s piano concerto oeuvre. The stylisticnexus between small-scale and ‘grand’ concerto is mirrored in the compositionalgenesis of the first movement – K. 449 is interrupted at the end of the solo exposi-tion probably in late 1782 and picked up in spring 1784, being initiated alongsideK. 413–415 and completed alongside K. 450, 451 and 453 – thus adding grist to themill. Chronological and contextual factors coalesce in the development section ofthe first movement; the first music composed after the compositional hiatuscontains a demonstrably original type of interaction between piano and orchestrain Mozart’s piano concertos (confrontation) that pertains to the orchestra’s roleand status in the concerto genre and thus to Mozart’s own proclamations aboutstylistic change in the context of a new type of involvement for the orchestra in‘grand’ works. The solo-orchestra confrontation itself develops from an intensifi-cation of procedures witnessed in the three preceding piano concertos andre-appears in Mozart’s later piano concertos and other works as well.

But the influence of the technique of confrontation introduced in K. 449 onMozart’s later works is only one part of the stylistic equation; it is necessary also todetermine in broader terms the relationship between the events of K. 449 andMozart’s subsequent concerto style. By illustrating that Mozart re-configuresfundamental aesthetic and stylistic features of the concerto – as extrapolated fromlate eighteenth-century discussion – in his works from K. 450 onwards, we areable to appreciate K. 449 more vividly as a hinge between the old and the new. K.449 is a stylistic hybrid of K. 413–415 and the later ‘grand’ concertos in a numberof respects, and it is the development section confrontation that dramatizes thisstatus most clearly, since it intersects directly with aspects of intimacy, grandeurand brilliance that are central to an appreciation of Mozart’s concerto style and toan understanding of the changed role of the orchestra (to which Mozart himselfdraws attention).

Just as the nascent opposition of piano and orchestra in K. 413–415 intensifiesin K. 449 to the point where Mozart introduces direct confrontation, so thebalance of intimate, grand and brilliant stylistic characteristics from K. 450onwards reaches its zenith in K. 491. Again, the work’s context alerts us to its


important stylistic position in Mozart’s concerto oeuvre. It is the last in asequence of ten piano concertos from K. 450 onwards (eleven if we include K.449) written in an intensive two-year period; and it features the longest and mostformally complex first movement and the most orchestrally ornate slow move-ment in Mozart’s piano concerto oeuvre. Mozart juxtaposes passages of thegreatest grandeur and intimacy in the first movement development and recapitu-lation sections and introduces unparalleled wind brilliance in the slow move-ment. After K. 491, as after K. 449, stylistic elements are reconfigured, first in K.503 and later, more systematically (as explained in detail in Chapter 3), in the tworemaining piano concertos K. 537 and 595, confirming K. 491’s position as ahinge in Mozart’s re-invention process. The changes put into effect in K. 537 and595, moreover, enable us to cast the concept of ‘experimentation’ in a corpus oflate eighteenth-century instrumental works in a more positive light than is tradi-tionally the case.33 Mozart’s experimentation in these works represents neither alapse in quality, nor uncertainty and lack of commitment vis-à-vis the concertogenre; instead, it demonstrates active engagement with the re-invention process.As with Haydn (at least as reported by Griesinger), experimentation and origi-nality go hand in hand.

Mozart’s written comments on stylistic change in the 1782–83 and spring 1784piano concertos are lacking for his string quartets. It is more difficult then to navi-gate a path through these works in order to identify re-invention strategies andprocedures. But, in the ‘Haydn’ set in particular, late eighteenth- and early nine-teenth-century reception – if not Mozart’s words then the words of those tempo-rally close to him – provides an important catalyst. Mozart’s contemporariesrecognize the extreme technical difficulty of these works, above all their harmonicand tonal intricacies, and consider no individual section more problematic in thisrespect than the slow introduction to the ‘Dissonance’ quartet, K. 465. In a setreplete with harmonic audacity, we need to explain why Mozart left his greatestaudacity until the last quartet, what function he intended his slow introduction(the only one in the set) to fulfil and how the passage relates (if at all) to the earlier‘Haydn’ works. In the process of addressing these issues, we establish that the K.465 slow introduction manipulates material and technical procedures fromearlier works (as do the first movements of K. 449 and K. 491) in order to producea rhetorical peroration; the resulting contrast between the slow introduction andthe ensuing allegro, moreover, is most striking of all. Moving on to the ‘Prussian’

12 INTRODUCTION

33 James Webster takes a similarly positive step in this direction, in relation to Haydn’s instrumentalmusic. Explaining that ‘experimentation’ has traditionally represented an implicit mark against awork (since a putative style has not reached fruition), he argues for a positive understanding of theterm: instead of ‘an evolutionist interpretation according to which [Haydn’s] maturity and“Classical style” are linked, as the foreordained results of a teleological historical process . . . Iwould argue that experimentation was a fundamental aspect of his musical personality,throughout his life’. See Webster, Haydn’s “Farewell” Symphony and the Idea of Classical Style:Through Composition and Cyclic Integration in his Instrumental Music (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), pp. 335–73 (passim) and especially pp. 361–66 (quotation at p. 361).

quartets, K. 575, 589 and 590, we explain that heightened contrast – for which K.465 is the stylistic precursor – takes centre stage, a re-configuration of stylistic andaesthetic paradigms in the wake of the exceptional events of K. 465/i.

Mozart’s six Viennese symphonies again challenge a theory of re-invention.Each symphony could lay claim to significant originality in the context ofMozart’s works in the genre, in particular the ‘Prague’ K. 504 for its topical heter-ogeneity, the G-minor K. 550 for – among other features – its lithe, sinuousopening (seemingly in mid phrase) that is difficult to relate to an eigh-teenth-century style category, and the ‘Jupiter’ for its dazzlingly contrapuntalfinale. But the most clearly climactic movement – interpreted by so many as hissymphonic apotheosis – is the last. Like other hinges in the re-invention process,K. 465 and K. 491, it draws an extended series of works to a close (three sympho-nies completed in less than two months in the summer of 1788), also offeringthrough dialogue – a popular late eighteenth-century metaphor for instrumentalparticipation in a symphony – an immediate stylistic point of comparison withMozart’s earlier symphonic works. We are of course deprived of the opportunityto determine how Mozart’s symphonies might have changed stylistically after the‘Jupiter’, as this is his final contribution to the genre.

My theory of stylistic re-invention, then, is practically and empirically based,but grounded in the notion that two related aesthetic phenomena play active roles– the innovative, putatively inspired idea itself (confrontation, contrast, rhetori-cal peroration, taut dramatic dialogue etc.) and the industrious, erudite processthrough which this idea takes shape, effects a moment of stylistic climax and leadsto stylistic re-formulation. In essence, then, stylistic re-invention comprises atwo-stage process: Mozart manipulates pre-existent features of his music toclimactic effect, in so doing introducing a demonstrably ‘new’ stylistic dimensionwith broad aesthetic resonance; he subsequently re-appraises his style in responseto the dimension in question. Thus, through contemplating musical proceduresfrom his earlier Viennese piano concertos and string quartets, especially in thedevelopment section of K. 449/i, the development and recapitulation of K. 491/iand the slow introduction of K. 465/i, Mozart not only writes movements exhib-iting stylistically climactic qualities – in terms of piano/orchestra confrontation inK. 449, heightened intimacy and grandeur in K. 491 and rhetorical peroration andstrong contrast in K. 465 – but also movements that prompt significant alterationsto his stylistic paradigms. (Only the first of the two stages is evident in theViennese symphonies.) By its very nature the causal connection betweenclimactic moment and subsequent style change remains an interpretative hypoth-esis on my part, based on internal musical evidence above all; it has indeed beenrecognized from a theoretical standpoint that single salient innovations can oftenhave a wider impact on compositional styles and that ‘incremental modifications’can result in a ‘trended change’.34 At any rate it is my hope that stylistic


34 Meyer, Style and Music, p. 150.

re-invention will satisfactorily explain the relationship between Mozart’sstylistically climactic works, his preceding works and his subsequent stylisticre-appraisals, thus offering a theory of compositional development in his Vien-nese instrumental music.

By representing a complex of related musical procedures in Mozart’s Vienneseinstrumental works – including his manipulation of existing musical proceduresto climatic effect or in response to a stylistic climax, and his extended re-appraisalof standard modus operandi in a genre – stylistic re-invention can be identifiedboth as a specific procedure manifest in a specific passage of a Mozart movementand, in a more wide-ranging way, as a dynamic process behind, and powerfulimpetus for Mozart’s stylistic evolution. Since, as we shall discover, the musicalprocedures in question result in tangibly original works, movements or passagesin the context of Mozart’s instrumental oeuvre, it is no coincidence that most ofthe key works under discussion here are among the most consistently misunder-stood or undervalued in Mozart’s Viennese repertory (for example, the pianoconcertos K. 449, 503, 537, 595 and the string quartets K. 575, 589, 590); theothers, at the very least, are among the most hotly debated (the string quartet K.465, piano concerto K. 491, and symphony K. 551). It is vital in coming to anappropriately well-developed understanding of all of these works, and of howthey collectively embody re-invention processes, that both similarities and differ-ences from preceding, contemporary and succeeding works are sufficiently wellrepresented; such stylistic contextualization thus forms an important part of mystudy. No-one would surely suggest that these particular works bear Mozart’sdistinctive fingerprint any less markedly than his Viennese works not exhibitingpronounced tendencies towards re-invention. It is only by accounting for thedistinctively Mozartian qualities of the instrumental works upon which we focusin this study that we fully appreciate stylistic re-invention as a consistent andcoherent – rather than an ad hoc and incoherent – manifestation of stylisticdevelopment.

While the majority of this volume explains stylistic re-invention predomi-nantly (but by no means exclusively) in the respective contexts of Mozart’s pianoconcertos, string quartets, and symphonies, the rich vein of stylisticcross-fertilization affecting all genres in the late eighteenth century together withmutable generic boundaries and innumerable generic cross references, necessi-tates broader, more wide-ranging consideration of stylistic re-invention as well.To this end, Chapter 7 situates those Viennese instrumental works that mostclearly embody generically hybrid qualities, such as the piano trios and quartets,and the Piano and Wind Quintet K. 452, as well as other groups of instrumentalworks (the violin sonatas and piano sonatas in particular; the string quintets arediscussed in Chapter 5) in the context of Mozart’s stylistic re-invention in thepiano concertos, string quartets and symphonies. This contextualization ofre-invention allows us, in turn, to draw broad conclusions about theperiodization and categorization of Mozart’s Viennese instrumental works –internal periodic divisions and concepts of late style in particular – as well as

14 INTRODUCTION

about prevalent aesthetic and stylistic trends, such as the progressive increase indramatic concentration in the instrumental music of his final years.

It would be too much to claim that my study offers a completely comprehen-sive account of stylistic development in Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos, stringquartets and symphonies. Those adopting different perspectives – an entirelyinter-generic one, say, focusing on individual formal, thematic, motivic,rhythmic, gestural or textural elements, or on topical usage and developmentacross a diverse selection of works – will likely detect further re-invention proce-dures, foregrounding the same or different works. I have deliberately prioritizedbiographical, contextual and reception factors – motivated as I am by historicalconsiderations – in determining initial points of re-invention; a scholar choosingnot to do so may well locate different points. Given that the waves of re-inventiondetected here by no means coincide in temporal terms – in spite of highpoints ofactivity in 1784 and 1786 – I see the plurality of re-invention possibilities asentirely positive. For re-invention highlights, above all, the great energy andvibrancy associated with Mozart’s stylistic renewal – we ultimately unveil richlyinterwoven musical tapestries that reveal that Mozart’s extraordinary musicalmind is constantly engaged with the complementary and contrasting resonancesof his music. If such tapestries are revealed by future scholars to be richer still, thiswill be a cause for celebration.


. I .

PIANO CONCERTOS

1

‘An Entirely Special Manner’:Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 14 in E b, K. 449, and

the Stylistic Implications of Confrontation

A HIGHPOINT in Mozart’s career as a composer-performer in Vienna camerduring the spring of 1784. In a letter to his father Leopold, dated 4 March

1784, Mozart listed an astonishing 22 engagements for the period 26 February to3 April, including three concerts in a subscription series at the Trattnerhof, two atthe Burgtheater (one of which was subsequently cancelled) and several at thesalons of Prince Galitsin and Count Esterházy.1 According to Mozart, theTrattnerhof and Burgtheater performances were particularly well received: he‘won extraordinary applause’, had a hall that was ‘full to overflowing’ and waspraised repeatedly for the first subscription concert on 17 March. He describedthe Burgtheater concert – for which he performed the Piano Concertos Nos. 15and 16 in Bb and D, K. 450 and 451 and the Quintet for Piano and Winds, K. 452 –as ‘most successful’ and remarked that it was ‘greatly to my credit that my listenersnever got tired’.2 Even if Mozart can hardly be relied upon as an impartial witnessto his own success, his list of subscribers to the Trattnerhof series, containing 176names (‘thirty more than Richter and Fischer together’), many from the highestartistic, intellectual, cultural and aristocratic echelons of society,3 testifies to thehigh regard in which he was held. The Wunderkind who had charmed the Vien-nese in his youth had become a fully endorsed member of the Viennese musicalestablishment.

The foundation for Mozart’s considerable successes in early 1784 was laid bythe three piano concertos composed for the aforementioned Trattnerhof andBurgtheater concerts, K. 449 in Eb, K. 450 in Bb, and K. 451 in D (Nos. 14–16), aswell as by K. 453 in G (No. 17), performed by Mozart at a subsequent concert atthe Burgtheater on 29 April.4 Sending these works to his father on 15 May 1784,

1 See Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, pp. 869–70.2 Ibid., pp. 872, 873.3 Mozart gives a complete list of his subscribers for these concerts, boasting of his greater popularity

than Richter and Fischer, in a letter to his father on 20 March 1784. See Ibid., pp. 870–72.4 The concertos K. 449, 450, 451, 453 were entered into Mozart’s thematic catalogue, the

Verzeichnüss, on 9 February, 15 March, 22 March, 12 April respectively.

Mozart distinguished K. 449 from the later three concertos on the grounds that itwas scored for a smaller accompanying orchestra:

I regard them both [K. 450 and K. 451] as concertos which are bound to make theperformer perspire. From the point of view of difficulty the Bb concerto beats theone in D. Well, I am very curious to hear which of the three in Bb, D and G you andmy sister prefer. The one in Eb does not belong at all to the same category. It is aconcerto of an entirely special manner, composed rather for a small orchestra thanfor a large one. So it is really a question of the three grand concertos.5

Two weeks earlier, Mozart had even suggested that K. 449 – like his first set ofViennese Piano Concertos from 1782–83, K. 413 in F, K. 414 in A and K. 415 in C– ‘can be performed a quattro without wind instruments’ in contrast to hisself-professed ‘grand’ concertos, all three of which ‘have wind-instrument accom-paniment’.6

The newly intricate and sophisticated writing for woodwind in K. 450, 451 and453 – indeed the prominent role given to the orchestra in these works generally –has elicited much critical comment from the late eighteenth century onwards. Areviewer for the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in October 1799, for example,comments very favourably on K. 450’s accompanimental writing, and particu-larly on the ornate nature of several of its wind passages:

it is not as well-crafted as some better known and newer concertos by the samecomposer: on the other hand, though, its delicateness accounts for a great deallighter and more suitable instrumental accompaniment, more practical on thewhole than some of the others. It is certainly easier to find ten pianists whocompletely perfect even the most difficult of these concertos, before one finds asingle good accompanying orchestra. But in the last Allegro of the concerto in ques-tion there are also some short passages in the first oboe which, if they are to beperformed well, in style and with precision, require just as much practice and assur-ance as any passage in the concerto part.7

20 PIANO CONCERTOS

5 Wilhelm A. Bauer, Otto Erich Deutsch and J.H. Eibl, eds., Mozart: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen.Gesamtausgabe. Band III: 1780–86 (Kassel and London: Bärenreiter, 1963), p. 315. Translationadapted slightly from Anderson, Letters, p. 877. Mozart’s representation of K. 449 as a ‘ganzbesonderer Art’ is better rendered ‘an entirely special manner’ than Anderson’s ‘a quite peculiarkind’. Although Mozart’s stylistic pronouncement about K. 449 is unique in his correspondence(to my knowledge), it is intriguingly similar to Haydn’s famous remarks from letters in 1781 abouthis Op. 33 set of string quartets constituting ‘an entirely new and special manner’ (‘eine gantz neuebesondere Art’). For Haydn’s comments, see Dénes Bartha, ed., Gesammelte Briefe undAufzeichungen (Kassel and London: Bärenreiter, 1965), pp. 106–107.

6 Anderson, Letters, p. 877. For Mozart’s reference to the a quattro performance of K. 413, 414 and415 see his ‘musical announcement’ in the Wiener Zeitung of 15 January 1783, reprinted inDeutsch, Mozart: A Documentary Biography, p. 212. As Neal Zaslaw pointed out, Mozart’s aquattro reference in all likelihood designated performance in four parts and not necessarily by fourinstruments with one to each part. See ‘Contexts for Mozart’s Piano Concertos’, in Mozart’s PianoConcertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, ed. Zaslaw (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1996), pp. 7–16, at p. 10.

7 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 2 (1799–1800), cols. 12–13. ‘Zwar ist es nicht so sehr gearbeitet,

In similar fashion, a reviewer for the Musikalische Korrespondenz der teutschenFilarmonischen Gesellschaft remarks in 1792 on the ‘scoring and obbligato writing’that require K. 451 to be performed ‘by large, fully-manned orchestras’, identi-fying this concerto as ‘among the most beautiful and brilliant that we have fromthis master, with respect to both the ritornellos and the solos’.8

Twentieth-century writers have followed the lead of their late eighteenth-century counterparts, readily acknowledging the originality and ‘brilliance’ of theorchestral writing in K. 450, 451 and 453. Numerous critics explain the stylisticsignificance of K. 450 in Mozart’s oeuvre in terms of the originality of its wood-wind writing, several drawing special attention to the interweaving of the wood-winds and the strings in the opening bars of the first movement. For CharlesRosen, K. 450, ‘the first [Mozart concerto] to employ the winds with a completesense of their color and their dramatic possibilities’, uses the woodwinds to‘boldly open the concerto on their own, as if to proclaim the new venture from thebeginning’.9 In like-minded fashion, Leonard Ratner clarifies that ‘The new roleof the winds was initiated precisely at the opening of the Bb major Concerto,K. 450 . . . From this time, the winds become prominent in the concertos’,10 andIrving R. Eisley explains that Mozart’s ‘concertato’ orchestra, in which the

‘AN ENTIRELY SPECIAL MANNER’ 21

als manche bereits bekanntern und neuern Konzerte desselben Verfassers: dahingegen abersowohl wegen der schwächern als ungleich leichtern und bequemeren Instrumentalbegleitung imAllgemeinen brauchbarer als manches von diesen. Sicher findet man eher zehn Klavierspieler, die,selbst die schwersten dieser Konzerte ganz fertig durcharbeiten, ehe man ein einziges Orchesterzum guten Akkompagnement dazu auftreibt. Doch sind auch in dem letzten Allegro des vor unsliegenden Konzerts in der ersten Hoboe einige Kleinigkeiten, die, wenn sie gut und in Ansehungder Manieren bestimmt und deutlich herausgebracht werden sollen, vielleicht eben so vieleUebung und Gewissheit erfordern, als irgend eine Stelle in der Konzertstimme.’

8 Quoted in translation in Cliff Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 124. Other late eighteenth- andearly nineteenth-century critics identifying active participation by the orchestra in Mozart’s pianoconcertos do not mention specific works. Citing Mozart’s concertos as his model, HeinrichChristoph Koch explains that in ‘a well-worked out concerto . . . the accompanying voices are notmerely there to sound this or that missing interval of the chord’ but rather to engage in a‘passionate dialogue’ with the soloist. See Musikalisches Lexikon (Frankfurt, 1802; reprintHildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), col. 854; translation from Nancy Kovaleff Baker’s edition ofKoch’s earlier treatise – Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition (1783–92) – in which the sameremarks were made, Introductory Essay on Composition: the Mechanical Rules of Melody, Sections 3and 4 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 209. August Frederick Christo-pher Kollmann states that ‘The best specimens of good modern Concertos for the Piano-Forte, arethose by Mozart, in which every part of the accompaniments is interesting, without obscuring theprincipal part’, in An Essay on Practical Musical Composition (London, 1799; reprint New York:Da Capo, 1973), p. 15. And a writer for the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung pointed out thatMozart thoroughly worked all instruments in the accompanying orchestra, allowing the soloist tobe only the ‘most striking [hervorstechendsten]’ among all the performers, in Allgemeinemusikalische Zeitung, 3 (1800–01), cols. 25–35, 51–54, at col. 28. For a study of Koch’s remarks, seeSimon P. Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Dramatic Dialogue in the Age of Enlightenment (Wood-bridge and Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2001), pp. 9–23.

9 See Charles Rosen, The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (London: Norton, 1971), p. 220.10 See Leonard G. Ratner, Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style (London and New York:

Schirmer, 1980), p. 297.

woodwinds assume an equal or higher position than the strings in the orchestralpecking order, ‘appears abruptly, with little or no hint to be found in the earlierconcertos, in the Bb concerto’.11 K. 451 is praised most often for its symphonicquality, through which the orchestra is ‘liberated’.12 Cuthbert Girdlestone andArthur Hutchings rank the involvement of the orchestra in K. 451 especiallyhighly, remarking respectively that it ‘contains the most splendid instances in allMozart of interplay between the protagonists’ and the clearest examples of ‘thesolo [speaking] . . . both through and with its newly augmented orchestra’.13

Recent critics find K. 453 ‘even more elaborate’ in its use of woodwinds than K.450 and K. 451, demonstrating ‘a finer integration of soloist and orchestra [thanK. 450 and 451], approaching a chamber music style, particularly in the blendingof woodwinds and piano and in the sharing of thematic material’.14

Just as Mozart distinguished the Eb concerto, K. 449, from K. 450, 451 and 453on orchestration and performance grounds, so twentieth-century critics distanceK. 449 from its immediate successors according to criteria of orchestration andaffect. Many remark on the absence of refined and prominent writing for thewoodwind in K. 449;15 whilst K. 450 and 451 could be described as either ‘pianoconcertos with obbligato orchestra or symphonies with obbligato piano solo’ thesame could not be said of K. 449.16 Others observe striking affective dissimilaritiesbetween K. 449 and K. 450, 451, 453, finding K. 449 ‘quite unlike the gay, elegantMozart of 450 and 453’ and ‘of [a] very different character’ and less urbanemanner than K. 450.17 In addition, K. 450 and 451 are described as ‘twins’ inwhich ‘Mozart returns to more familiar paths’ than in K. 449.18 In fact, the uniquequalities of K. 449 have not passed unnoticed. For Girdlestone, the concerto is‘something exceptional’, on account of its first movement ‘born of an unstable,restless mood, sometimes petulant and irascible’.19 He even goes so far as to state:‘In reality, it is isolated in Mozart’s work; its first and last movements fall in with

22 PIANO CONCERTOS

11 Irving R. Eisley, ‘Mozart’s Concertato Orchestra’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1976/7, p. 9.12 Denis Forman, Mozart’s Concerto Form: The First Movements of the Piano Concertos (London:

Praeger, 1971), p. 184.13 Cuthbert M. Girdlestone, Mozart’s Piano Concertos (London: Cassell, 1948), p. 213 (first

published in French in 1939 as W. A. Mozart et ses concertos pour piano); Arthur Hutchings, ACompanion to Mozart’s Piano Concertos (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948; eighth correctedimpression reissued 1998), p. 100.

14 Stanley Sadie, The New Grove Mozart (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 105; Mario Mercado, TheEvolution of Mozart’s Pianistic Style (Carbondale, Illinois: University of Southern Illinois Press,1992), p. 84.

15 See, for example, H.C. Robbins Landon, ‘The Concertos: (2) Their Musical Origin and Develop-ment’, The Mozart Companion, ed. Landon and Donald Mitchell (London: Norton, 1956), p. 261;Sadie, New Grove Mozart, p. 104; Mercado, Mozart’s Pianistic Style, p. 82.

16 Alfred Einstein, Mozart: His Character, his Work, trans. Arthur Mendel and Nathan Broder(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 302.

17 See Forman, Mozart’s Concerto Form, p. 175, and Philip Radcliffe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1978), p. 33.

18 Einstein, Mozart, p. 302.19 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Concertos, p. 178.

no group of his compositions and do not bear clearly the mark of any period in hislife.’20 Einstein agrees, arguing that the first movement is extraordinary onaccount of ‘[voicing] an unrest that never tires of introducing contrasting themes’and that, as a whole, ‘Mozart never wrote another concerto like it, either before orafterwards’.21

As a result of its common perception as unique, K. 449 has a somewhat uncer-tain stylistic position in the secondary literature among Mozart’s piano concertos.For the most part it is credited as the first of Mozart’s genuinely mature works inthe genre, constituting the initial concerto in an uninterrupted two-year stream ofeleven masterpieces (K. 449–491, spring 1784 – spring 1786).22 There aredissenting voices, however. Forman, for example, regards K. 450 as the firstmature concerto on account of ‘notable advances’ such as the woodwind writing,the varied repetition of certain phrases and the easy-going self-confidence of thepiano in a variety of different moods.23 In contrast to Forman, Girdlestone andHutchings actually consider K. 449 a more forward-looking work than K. 450. ForGirdlestone, ‘on the whole . . . K. 449 is in advance of its successor, not only in thedepth of its emotional life but also in its symphonic development’.24 Equally,Hutchings points out both that K. 450 ‘reverts to an older style than the operaticK. 449’ and that ‘the strings in the E flat work are used as never before in aconcerto – far more passionately and colourfully than in [K. 450]’.25 Others findK. 449 something of an anomaly, in general stylistic terms. Rosen explains that‘The series of six [concertos from 1784] . . . begins apparently somewhat timidlywith the Concerto in E flat major’ but that ‘in spite of its modest appearance, K.449 is a bold, even revolutionary concerto’.26 Eric Blom finds a basic contradic-tion between the first movement’s tempo/character marking and the overallmood it conveys: ‘Although . . . [it] is marked allegretto vivace, it never shows theleast vivacity of spirit.’27 In addition, Philip Radcliffe alludes to the concerto’speculiar qualities when he writes of the work’s ‘curious inner intensity’, of the‘curious coincidence’ whereby the opening theme of the first movement is amelodic inversion of the corresponding theme in K. 491, and of the ‘mysteriouschromatic passage’ in the piano that immediately precedes the recapitulation ofthe first movement.28

In fact, it is no surprise that critical consensus gives way both to critical


20 Ibid., p. 191.21 Einstein, Mozart, pp. 302, 301.22 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Concertos, p. 191; Einstein, Mozart, pp. 300–301; Sadie, New Grove

Mozart, p. 104; Mercado, Mozart’s Pianistic Style, p. 82.23 Forman, Mozart’s Concerto Form, p. 176.24 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Concertos, p. 210.25 Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 90.26 See Rosen, The Classical Style, p. 219.27 Eric Blom, Mozart (London, 1935; first Collier Books edition, 1962, second printing, 1966), p.

199.28 Radcliffe, Mozart Piano Concertos, p. 30.

disparity and to intimations of anomalous status where K. 449 is concerned. Forno other Mozart piano concerto – perhaps no other work in Mozart’s entireinstrumental oeuvre – can boast quite as many compositional, stylistic andchronological idiosyncrasies as K. 449. Although (as explained below) K. 449 waswritten for the most part in spring 1784, Mozart actually began the first move-ment two years earlier, concurrent with his first set of Viennese piano concertos,K. 413–415. As a result, the majority of K. 449, scored for a small complement ofwind instruments (2 oboes, 2 horns), was composed at a time when a largercomplement (flute, 2 oboes, bassoon, 2 horns, 2 trumpets in K. 451 and flute, 2oboes, 2 bassoons, 2 horns in K. 453, for example) was establishing itself asMozart’s norm; K. 449 appears, therefore, at the precise nexus between the aquattro tradition of K. 413–415 and the ‘grand concerto’ tradition from K. 450onwards. In addition, Mozart did not himself distinguish any single instrumentalwork from its immediate successors in as clear and direct a fashion as he distin-guished K. 449 from K. 450, 451 and 453. If K. 449 rests intriguingly between twoof Mozart’s stylistic practices, it also initiates another important venture in hislife, the cataloguing of his works. For K. 449 is Mozart’s first entry into his famousthematic catalogue, the Verzeichnüss aller meiner Werke, on 9 February 1784.29 Inaddition to general stylistic and chronological peculiarities, specific musicalfeatures of the first movement are also remarkable. Proportionally speaking, theorchestral exposition (or opening ritornello) of K. 449 is longer than the corre-sponding section of any other piano concerto.30 Moreover, the orchestra in thissection introduces the theme that becomes the ‘secondary’ theme in the soloexposition, in the dominant rather than the tonic, the only such occasion inMozart’s piano concerto first movements. At the other extreme of the first move-ment, K. 449 contains the only instance of a final cadential trill in the piano imme-diately preceding the cadenza that does not confirm the tonic key, inflectinginstead to the relative minor.

The unusual circumstances surrounding the composition of K. 449, the uniquenature of Mozart’s pronouncement, the fascinating chronological and stylisticposition of the work in Mozart’s oeuvre, and the originality of various features ofthe music itself suggest that a more detailed and systematic examination of K.449’s stylistic position among Mozart’s piano concertos will greatly enhance ourunderstanding of the considerable significance of the work in his compositionaloutput. As we shall see, characterizations of K. 449 as sui generis – ‘an entirelyspecial manner’ in Mozart’s own words – as a climactic work in Mozart’s initial

24 PIANO CONCERTOS

29 Daniel N. Leeson and David Whitwell posit that Mozart began his catalogue in early November1784, rather than in February, entering the first nine items retrospectively. Although they suggestthat the dates entered for the Quintet for Piano and Winds, K. 452 and the Piano Concerto No. 18in Bb, K. 456 postdate the actual completion of these works, they conclude that 9 February 1784 isaccurate for K. 449. See ‘Mozart’s Thematic Catalogue’, The Musical Times, 114 (August 1973),pp. 781–83.

30 Robert D. Levin, Who Wrote the Mozart Four-Wind Concertante? (Stuyvesant, New York:Pendragon, 1988), p. 336.

sequence of Viennese piano concertos, and as a work of central importance toMozart’s subsequent stylistic development (in the concerto and elsewhere) arenot mutually exclusive but rather bring to life the work’s significance in thecontext of stylistic re-invention. In fact, K. 449’s hybrid qualities are preciselywhat make it such a significant moment of stylistic re-invention, particularly inregard to confrontations between the piano and the orchestra in the firstmovement.

K. 449 as a hybrid of Mozart’s 1782–83 and spring 1784 concertos

In his groundbreaking study of the paper types of Mozart’s autograph manu-scripts, Alan Tyson has shown that Mozart began work on the first movement ofK. 449 in 1782, alongside his first three Viennese concertos K. 413, 414, 415,composing as far as bar 170 (the beginning of the orchestral tutti immediatelyfollowing the solo exposition). He then ‘abandoned the score, scribbled in themargins, and sketched an aria on the blank side. Much later – perhaps over a yearlater, at the beginning of 1784 – he resumed work on the concerto, deleted the ariasketch, and completed the score.’31 K. 449 was not the only Viennese pianoconcerto Mozart left incomplete for an extended period: three bifolia from thefirst movement of the Piano Concerto No. 25 in C Major, K. 503 predate thecompletion of the work (4 December 1786) by nearly two years; the first eightleaves of the first movement of the Piano Concerto No. 23 in A, K. 488 probablydate back to the 1784–85 season, although the work was entered into theVerzeichnüss on 2 March 1786; and the entire first and second movements of thePiano Concerto No. 27 in Bb, K. 595 almost certainly precede the Verzeichnüssdate of 5 January 1791 by around three years.32 However, for reasons describedabove – especially the way in which it straddles the a quattro and ‘grand’ concertofashions – the status of K. 449 as an temporarily incomplete work has potentiallythe greatest stylistic significance of all.

In light of the interrupted gestation of K. 449, key musical issues surface in rela-tion to K. 449, namely the extent to which Mozart was influenced by his stylisticpractices from K. 413–415 when he returned to work on K. 449 in early 1784, andthe extent to which the continuation of K. 449 prefigured stylistic practices in thesucceeding ‘grand’ concertos from the spring of 1784, K. 450, 451 and 453. Thedevelopment and recapitulation sections of the first movement provide a particu-larly illuminating source for studying these issues, since they would have beenwritten immediately after Mozart’s extended compositional hiatus, and (one canassume) would have provided him with his greatest challenge in terms of main-taining musical continuity.

Let us begin by examining an extraordinary passage in the first movement of


31 Tyson, Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: HarvardUniversity Press, 1987), p. 19.

32 See Ibid., pp. 151–56.

K. 449, the end of the development section leading into the recapitulation (see Ex.1.1), in relation to corresponding passages in K. 413, 414, 415 and K. 450, 451,453. While the dominant is established in bar 218 of K. 449, well in advance of thebeginning of the recapitulation (bar 234), it is coloured by inflections to thedominant minor (Cbs, Gbs, Dbs) in the subsequent bars (223–29). Themajor-minor ambiguity is preserved until the moment of recapitulation by anenigmatic, chromatic ascent in all three lines of the solo piano, embodying anirresolute bVI – IV6 – bVII – V6 progression. The orchestra’s forte assertion of themain theme at the beginning of the recapitulation abruptly cuts off the piano’sascending chromatic line, contrasting its presentation of the main theme with thepiano’s ‘preparatory’ material in no uncertain terms; it is as if the full orchestra isirritated by the piano’s chromatic wandering and therefore brusquely puts it to anend.

Although the transition from the development to the recapitulation sections ofK. 449 is in one sense unique in Mozart’s concerto repertory, since it conveys atonce a more fervent and enigmatic quality than the corresponding moments ofMozart’s earlier and later works, in another sense it is not unique at all, as itsmusical procedures are foreshadowed by those in K. 413, 414 and 415. The reca-pitulation of K. 414 (bars 196ff.), for example, is approached by ascending anddescending chromatic lines in the piano and the strings (bars 192–94) and isimmediately preceded by two ostentatious pauses (bars 194, 195, see Ex. 1.2).While the first pause, the point of arrival for the chromatic motion, constitutes

26 PIANO CONCERTOS

Ex. 1.1: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb, K. 449, 1st movement, bars228–45

dominant second inversion harmony moving to dominant root positionharmony for the second pause (bar 195), both pauses – together with the piano’svirtuosic flourish – disrupt the smooth musical continuity and interaction char-acteristic of the movement thus far. In K. 449, then, Mozart combines two of thefeatures of K. 414, chromatic motion and interactional disjunction (bars 230–34),intensifying the former with three unaccompanied chromatic lines that provideuncertain preparation for the moment of recapitulation and the latter with anorchestral presentation of the main theme that contrasts acutely with the immedi-ately preceding material in the piano. The final bars of the development sectionsof K. 415 (Ex. 1.3) and K. 413, like K. 414, also prefigure the correspondingpassage from K. 449. Following the establishment of the dominant G (bar 192) inpreparation for the recapitulation, the piano in K. 415 inflects to the minor for sixbars (192–97), just as the piano and strings provide minor colouring for sevenbars in K. 449 (223–29); in addition, the emphatic use of a German Augmented6th in both K. 413 and 415 – accentuated in K. 413 by an Adagio marking (bar224) and by the orchestra’s only participation in the final fourteen-bar stretch ofthe development section, and in K. 415 by reiterated fp indications and a substan-tial presence for four complete bars (188–91, Ex. 1.3) – foreshadows the use of bVIharmony (albeit not as a German Augmented 6th), as the distinctive startingpoint for the chromatic rise in K. 449. (As in K. 414, musical continuity at K. 415’smoment of recapitulation is compromised by a pause and a flourish in the piano;K. 415’s pause bar is also marked Adagio, in contrast to the prevailing Allegro.)

Two of the concertos that follow K. 449 assimilate all three of the aforemen-tioned technical features in the bars immediately preceding their recapitulations(namely minor inflections, German Augmented 6th harmony and chromaticlines). In K. 450 (Ex. 1.4), the arrival of dominant harmony (bar 182) is followedby Bb minor 6/4 and German Augmented 6th harmonies in successive bars(187–88) and, in turn, leads to rising chromatic lines passed from the strings(A-Bb-B-C, C-Db-D-Eb, bars 189–92) to the piano (A-Bb-B-C, Bb-C-C#-D, bars193–94) that are transformed into the main theme in the winds at the beginningof the recapitulation (D-Eb-E-F, bars 196–98). Similarly, the establishment of


Ex. 1.2: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 12 in A, K. 414, 1st movement, bars191–95

dominant harmony in bar 219 of K. 453 is followed by minor colouring of thetonic (bars 220 and 223), a German Augmented 6th (bar 222) and an ascendingchromatic line in the piano that leads directly to the main theme at the beginningof the recapitulation (bars 226–27). Although the chromatic preparations for therecapitulation in K. 450 and 453 on the one hand, and K. 449 on the other couldnot be more different in overall effect, they use similar musical devices. Signifi-cantly, however, Mozart adjusts these devices in order to create mellifluous,elegant links between the development and recapitulation (especially in K. 450),rather than an abrupt and sudden shift as in K. 449.

Thus, the final bars of K. 449’s development section through to its moment ofrecapitulation represent a hybrid of corresponding passages from K. 413, 414, 415and 450, 451, 453: techniques from the former are manipulated in K. 449 toproduce climactic confrontation; the resultant procedure in K. 449 is subse-quently altered in the latter to produce smooth sectional transitions. Whereas thelack of musical continuity between the development and recapitulation situatesK. 449 closer to K. 414 and 415 than to K. 450, 451, and 453, the rising chromaticline immediately preceding the recapitulation is more closely akin to the laterthan the earlier concertos. In any case, Mozart’s isolation of the chromatic line inK. 449 – which draws attention to itself through its solo performance, indecisiveharmonic progression and initial bVI harmony – conveys a sense of confronta-tional intensity between the piano and the entering orchestra not witnessed at thecorresponding juncture of the other concertos.33

28 PIANO CONCERTOS

Ex. 1.3: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 13 in C, K. 415, 1st movement, bars189–201

33 Although confrontation, opposition and conflict carry slightly different inferences, it would be

To be sure, the three musical procedures outlined above – minor inflections,German Augmented 6th harmony and chromatic lines – are also fairly commonin the latter stages of the development sections of the first movements of Mozart’slater piano concertos. Never again, however, are all three used in quick successionafter the establishment of the dominant in preparation for the recapitulation (asin K. 449, 450, 453). In addition bVI (or Augmented 6th) harmony after the estab-lishment of the dominant is not given the emphasis in later concertos that itacquires in the corresponding passages of K. 413 and 449; nor do pronouncedchromatic lines in the run-up to the recapitulation again create the interactionaldisjunction witnessed in K. 414 and 449.34


almost impossible to distinguish accurately between them in the context of interaction amonginstrumental ‘characters’. I shall therefore use these terms synonymously.

34 Although David Grayson interpreted the piano’s solo chromatic ascent immediately before therecapitulation of K. 466/i as the final moment in a protracted confrontation between the pianoand the orchestra, in which the soloist ‘[faces] the inevitable and [deals] with the consequences’(Mozart’s Piano Concertos Nos. 20 and 21 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 40),

Ex. 1.4: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 15 in Bb, K. 450, 1st movement, bars186–98

The first half of the development section of K. 449, like the section’sconcluding bars, combines a confrontational intensity new to Mozart’s pianoconcertos with a fusion of techniques from corresponding passages of earlier andlater works. The piano initiates the development of K. 449 (bars 182–88) with anadapted repeat of the orchestral theme that immediately precedes it (bars176–82), remaining in the dominant Bb. The ensuing passage, however, juxta-poses starkly contrasting material, that is two-bar forte unison statements of thetrill figure in the orchestra and the arpeggiated writing in the piano (bars 188–204,see Ex. 1.5), moving through Bb minor, F minor and C minor. The dynamic,textural, thematic and rhythmic contrasts between the piano and orchestralsegments give the strong impression of a confrontation between the protagonists,one that resurfaces at the end of the section. In fact bars 188–204 of K. 449 corre-spond closely both to a paradigm of confrontational dialogue identified by theCzech theorist Antoine Reicha in his important Traité de mélodie of 1814 and tomusical manifestations of confrontation witnessed on the stage, and in severalprogrammatic symphonies. According to Reicha, equal length phrases that aresharply opposed in character produce ‘continual contrast’ and ‘a sort of opposi-tion’. Although Reicha sees ‘dramatic music’ as a particularly appropriatemedium for the application of this technique, his definition and explanation ofdialogue in general includes dialogue among instrumentalists as well as amongvocalists.35 In addition, the specific alternation of loud unisons and contrastingmaterial (often a melody accompanied homophonically) might have been recog-nized as a sign of confrontation by Mozart’s Viennese audiences, since it appearsin this guise in works such as Gluck’s ballet Don Juan (1761) and operas Orfeo edEuridice (1762) and Alceste (1767), and in Dittersdorf’s programmatic sympho-nies based on tales from Ovid’s Metamorphoses (c.1782).36

The openings of the development sections of K. 413, 415, 450 and 451 eitherforeshadow or recall the corresponding segment of K. 449, but without possessingits confrontational intensity. The brief tutti interjection in bars 183–85 of K. 413contrasts thematically, texturally and dynamically with the preceding material in

30 PIANO CONCERTOS

I would prefer a more co-operatively inclined reading, whereby the piano sets up a chromaticascent that is subsequently adopted by both the orchestra and the piano at the beginning of therecapitulation (bars 261–67). In any case, the piano’s initial solo ascent leads smoothly into theorchestra’s statement of the main theme at the beginning of the recapitulation, and does notrecreate the disjunctive effect of the orchestra’s entrance in bar 234 of K. 449. The same could alsobe said for the chromatic ascents in the oboe and bassoon in bars 229–32 of K. 456/i.

35 See Antoine Reicha, Traité de mélodie (Paris, 1814), p. 91. Reicha states that dialogue can takeplace ‘between two or more voices or instruments, or even between an instrument and a voice’ andconstitutes one of four procedures: ‘executing the full periods alternately; . . . distributing thephrases (or members of the periods) among the different voices that are to execute the melody; . . .by motives [dessins], that is to say, by little imitations; . . . by starting a phrase with one voice andfinishing it with another.’ (p. 89). For a study of Reicha’s idea of dialogue and its applicability tolate eighteenth-century instrumental music, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 24–41.

36 See Richard Will, ‘When God Met the Sinner, and Other Dramatic Confrontations in Eighteenth-Century Instrumental Music’, Music & Letters, 78 (1997), pp. 175–209, at pp. 186–91.

the piano; however, it also endorses the piano’s confirmation of G minor, andprepares for the unison texture and dotted rhythm of the piano’s subsequentphrase (bars 185ff.). The development of K. 415, like K. 449, begins with a six-barsolo statement in the piano which cadences in the dominant (bars 160–66, albeitnot repeating the preceding orchestral theme). The orchestra’s subsequentmodulation to C (bars 166–68), employing staccato quavers and a crescendo thatcontrast with the piano’s preceding material, and the piano’s sequential repeat ofits thematic material from bar 160 in bars 168ff., suggest that an alternatingsequential pattern of contrasting material will be established, although one doesnot in fact materialize. In K. 450 and K. 451, too, elements of the developmentalpassage from K. 449 resurface. The piano at the beginning of the development ofK. 450 telescopes two procedures from K. 449 – the modulation from the domi-nant to the dominant minor and the repetition of immediately preceding orches-tral material – into two bars: the piano elaborates the strings and winds’consequent from the previous phrase, while moving to F minor (see bars 152–56).In K. 451 (Ex. 1.6), on the other hand, the piano takes up the antecedent from theorchestra’s previous phrase at the opening of the development (bars 187–89),passing it back to the winds (189–91) before B9 harmony sets up a confirmationof E minor (bars 191–93). Arpeggios contrasting with the antecedent figure areintroduced into the piano in bars 191–92 and 199–200 (F#9), thus invoking theopposition of the trill figure and the piano arpeggios from K. 449.


Ex. 1.5: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 14 in Eb, K. 449, 1st movement, bars188–96

As at the end of the development section of K. 449, the opposition of piano andorchestral material at the beginning conveys a more intense feeling of confronta-tion between the piano and the orchestra than the equivalent passages in K.413–415 and K. 450, 451, 453. Although bars 189–95 and 197–200 of K. 451 areespecially similar to bars 188–204 of K. 449 in their alternation of contrastingconjunct and arpeggiated lines, the piano/orchestra confrontation therein is lessprotracted and less forceful, given the alternation between the winds (markedpiano) and the piano (K. 451) rather than the full orchestra (marked forte) and thepiano (K. 449). Equally, K. 450, evolving from relational unease in the solo expo-sition to fully-fledged co-operation in the recapitulation, contains less intenseindividual instances of confrontation than its immediate predecessor.37

The confrontational intensity in the development section of K. 449/i can belinked in a general way to the exposition’s affective quirks, especially the unusualcombination of riverenza, agitato, imposing trill and buffa patter, as well as toMozart’s contemplation of pre-existent stylistic practices. Indeed many of thepeculiarities of the movement as a whole have recently been explained in terms ofCharles Rosen’s well-known claim that the ‘charged force’ of material in the

32 PIANO CONCERTOS

37 On relational development in the first movement of K. 450 and its implications for understandingthe drama therein, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 45–74.

Ex. 1.6: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 16 in D, K. 451, 1st movement, bars187–201

classical style ‘no longer unfolds . . . but is literally impelled from within’.38 Inter-preting confrontation in this development section as an exploration of themusical potential of material presented in the exposition gives an entirely internalcontext for events and adds to our understanding of how confrontation evolves.But it does not supersede the notion that Mozart engages contemplatively withmusical procedures from earlier works, since the music of the exposition in noway renders inevitable the subsequent course of events in the development. Theostensibly ‘inspired’ idea of confrontation itself can be attributed with no morecertainty to the nature of material in the exposition than to hints of confrontationin the earlier Viennese piano concertos; after all, the bold material of the exposi-tion could itself be seen to derive from nascent oppositions in the earlier works. Aswith many of Mozart’s musical inspirations, then, it is difficult to pinpoint theexact origin of the specific idea (confrontation); but the musical process throughwhich it comes into being is more readily explainable.

If the development section of the first movement of K. 449 combines musicalprocedures and manifestations of confrontation from K. 413–415 and K. 450,451, 453, intensifying the latter in a remarkable fashion, the slow movement of K.449 draws upon or foreshadows the formal types of the surrounding works tocreate a formal hybrid of unprecedented ingenuity. Although Girdlestonedescribed the movement as an introduction, three stanzas and a coda andHutchings as ‘two strophes of lengthy cantilena by the orchestra, repeated ordecorated by the piano’,39 it is best understood as a hybrid of concerto, rondo andABA’ forms.40 Manifestations of concerto form include a substantial orchestralintroduction (bars 1–22) analogous to an orchestral exposition, a subsequent solosection that features first and second themes in the tonic and dominant respec-tively (bars 23ff. and 41ff.) and a final section recapitulating both themes in thetonic (bars 80ff. and 98ff.). Rondo form is implied by the reappearance of themain theme (in Ab, bars 52ff.) shortly after the dominant material, and, moregenerally, by the four statements of the main theme across the movement as awhole. Equally, ABA’ would be appropriate designations for the sections begin-ning in bars 23 (preceded by an orchestral introduction), 52 and 80, given themiddle section’s procedural ‘irregularity’ (according to sonata form criteria) oftransposing the first solo section down a tone. In mixing concerto and rondoelements in particular, Mozart combines the concerto form of the slow


38 Stephen Rumph, ‘Mozart’s Archaic Endings: A Linguistic Critique’, in Journal of the Royal MusicalAssociation, 130 (2005), pp. 159–96, at pp. 167–68. For the Rosen quotation, see The ClassicalStyle, p. 120. Wye Jamison Allanbrook describes the topical oddities of the opening of the firstmovement in ‘Comic Issues in Mozart’s Piano Concertos’, in Mozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. NealZaslaw, pp. 75–82.

39 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Concertos, pp. 185–87; Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 85.40 James Webster also labels the second movement of K. 449 a hybrid of these three forms. See ‘Are

Mozart’s Concertos “Dramatic”: Concerto Ritornellos versus Aria Introductions in the 1780s?’ inMozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. Neal Zaslaw, p. 113. Similarly, Radcliffe identifies it as ‘a crossbetween sonata and rondo’ in Mozart Piano Concertos, p. 30.

movements of the three preceding concertos with the rondo structure that resur-faces in K. 451, again situating K. 449 at the stylistic nexus between K. 413–415and 450, 451, 453.41 The hybrid form of K. 449, moreover, both encapsulates inmicrocosm the general shift from the uniformity of concerto form in the slowmovements of K. 413–415 to the formal diversity of the corresponding move-ments of K. 450, 451 and 453 (Theme and Variations, Rondo and Concertorespectively), and also provides a structure unique among Mozart’s instrumentalworks.42

In sum, stylistic and formal features of the first and second movements of K.449 make vivid the work’s position as, at one and the same time, a pivotal point inMozart’s concerto oeuvre and a masterpiece sui generis. But this position andindividuality only partially explain K. 449’s stylistic significance in Mozart’scompositional output of the 1780s. For the terseness of the confrontationsbetween the piano and the orchestra – unique in Mozart’s concerto repertory as ofspring 1784 and at the heart of stylistic re-invention manifest in the work – res-onate not only beyond the confines of Mozart’s concertos from 1784, but alsobeyond his concerto repertory in general.

The stylistic implications of confrontation in K. 449

A recurrent critical thread running through twentieth-century discussions of K.449 concerns the operatic nature of the work. For Hutchings, the first movement– especially the orchestral exposition – is saturated with operatic qualities. Theorchestral themes in this first section, for example, ‘seem to belong to a dramaticaltercation’ and could easily be mistaken for ‘the orchestral accompaniment to

34 PIANO CONCERTOS

41 Although neither the slow movement of K. 413 nor the corresponding movement of K. 415include a development section, their concerto form structures are unambiguous andunmistakeable. The rondo of K. 451 is labelled ‘(Sonata-)rondo’ by Webster (‘Are Mozart’sConcertos “Dramatic”?’ p. 113), presumably in order to draw attention both to the extendedpassage in the dominant after the first solo statement of the main theme (see bars 16–35) and tothe subsequent restatement of the main theme in the tonic (bars 38–45). The absence of the domi-nant material transposed to the tonic in the final section (the one that would constitute thesonata-rondo ‘recapitulation’), however, negates the sonata component. Both Girdlestone andHutchings regard the movement simply as a rondo. See Girdlestone, Mozart and his PianoConcertos, pp. 227–33, and Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 101–102.

42 In similar fashion, Carl Schachter has remarked that in the second movement of K. 449 ‘[both]form and structure are highly unusual – indeed as far as I know, unique in Mozart’s output’. See‘Idiosyncratic Features of Three Mozart Slow Movements: the Piano Concertos K. 449, K. 453,and K. 467’, in Mozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, p. 316. Several of the extraordinary featuresof the movement outlined by Schachter, in particular the absence of a cadential passage to stabilizethe secondary key area in the first solo section (p. 318), somewhat undermine the sonata structureof the movement, adding to the sense of formal ambiguity. Karol Berger’s investigation of theunusual ‘punctuation’ of K. 449/ii – whereby ‘a sense of adequate closure’ is achieved not by ‘thesimple return to the home key at bar 80’ but rather by ‘a significantly extended full cadence’concluding the tonally closed thematic statement in bars 98–112 – compromises the sonatacomponent still further. See Berger, ‘The Second-Movement Punctuation Form in Mozart’sPiano Concertos: The Andantino of K. 449’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991, pp. 168–72, at 170–71.

one of the great concerted scenes from Mozart’s operas’.43 The beginning is heardas ‘the changing thoughts and exclamations of a character moved by rival orconflicting impulses, or by the presence of other personalities on the stage’, thematerial at bar 31 as ‘Susanna and the Countess bickering, then pleading, in firststaccato thirds then flowing sixths’ and the ‘imperious thumps’ of the forte dottedtheme in bar 63 as the ‘Almaviva gesture’.44 In fact, K. 449 marks nothing less thanthe first moment at which ‘that greatest of Mozarts, the creator of Figaro, Elvira,Papageno, Basilio and the Countess . . . dares show himself in an instrumentalwork’.45 In contrast to Hutchings, Rosen founds his operatic analogy on the ‘com-bination of contrapuntal art with opera buffa style’ in the finale of K. 449. Hepoints out that ‘Not one of the entrances of the main theme is the same, thecomic-opera style and rhythm enabling Mozart not so much to decorate it as totransform and enliven it each time.’46 Wye Jamison Allanbrook rightly takes bothHutchings and Rosen to task, the former for his ‘unsatisfactorily impressionistic’analogies between K. 449 and Figaro which overlook the significant topicaldissimilarities between the passages in question, and the latter for interpreting thestyle of the finale as operatic rather than instrumental in origin.47 Proposinginstead that similarities between Mozart’s comic operas and concertos reside in‘endings, cadences, finales – issues in the word’s terminal sense, of processescompleted’, and in repetitive cadential gestures in particular, she cites the pattercadences from bars 47–54 and 70–76 of K. 449 as a case in point.48

The quality of solo/orchestra confrontation in the first movement of K. 449 –unique to Mozart’s piano concertos as of spring 1784 and arguably the moststriking feature of the work as a whole – casts further light on this concerto’sstylistic intersection with Mozart’s operatic practice, in the process reinforcingthe pivotal significance of K. 449 among Mozart’s concerto and operatic works.Once established in the first half of the development section of K. 449, the alterna-tion of starkly contrasting piano and orchestral phrases placed in the context of amodulatory sequence, for example, resurfaces at corresponding points in anumber of Mozart’s later piano concertos. In addition to interchanging two-barunits in bars 189–201 of the first movement of K. 451 as discussed above, Mozartalternates orchestral presentations of the first four bars of the main theme of K.451’s sonata-rondo finale with the piano’s semiquaver arpeggios (see bars 172–88in the ‘development’/C section), situating this altercation in the context of asequential progression from G major to E minor to C major. The first half of thedevelopment section of K. 466 sets the orchestra’s presentation of the main themein stark opposition with the piano’s presentation of its first solo theme (bars


43 Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 83.44 Ibid., pp. 83–85.45 Ibid., p. 85.46 Rosen, The Classical Style, p. 219.47 Wye Jamison Allanbrook, ‘Comic Issues in Mozart’s Piano Concertos’, in Mozart’s Piano

Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, pp. 76–85.48 Ibid., p. 86.

192–227), the orchestra effecting modulations to G minor and Eb throughforceful full-orchestral statements of D7 and Bb7 harmonies (marked with asudden forte) in bars 204 and 218 respectively. Most remarkable of all, however, isthe hostile alternation of chromatic oscillations in the orchestra and semiquaverarpeggios in the piano that spirals relentlessly from G6/5 to C6/5 to F6/5 to Bb6/5in the development section of the first movement of the C-minor Concerto, K.491 (bars 330–45). The four-fold alternation of sharply contrasting material inequal two-bar phrases, the inclusion of semiquaver arpeggios in the piano, andthe mobilization of the forte full orchestra against the piano make this passagestrikingly similar to bars 188–205 of K. 449. In K. 491, however, the confrontation– one of the most pronounced in Mozart’s entire instrumental and operatic reper-tories – is more intense still than the corresponding confrontation in K. 449; theorchestra is larger than in the earlier work thus maximizing piano/orchestracontrast, and the harmonized and syncopated chromatic oscillations convey aneven harsher and more aggressive sense of opposition with the piano materialthan the unison trill figures in K. 449.49

The piano/orchestra confrontation in the first half of the development sectionof K. 449 – situating a powerful alternation of contrasting material in the contextof equal two-bar units and a modulatory sequence – resonates not only withMozart’s later Viennese piano concertos, but also with crucial character confron-tations in the operas that immediately follow his two-year sequence of elevenconcertos (K. 449–491), Le nozze di Figaro (1786) and Don Giovanni (1787).50

Donna Anna, Zerlina, Ottavio and Masetto’s two most emphatic denials of Donna

Elvira’s request for mercy on behalf of Don Giovanni (Leporello in disguise) in

the Act 2 Sextet of Don Giovanni contrast piano, sparsely scored 1-bar chromatic

descents (bars 86, 94) with forte, fully orchestrated 1-bar diatonic descents (bars

87, 95), in the process thrusting Elvira’s V/g harmony to VI on both occasions,

and resolving it authoritatively to G minor two bars after the second such

exchange (bar 98). Similarly, the severest interruptions of the eponymous heroand Leporello by the opposing group (Donna Anna, Don Ottavio, Donna Elvira,Zerlina, Masetto) in the Act 1 Finale of Don Giovanni, pit ascending unisonquaver scales in the two voices, oboes and lower strings against a harmonizedsequence of descending crotchet chords in the five voices and the full orchestra,and feature alternating (and overlapping) two-and-a-half bar units (bars 569–77,598–606).51 In Figaro, the Act 3 Sextet, which solidifies perhaps the single most

36 PIANO CONCERTOS

49 For a more extended investigation of patterns of interaction between the piano and the orchestrain the opening movement of K. 491, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 75–100. Jonathan P.J.Stock addresses piano/orchestra interaction in the Larghetto of K. 491 in ‘Orchestration as Struc-tural Determinant: Mozart’s Deployment of Woodwind Timbre in the Slow Movement of the CMinor Piano Concerto K. 491’, Music & Letters, 78 (1997), pp. 210–19.

50 For more detail on the operatic examples discussed in the paragraphs below, see Keefe, Mozart’sPiano Concertos, pp. 101–46.

51 Dialogic confrontations are typical of the texts and plots of late eighteenth-century opera buffafinales. John Platoff explains that librettists provide ‘an active dialogue followed by an expressive

important relational twist in the opera (the realization that Figaro is Marcellina

and Bartolo’s son and, now absolved of his promise to marry Marcellina, is free to

wed Susanna), includes a forceful opposition of material akin to the piano/

orchestra confrontation in K. 449; Don Curzio and the Count (in unison with the

strings), and Susanna, Figaro, Marcellina and Bartolo juxtapose dynamically,

texturally, instrumentally and rhythmically contrasting 1- and 2-bar (overlap-

ping) units (bars 111–24).52

Given that Reicha used analyses of Mozart’s works (including the Overture toFigaro and the first movement of the ‘Hunt’ Quartet, K. 458) to demonstrate theapplication of his theoretical ideas and, in any case, held Mozart’s music in veryhigh esteem, it is quite possible that he had passages such as those above in mindwhen describing confrontational dialogue – ‘all the responding phrases are of anopposed character to that of the opening phrases: it is a continual contrast’ – in theTraité de mélodie.53 In addition, Mozart’s operatic confrontations exemplify anumber of the ‘musical means for finding opposed effects’, such as ‘the differencebetween instruments and the difference in their timbres; . . . the difference in thevalue of notes; . . . the different chords; . . . the forte and the piano; . . . the choice ofkeys; . . . high and low notes; . . .the succession of unison and harmony; . . . thedifferent sections of which the orchestra is composed; etc. etc.’ described byReicha in his later treatise on opera, L’art du compositeur dramatique.54

Although the character opposition generated by the aforementioned operaticconfrontations is quite considerable and has precedents in the operas from the1760s and 1770s by other composers,55 we must recognize that Mozart’s earliestalternations of starkly contrasting materials in his concerto and operatic reperto-ries are found in K. 449 not in Figaro or Don Giovanni. To be sure, Mozart’s firstputatively ‘mature’ operas, Idomeneo (1780–81) and Die Entführung (1782),which immediately precede his first set of Viennese piano concertos (K. 413–415),


tutti’ and, during a finale, ‘escalate and already existing dramatic conflict into a crisis’. See Platoff,‘Musical and Dramatic Structure in the Opera Buffa Finale’, Journal of Musicology, 7 (1989), pp.191–230, at pp. 213, 223.

52 The examples from the Act 1 Finale of Don Giovanni and the Act 3 Sextet of Figaro are, with theirunison writing, also very similar to the aforementioned type of operatic confrontation discussedby Richard Will in ‘When God Met the Sinner’, pp. 186–91.

53 Traité de mélodie, p. 91. ‘toutes les phrases répondantes sont dans un caractère opposé à celui desphrases commençantes: c’est un contraste continuel’. For an account of Reicha’s analyses of theOverture to Figaro and the first movement of K. 458, see Nancy Kovaleff Baker, ‘An Ars Poetica forMusic: Reicha’s System of Syntax and Structure’, in Musical Humanism and its Legacy: Essays inHonor of Claude Palisca, ed. Baker and Barbara Russano Hanning (Stuyvesant, New York:Pendragon, 1992), pp. 419–49, at pp. 441–42 and 438.

54 Reicha, L’art du compositeur, ou Cours complet de composition vocale (Paris, 1833), p. 43. ‘lesmoyens musicaux pour trouver des effets opposés ne manquent pas: il les trouvera dans ladifférence des instruments et de leur timbre; dans celle des valeurs de notes; dans les différentsaccords; dans le forté et le piano; dans le choix de tons; dans les notes élévées et les notes graves;dans la succession de l’unisson et de l’harmonie, dans les différentes masses dont se composel’orchestre etc. etc.’

55 See Will, ‘When God Met the Sinner’, pp. 186–91.

illustrate character confrontations through the kind of tonal shifts and modu-latory sequences prevalent in the first half of the development section of K. 449.On several occasions in Entführung, for example, a character moves to the majoror minor mode upon answering his or her interlocutor, another illustration ofconfrontation in dialogue according to Reicha,56 and one manifest in the piano’sshift to Bb minor (from the orchestra’s Bb major) in bar 190 of K. 449. AfterOsmin’s initial criticism of Pedrillo in the Duet No. 2, Belmonte explains ‘Ihr irrt,ihr irrt, ihr irrt, es ist ein braver Mann’ (‘You’re wrong, he [Pedrillo] is an honestman’), to which Osmin responds ‘So brav, so brav, so brav, dass man ihn spiessenkann’ (‘So honest, that one could impale him on a spit’), repeating Belmonte’sstrident forte phrase almost note for note (bars 111–117) but shifting the musicfrom C major to C minor. Pedrillo and Belmonte contradict Osmin in a verysimilar fashion in the Trio, No. 7, ‘Marsch, Marsch, Marsch’. Although the keysignature of the ensemble changes from C minor to C major immediately beforeOsmin’s ‘Marsch, fort, fort, fort, fort, fort’ (‘March off you go’, bars 98–99) therequisite E natural appears neither in the vocal line nor the orchestral accompani-ment. The first E naturals coincide with Belmonte’s and Pedrillo’s subsequent‘Platz, fort, fort, fort, fort, fort’ (‘Give way’, bars 100–103) leaving the definiteimpression that Belmonte and Pedrillo are contradicting Osmin in the tonal aswell as the textual realm. Modulatory sequences also accompany characterconfrontations in Entführung, just as they underscore the stark piano/orchestraalternation in K. 449. In the same trio No. 7, for example, two other confronta-tional dialogues between Belmonte/Pedrillo and Osmin (‘Don’t come any nearer’‘Stand away from the door’ and ‘March! Off you go!’ ‘Give way!’ before the afore-mentioned shift to C major) feature a circle of 5ths (C-F-Bb-Eb-Ab, bars 22–26)and a spiralling, descending progression (bars 41–46) respectively. Even settingaside these tonal precedents for the piano/orchestra confrontation in K. 449,however, there are no precedents in Entführung or Idomeneo for its terse alterna-tions of contrasting material between the protagonists.

While general intersections between musical and dramatic processes inMozart’s operas are universally admired features of his compositional modusoperandi,57 and general manifestations of character confrontation the lifeblood ofhis operatic plots, analogous musical procedures involving confrontationbetween Mozart’s piano and orchestral ‘characters’ in the first movement of K.449 have received little recognition. It is striking, for example, that the forceful,

38 PIANO CONCERTOS

56 Reicha, Traité de mélodie, p. 91.57 The secondary literature on this subject is vast. For a recent contribution see the provocative essay

by Jessica Waldoff and James Webster, ‘Operatic Plotting in Le nozze di Figaro’, in WolfgangAmadè Mozart: Essays on his Life and his Music, ed. Stanley Sadie (Oxford: Oxford University,1996), pp. 250–95. The authors expand the notion of ‘plot’ to encompass the ‘dynamic of text,action and music’: ‘Anything that happens can be understood as an operatic event: an action inrecitative, a contemplative aria, a complex ensemble; a horn call, a melisma, a reminiscence; aseduction, a duel, an act of forgiveness. Even as these events constitute the operatic plot, all areconstituted in text, action and music’ (p. 255).

poignant and sophisticated dramatic manipulations and resolutions taken as agiven in Mozart’s operas are more than matched by the extraordinarily succinctand ingenious resolution to the piano and orchestra’s conflict – comprising theascending chromatic lines in the run up to the recapitulation as well as the starkalternation of contrasting material earlier in the development section – in the firstmovement of K. 449 (see Ex. 1.1). When the presentation of the main theme at thebeginning of the recapitulation is passed from the orchestra to the piano, the lattertakes up exactly where it had left off in its disruptive preceding bars (i.e. withchromatic motion in three separate lines in bars 242–43), but now in the contextof an entirely accommodating split-theme dialogue. In this statement, moreover,Mozart brings together the first eight bars of the orchestral exposition (bars234–41, corresponding to 1–8) and the second eight bars of the solo exposition(bars 242–49, corresponding to 97–104), an especially succinct and effectivemanner of presentation given that a first-movement recapitulation in a classicalconcerto must accommodate two exposition sections.58 Thus, Mozart meets thedramatic demands of relational resolution and formal unification in one gestureof remarkable ingenuity.59

*

The dual status of K. 449 – the first movement in particular – as both a hybrid ofMozart’s surrounding piano concertos and as a progenitor of an inter-generictype of confrontation between instrumental and vocal characters affords the workan exceptional stylistic position in Mozart’s oeuvre. Ultimately, Girdlestone andEinstein are right to emphasize its isolation and uniqueness among Mozart’sworks (see above), but wrong (in Girdlestone’s case at least) to claim that it‘[does] not bear clearly the mark of any period of his life’. For it is precisely thework’s protracted genesis in Mozart’s early years in Vienna (1782–84),sandwiched between and closely connected to two very different groups ofconcertos (K. 413–415 and K. 450, 451, 453), that renders it so fascinating.Moreover, if we consider the piano/orchestra confrontations in the first move-ment as a central component of K. 449’s ‘entirely special manner’ in Mozart’swords, we are justified in speculating that the confrontations themselves stemfrom K. 449’s hybrid position in regard to the role of the accompanying orchestrain the preceding and succeeding sets: as in K. 450, 451 and 453, the orchestra in K.449 assumes a higher profile than in Mozart’s earlier concertos; but, as in K.413–415, it speaks to all intents and purposes as a unified voice, rather than as twoclosely related and semi-independent wind and strings voices. Not yet exhibiting


58 In similar fashion (although not in the context of a concise reconciliation of the piano and theorchestra) the beginning of the recapitulation of the first movement of K. 414 states consecutivelythe first eight bars of the orchestral exposition and the first fourteen of the solo exposition (bars196–217).

59 For an examination of Mozart’s integration of co-operation and competition across the entire firstmovement of K. 449, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 64–8.

the large woodwind contingent that becomes standard in Mozart’s pianoconcertos from K. 450 onwards, the orchestra in K. 449 instead asserts its inde-pendence as a single unit that stands its ground by confronting the piano.

Excluding the surrounding piano concertos, K. 449 is perhaps most closelyakin to the String Quartet in G major, K. 387 (completed on 31 December 1782)among Mozart’s contemporary instrumental works. Both constitute the initialworks in sequences of Viennese masterpieces in their respective genres: K. 387 waswritten after a nine-year lay-off from composing string quartets; and K. 449completed after an unusual two-year hiatus in its composition. Both works alsosurpass the musical intensity and passion of Mozart’s earlier contributions to thestring quartet and concerto repertories by considerable margins. In addition,Mozart would have had significant reasons – over and above the norm perhaps –for wanting to impress the initial listeners to these two works: K. 449 was almostcertainly the first piano concerto he performed for his very first subscriptionconcert (at the Trattnerhof) on 17 March 1784; and K. 387 was the first of sixstring quartets Mozart dedicated to Haydn in 1785, in the hope that Haydn ‘willnot consider them wholly unworthy of [his] favour’.60 Just as Mozart drew atten-tion to such ‘special’ musical features of K. 449 as the piano/orchestra confronta-tion in the first movement and the hybrid form of the second movement, so hecalled attention to two movements of K. 387 in particular. The second and fourthmovements of the quartet, like the first two movements of K. 449, are ambitiousin the extreme. The 147-bar minuet and trio is over twice the length of the longestscherzo and trio from Haydn’s Op. 33 set, the second movement of No. 2 in Eb,contains a greater wealth of thematic material than Haydn’s counterparts and,introducing a modulation to the dominant and ‘new’ material midway throughthe first section (bars 21ff.), suggests an expansion of the minuet to include sonataprocedures.61 Equally, the finale boldly integrates fugal writing into a sonatastructure, weaving a rich tapestry of learned and galant styles, and bringingtogether – symbolically given the quartet’s dedicatee – the two formal typesemployed by Haydn in the six finales to his Op. 20 set.62 Whatever the motivation

40 PIANO CONCERTOS

60 For the complete translated text of Mozart’s dedication of his six string quartets K. 387, 421, 428,458, 464, and 465 to Haydn, see Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, pp. 891–92. Haydn had alreadyexpressed his approval of these works earlier in 1785, as Mozart explains in the dedication.According to Leopold, moreover, Haydn remarked after playing three of the six quartets inFebruary 1785: ‘Before God and as an honest man I tell you that your son is the greatest composerknown to me either in person or by name. He has taste and, what is more, the most profoundknowledge of composition.’ See Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 886.

61 Wolfram Steinbeck argues that Haydn opened the way to synthesizing minuet and sonata forms inhis Op. 33 set, but that Mozart, not Haydn, fully exploited this potential. See Steinbeck, ‘Mozart’sScherzi: Zur Beziehung zwischen Haydn’s Streichquartetten Op. 33 und Mozart’s Haydn-Quartetten’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 41 (1984), pp. 208–31.

62 See Mark Evan Bonds, ‘The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets and the Ques-tion of Influence’, Studi musicali, 22 (1993), pp. 365–409, at p. 379. For an intelligent discussion ofthe integration of learned and galant styles in this movement, see Elaine R. Sisman, Mozart: The‘Jupiter’ Symphony, No. 41 in C major, K. 551 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp.71–74.

behind Mozart’s compositional responses to Haydn’s preceding quartets –homage, competition, or a combination of the two63 – Mozart leaves us in littledoubt of his intense desire to prove his compositional mettle.

In addition to circumstantial affinities between K. 387 and 449, there is astriking musical similarity between their uses of chromatically ascending lines tostartling effect. As we have seen, the piano leads directly into the recapitulation ofthe first movement of K. 449 with a jarring chromatic ascent. Likewise, the cellointroduces a surprising chromatic rise from D to G – accentuating bVI for threebars – in the recapitulation of K. 387’s finale (bars 220–27, Ex. 1.7). While the firsttheme of the second group (bars 209ff.) is recapitulated in G major, it has yet tobring with it a strong cadential confirmation of the tonic; indeed, as of bar 220, westill await the first such confirmation in the entire recapitulation, because thematerial from the first group is reiterated in the subdominant rather than in thetonic (bars 175–89). Thus, preceding the first affirmation of the tonic andfollowing a four-bar dominant pedal at one and the same time, the shift to bVI inbar 221 is initially heard as a disruption. However, just as the piano’s chromatictransition to the recapitulation of K. 449 is immediately transformed from agentof relational unease to agent of co-operation in the ensuing split-theme dialogue,so the chromatic ascent and affirmation of bVI in K. 387 ultimately underscores,rather than detracting from, the subsequent confirmation of G (bVI – vii6/v – v6 –V6/5 – I – vii7/vi – vi – vii7/V – I6/4 – V7 – I, bars 221–33), in the process aligningthe formerly contrapuntal lines into a more ‘uniform’ 1+3 texture.64 In bothpassages Mozart masterfully manipulates his chromatic lines to concise dramaticeffect.


Ex. 1.7: Mozart, String Quartet in G, K. 387, 4th movement, bars 221–33

63 For an extended discussion of this issue, see Bonds, ‘The Sincerest Form of Flattery?’64 Sisman considers bars 221–33 especially important to the finale in stylistic terms, representing a

‘middle ground’ between the learned and the galant in which ‘accommodation is possible throughdance, the universal solvent’. See Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, p. 74.

Even K. 387, however, cannot lay claim to K. 449’s unique blend of cross-breeding (in compositional genesis and musical attributes) and pivotal stylisticsignificance. While it was K. 450, completed only five weeks after K. 449, thatestablished the woodwinds’ special role as an inimitable feature of Mozart’s pianoconcertos, it was K. 449 that set the precedent for the elevated role of the orchestrain general, and that established a new terse and dramatic style of confrontationthat would infiltrate his later concertos and operas.65 Revealingly, a number ofwriters regard K. 449 and the great C-minor Concerto, K. 491 (1786), as kindredspirits, Einstein pointing out, for example, that K. 449 ‘seeks to express in Eb

major what a later movement in the same meter [K. 491/i] completely realizes’and Girdlestone explaining that K. 449’s ‘closest relationship’ is with K. 491.66 Asthe final concerto in a two-year sequence of eleven masterpieces, K. 491 is,fittingly enough, a climactic work in a new process of re-invention as we shall seein Chapter 2, a tour de force of erudition and sophistication that ultimately tran-scends its predecessors in terms of interactional intensity and ingenuity and in thenature of the balance among intimate, grand and brilliant stylistic qualities. It is tothis stylistic balance in Mozart’s ‘grand’ concertos K. 450–503 – formulated in thewake of K. 449’s initiation of re-invention – that we shall now turn.

42 PIANO CONCERTOS

65 Kurt von Fischer identified a newly pronounced dramatic quality in Mozart’s piano concertosfrom spring 1784, but directed his remarks towards the ‘grand concertos’ – K. 450, 451 and 453 –rather than K. 449. See ‘Das Dramatische in Mozarts Klavierkonzerten 1784 mit besondererBerücksichtigung des ersten Satzes von KV 453’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1986, pp. 71–74, at p. 72.

66 See Einstein, Mozart, p. 301 and Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 178. Radcliffe alsonotes that ‘By a curious coincidence [the main theme] is a melodic inversion of the opening themeof the C minor Concerto, K. 491’, in Mozart Piano Concertos, p. 30.

2

On the Grand, Brilliant and Intimate:Mozart’s Piano Concertos K. 450–K. 503 (1784–86)

THE unique position and far-reaching significance of K. 449 in Mozart’sconcerto oeuvre encapsulates the stylistic ‘problem’ he faces in moving from

one conception of the genre in the a quattro works (K. 413–415) to a fundamen-tally different one in the ‘grand’ works (K. 450 onwards). While the ‘entirely newand special manner’ of K. 449 ultimately owes its distinctive stylistic identity –and, by extension, its status in a process of stylistic re-invention – to the conflu-ence of these two concepts, the subsequent piano concertos reside in a differentrealm. Mozart makes it clear to his father that K. 450, 451 and 453 cannot beperformed without the considerable contingent of wind instruments heemploys;1 and (with one possible exception) the same clearly applies to hisremaining Viennese piano concertos as well.2

The presence of a larger accompanying orchestra in the concertos from K. 450onwards than in K. 413–449 is in fact only one of several fundamental changesMozart carried out: the increases in the level of virtuosity present in the solo part –K. 450 and K. 451 are designed to ‘make the performer perspire’ by Mozart’s ownadmission3 – and in the intricacy and intimacy of the piano’s engagement with theorchestra (especially the winds) are equally noteworthy. Thus, the crucial stylisticissues that must be addressed in Mozart’s post K. 449 piano concerto repertory –and issues that have received little systematic attention to date – are the preciserelationship between these new attributes of Mozart’s concerto style and theextent to which the relationship itself demarcates a change in style. Can we accom-modate Mozart’s identification of his piano concertos from K. 450 as ‘grand’works, as well as a contemporary view (1800) that ‘the concerto [for Mozart] is thegreatest from the point of view of intimacy [im Zarten]’?4 How can we assess theaesthetic and stylistic ramifications of co-existing (perhaps competing?)phenomena of increased brilliance in the piano and increased intimacy in the

1 Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 877.2 The possible exception is the ‘Coronation’ Concerto in D, K. 537, which Mozart recorded as

having ad libitum wind and brass. See Chris Goertzen, ‘Compromises in Orchestration inMozart’s Coronation Concerto’, Musical Quarterly, 75 (1991), p. 148.

3 Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 877.4 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 3 (1800–01), col. 28.

relationship between the piano and its accompanying orchestra? Does Mozartreveal a consistent approach to the weighting of grandeur, intimacy and brilliancein his works? And where does K. 449 sit in relation to the new style of grandconcerto? All of these questions require an initial grounding in late eighteenth-century theoretical and aesthetic writings on the concerto.

Grandeur, intimacy and brilliance in late eighteenth-century concerto criticism

Writing on the concerto in 1799, the prominent composer and theorist AugustusFrederick Christopher Kollmann repeats Mozart’s distinction between the small-scale and large-scale piano concerto: ‘the smallest number of accompanimentsgenerally used for a Concerto on the Piano Forte is: two Violins, a Tenor, and aBass; though Christian Bach has even omitted the Tenor in a set dedicated to HerMajesty. To these may be added Flutes or Hautboys, and Horns, or all the instru-ments of a grand Orchestra, as circumstances permit or require it’.5 The associa-tion between grandeur – ‘one of the principal characteristics of Concertos’6 – andthe participation of the orchestra is made explicit in Kollmann’s discussion. Hedistinguishes, for example, between the ‘grandeur of Harmony’ and ‘fullness’ oforchestral tuttis on the one hand and ‘brilliant passages’ and ‘nicety’ of solosections on the other,7 reinforcing the distinction in his discussion of the soloexposition of the first movement: ‘The second subsection [solo exposition] beginswith, and chiefly consists of, a Solo, calculated to show the powers of the principalinstrument, and the abilities of the principal performer . . . This Solo is occasion-ally relieved by short Tuttis, to keep up the grandeur of the piece.’8

Even though Kollmann does not explicitly criticize the concerto on account ofthe virtuosity it contains, his implicit suggestion that figurative writing is incom-mensurate with grandeur (since the orchestra has to enter in order to re-establishit) resonates with earlier and contemporary reactions to the genre. For the mostpart writers in the second half of the eighteenth century condemn the concerto asempty and meaningless on account of the excessive figurative writing featured inthe solo part – ‘staggering octaves’, ‘running, jumping and hopping’ and so on –and would agree with Johann Karl Friedrich Triest’s dismissive statement that asthe ‘special proving ground for virtuosity . . . hardly one in a hundred can claim topossess any inner artistic value’.9 Even when virtuosity in the concerto is con-

44 PIANO CONCERTOS

5 Kollmann, An Essay on Practical Musical Composition (London, 1799; reprint, New York: DaCapo, 1973), p. 23.

6 Ibid., p. 24.7 Ibid., pp. 24, 20–1.8 Ibid., p. 21.9 See William Jackson of Exeter, Observations on the Present State of Music in London (London,

1791), p. 20; F.S. Sander in Musikalischer Almanach 3 (1784), as quoted in Mary Sue Morrow,German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century: Aesthetic Issues in Instrumental Music(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 114; and Triest, ‘Remarks on the Develop-ment of the Art of Music in Germany in the Eighteenth Century’, trans. Susan Gillespie, in Haydn

sidered a genuine attribute, the ‘leaps, runs [and] arpeggios’ of the soloist stillneed to be ‘well-chosen’ (wohlgewählte), implying that indiscriminate virtuosity isnever a virtue.10

In spite of a prevailing climate of negative criticism in the late eighteenthcentury, some writers on the concerto recognize that a balance could be struckbetween appropriate levels of brilliant and grand writing and, by implication, thatthe genre could be imbued with aesthetic significance. Although primarilyconcerned with early eighteenth-century concertos, Pierre-Louis Ginguené, in hisarticle on the concerto from the Encyclopédie méthodique (1791), is especiallyattuned to the issue of stylistic balance.11 Over-dependence on virtuosity isunequivocally condemned by Ginguené: Vivaldi, for example, looks less formelody and harmony in his concertos than for brilliance, difficulties and bizarretraits; and, in similar fashion, Locatelli ‘tried rather to exercise the hand than toflatter the ear’ (il chercha plûtot à exercer la main qu’à flatter l’oreille), his goalbeing ‘to excite surprise more than pleasure’ (d’exciter la surprise plus que leplaisir).12 In addition, Ginguené prizes grand and noble writing in the concerto,citing the ‘noble and expressive melodies’ (des chants nobles et expressifs) ofTartini, the ‘grandeur and nobility’ (grandeur et noblesse) of Stamitz’s concertostyle, and the ‘larger and more noble effects’ (plus grands & . . . plus nobles effets) inCorelli’s orchestral writing than in Torelli’s (a factor contributing to the superi-ority of Corelli).13 Above all, stylistic balance is at the heart of a successfulconcerto. For Ginguené, Giuseppe Tartini is supreme in this respect. As well as‘learned but natural traits’ (traits savans, mais naturels) and ‘motifs sustained withinfinite art without the air of slavery and of pedantry’ (motifs suivis avec un artinfini, sans l’air de l’esclavage & du pédantisme), Tartini maintains equilibrium inregard to grandeur and brilliance – his first movements feature ‘a pomp withoutswelling’ (une pompe sans enflure) and his finales are ‘brilliant and varied, lightwithout pettiness, and light-hearted without extravagance’ (brillans & varies,legers sans petitesse, & gais sans extravagance). Stamitz is almost as successful asTartini, lending his tuttis ‘a force and a majesty worthy of Tartini’ (une force & unemajesté dignes de Tartini) and his solos both originality and cutting traits.14

Even though Ginguené does not explicitly state that excessive virtuosityprecludes grandeur and nobility, it is implicit in his argument since these positive

GRAND BRILLIANT AND INTIMATE 45

and his World, ed. Elaine Sisman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 370. For anaccount of negative criticism of the concerto in the late eighteenth century see Keefe, Mozart’sPiano Concertos, Chapter 1, especially pp. 10–11, 15–16.

10 Johann Adam Hiller, ‘Abhandlung von der Nachahmung der Natur in der Musik’, inHistorisch-Kritische Beiträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg (Berlin,1754; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970), vol. 1, p. 543.

11 Pierre-Louis Ginguené, ‘Concerto’, in Encyclopédie méthodique, ed. Nicholas Etienne Frameryand Ginguené (Paris, 1791), vol. 1, pp. 319–21.

12 Ibid., p. 320.13 Ibid., p. 320.14 Ibid., p. 320.

attributes are not mentioned in works believed to exhibit excessive passagework.(And the same can be said of other late eighteenth-century commentators on theconcerto as well.) Heinrich Christoph Koch’s re-appraisals of the concerto in theVersuch einer Anleitung zur Composition and Musikalisches Lexikon bring this rela-tionship into sharper focus. While most soloists ‘merely aim at displayingmechanical dexterity’ and ‘far from applying this acquired skill in order to arousein their listeners beautiful feelings and to gratify them in a noble way . . . seek onlyto draw attention to the mechanics of their art’15 the skilled concerto composerwill write a ‘passionate dialogue’ for soloist and orchestra such that the latter will‘stimulate . . . noble feelings’ in the former.16 Formulating his commentary on theconcerto as a defence against its detractors (especially Johann Georg Sulzer in theAllgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste) while also upholding the damaging effectsof virtuosic excess, Koch pays the accompanying orchestra of a well-composedconcerto the ultimate compliment in likening it to the Chorus of an ancienttragedy, thereby thoroughly endorsing its role as a grand and noble participant.17

Koch’s remarks on the concerto are significant not only as historical testimonyto the nascent aesthetic import of the genre, but also to the intersection of gran-deur, brilliance and intimacy. On the one hand, it is not a surprise that Koch iden-tifies the accompanying orchestra as a central component of concerto grandeur.Other late eighteenth-century writers such as Ginguené and Kollmann (discussedabove) do the same; and John Hoyle’s definition of the concerto grosso refers to‘the great or grand Chorus of the Concert [i.e. concerto]’.18 And since thesymphony is routinely assigned attributes of grandeur in the late eighteenthcentury, it is natural that the orchestra’s participation in a concerto should beconsidered in a similar way.19 On the other hand, Koch outlines a new dimensionto concerto grandeur, one that resides in ‘passionate dialogue’ between soloistand orchestra. For, according to Koch, it is dialogue that directly precipitates the‘noble feelings’ stimulated in the soloist by the orchestra and the situation analo-gous to ancient tragedy whereby ‘the actor expressed his feelings . . . to the chorus’.Moreover, this exchange does not exist simply at the level of broad tutti/solo alter-nation but also comprises more intimate dialogue – ‘brief imitations’ in Koch’swords – that occur during solo sections.20 Thus, Koch argues for grandeur not

46 PIANO CONCERTOS

15 As given in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment: SelectedWritings of Johann Georg Sulzer and Heinrich Christoph Koch, ed. Nancy Kovaleff Baker andThomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 153.

16 Koch, Introductory Essay, p. 209.17 On Koch’s commentary on the late eighteenth-century concerto, including its historical signifi-

cance, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 9–23.18 Hoyle, Dictionarium Musica (London, 1770), p. 18.19 On grandeur in the symphony see, for example, Sulzer in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Compo-

sition, ed. Baker and Christensen, p. 106; Koch in Introductory Essay, pp. 197–98; BernardGermain Comte de La Cépède, La poétique de la musique (Paris, 1785), vol. 1, pp. 330–31, 337; andKollmann, Essay, pp. 92–93.

20 Koch, Introductory Essay, pp. 209, 211.

exclusively of a bold, majestic kind, but also of a more intimate kind involvingsubtle interaction of the soloist and the orchestra over the course of a movement.In addition, the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung critic who identifies Mozart’spiano concertos as ‘greatest from the point of view of intimacy’ goes on to explainthat these works have ‘the greatest resemblance in spirit, tendency and clearartistic worth’ (die grösste Aehnlichkeit in Geist, Tendenz und reinem Kunstwerth)to Mozart’s ‘accomplished’ quartets.21 Given the predilection in the late eight-eenth and early nineteenth centuries for drawing an aesthetic analogy between thestring quartet and intimate conversation, it is quite possible that the common‘spirit [and] tendency’ of Mozart’s quartets and concertos would have extendedto intimate dialogue between the participants in their respective genres.

In sum, historical sources point towards two aesthetic perspectives on theintersection of grandeur, brilliance and intimacy in Mozart’s grand concertos.The formal alternation of tutti and solo sections in the first movements of hisworks, for example, might suggest a fundamental oscillation of grand and bril-liant sections – albeit brilliant sections that feature measured and not excessivelydemonstrative virtuosic writing. Recognition of dialogue as an intimate kind ofgrandeur with ramifications beyond the broad alternation of tutti and solosections, however, suggests a more refined relationship between grandeur, bril-liance and intimacy in Mozart’s grand concertos than that offered by straightfor-ward sectional and aesthetic equivalence (i.e. tutti and solo sections equating withgrandeur and brilliance respectively). Thus, our investigation of Mozart’s grandconcertos will focus above all on the interaction of ‘intimate grandeur’, a concepttrue to the spirit of Koch’s commentary on the concerto and manifest in thedialogue between the solo pianist and the orchestra, and solo brilliance.

Grandeur, brilliance and intimacy in Mozart’s piano concertos

Mozart does not comment directly on either the formal workings of his pianoconcertos or on the interaction of his solo and orchestral protagonists, but hismost famous and oft-quoted proclamation on the genre overlaps in severalrespects with contemporary aesthetic views. Discussing his so-called ‘subscrip-tion’ set of piano concertos (K. 414, 413, 415), Mozart remarks:

These concertos are a happy medium between what is too easy and too difficult; theyare very brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural, without being vapid. There arepassages here and there from which the connoisseurs alone can derive satisfaction;but these passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to bepleased, though without knowing why.22

Mozart directs his comments to three concertos that are more lightly scored andless technically challenging for the pianist than his post K. 449 repertory, but


21 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 3 (October 1800), col. 29.22 Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 833.

addresses issues that are as pertinent to the grand as to the a quattro works. His‘happy medium’ between easy and difficult and related idea of brilliance avoidingemptiness aligns closely with the kind of stylistic balance proposed a few yearslater by Ginguené. Other writers recommend the middle ground in regard tovirtuosity too, Charles Avison remarking that ‘elegance of taste [in a concerto]consists not in those agile motions, or shiftings of the hand . . . but in the tenderand delicate touches’ and Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart explaining that‘artifice in concertos must stand out noticeably’ (Zwar muss die Kunst inConcerten merklich hervorragen) but not to the exclusion of ‘gracious motions, thecharms of the musical style’ (die anmuthigen Gängen, die Grazien des musikal-ischen Styls).23 Mozart’s intended appeal to both the connoisseur and the lesslearned is a venerable, oft-articulated ideal in eighteenth-century musical circles,one that resonates for Mozart well beyond his first three Viennese pianoconcertos.24

Late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century writers explicitly or implicitlyclarify that Mozart successfully avoids the pitfalls of excessive virtuosity in hisconcertos. Mozart adopts a measured approach to virtuosic writing for the piano,as Ernst Ludwig Gerber explains: the ‘difficulties’ (Schwierigkeiten) in his musicare always subordinated both to rules of harmony and melody and to expression,novelty and beauty. Virtuosity is not accommodated in the natural world, butMozart turns virtuosity to his advantage by not overestimating the value of tech-nical dexterity.25 The historical argument in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung(1800) that Mozart transforms the concerto from a purely soloistic vehicle withminimal orchestral involvement to a genre fully integrating the entire orchestrainto a musical fabric in which the piano is the most striking instrument but notovertly dominant, tacitly acknowledges Mozart’s appropriate balance of pianisticvirtuosity and orchestral participation.26 And Koch, in his Musikalisches Lexikon(1802), cites Mozart as the exemplary composer of the type of piano concerto inwhich ‘passionate dialogue’ overrides vacuous brilliance.27 The historical percep-tion of Mozart as an exceptional orchestrator provides further testimony to theequilibrium achieved between solo virtuosity and orchestral involvement. Unlike

48 PIANO CONCERTOS

23 Avison, An Essay on Musical Expression (London, 1752), p. 124; Schubart, Ideen zu einer Aesthetikder Tonkunst, ed. Ludwig Schubart (Vienna: Degen, 1806; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms,1969), p. 356. (Schubart originally wrote this work in 1784–85.)

24 On the distinction between Kenner and Liebhaber categories, see Katalin Komlós, Fortepianos andtheir Music: Germany, Austria and England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 109–21. Forcomments elsewhere in Mozart’s correspondence about works similarly orientated to a broadrange of listeners, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 182. For a new interpretation of Mozart’sfamous letter broadening its significance to include the initial ‘Haydn’ quartets, see Elaine Sisman,‘Observations on the First Phase of Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets’, in Words About Mozart: Essays inHonour of Stanley Sadie, ed. Dorothea Link and Judy Nagley (Woodbridge and Rochester, NY:The Boydell Press, 2005), pp. 33–58.

25 Gerber, Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler (Leipzig, 1812–14), col. 496.26 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 3 (1800–01), col. 28.27 Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon, col. 854.

Daniel Steibelt, in a display orientated piano concerto, Mozart’s handling of soloand accompanying instruments, is ‘difficult to forget’.28 Another entry in theAmZ (1802), after apologizing for printing excerpts from the Clarinet Concerto(K. 622) in short not full score, remarks: ‘What extraordinary effects Mozartcould achieve through the precise knowledge of all the customary instrumentsand their most advantageous employment; that especially in this respect Mozarthas been equalled by nobody; this everyone knows, and will therefore, I hope, givedue consideration to it regarding these examples.’29 Even though the solo part is‘difficult, even very difficult, whereof anyone even partially familiar with the clar-inet will be easily convinced by the most fleeting perusal of a few places’,30 the highlevel of solo complexity obviously does not detract – for this AmZ writer at least –from the significance of the orchestral participation in the work.

Mozart’s piano concertos, K. 450–503 (1784–86)

Stylistic balance, comprising equilibrium among grandeur, brilliance and inti-macy, is best considered in the outer movements of Mozart’s piano concertoswhere technical virtuosity, so deeply unpopular with late eighteenth-centurycritics, is most prominent.31 Do Mozart’s works accommodate in practice thetheoretical positions outlined above, and if so, how? And what role does K. 449(discussed in Chapter 1 as a hinge in the re-invention process) play in the forma-tion of a new stylistic paradigm?

The solo expositions of the first movements of K. 450–503 provide early indi-cations of Mozart’s careful integration of brilliant writing – virtuosic passageworkand figuration – and the intimate grandeur manifest in dialogue between thepiano and the orchestra. Eight of the eleven concertos (K. 451, 453, 456, 459, 466,467, 482, 503) feature dialogue between the piano and the orchestra at the initialentry of the soloist, thus establishing right at the outset intimate interactionbetween the two parties.32 The subsequent transition sections, which often coin-cide with the re-entry of the piano after a tutti interjection, are dominated bypassagework and figuration,33 but sometimes include a limited amount of


28 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 2 (1799–1800), col. 696.29 As given in William McColl’s translation in Colin Lawson, Mozart: Clarinet Concerto (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 80.30 As given in Lawson, Mozart: Clarinet Concerto, p. 79.31 I do not mean to suggest that virtuosity is absent from the middle movements of Mozart’s grand

concertos but simply that the virtuosity is not generally of the flashy, ‘staggering octaves’ kind sodetested by critics.

32 For more on dialogue at the entry of the piano, including the types of dialogue Mozart employs,see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 77. Parts of the ensuing discussion of dialogue and virtu-osity in the first (but not third) movements of Mozart’s piano concertos can also be found –without recourse to grand and intimate aesthetic criteria – in Keefe, ‘The Concertos in Aestheticand Stylistic Context’ in The Cambridge Companion to Mozart, ed. Keefe (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2003), pp. 78–91.

33 See K. 450, bars 87ff.; K. 451, bars 98ff.; K. 453, bars 97ff.; K. 456, bars 87ff.; K. 459, bars 87ff.; K.466, bars 115ff.; K. 467, bars 91ff.; K. 482, bars 106ff.; K. 491, bars 124ff.; K. 503, bars 146ff.

dialogue.34 The secondary theme highlights piano/orchestra dialogue in nine ofeleven movements, adding to the interactional intimacy evident in the firsttheme’s presentation.35 Solo virtuosity (passagework and figuration) takes centrestage between the end of the secondary theme and the cadential trill, often begin-ning with an unaccompanied solo passage (between 3 and 11 bars) that containseither passagework (K. 450, 482) or a solo extension to the preceding thematicmaterial (K. 451, 456, 459). In any case, the piano’s figurative writing either coin-cides with the final cadence of the secondary theme and is uninterrupted until thecadential trill that concludes the solo exposition (K. 450, 451, 466, 482, 503; briefthematic digressions in K. 456, 467, 459) or, in similar fashion, follows a succes-sion of secondary theme and orchestral ritornello material (K. 453, 488).36 Thus,the alternation of tutti and solo sections (orchestral ritornello – solo exposition –ritornello) that demarcates the most basic formal alternation of grand (orchestra)and brilliant (piano) participation, is complemented by a more subtle oscillationof intimate grandeur (dialogue) and brilliance in Mozart’s solo expositions. Hisstated aim of striking a stylistic and aesthetic balance is already evident.

Accommodating grandeur and brilliance takes more heterogeneous forms inthe development sections of the first movements of K. 450–503 than in the soloexpositions. Every development section incorporates piano passagework,although the amount varies considerably37 as does its placement in the section;and piano/orchestra dialogue, less frequent than in the solo exposition, is by nomeans absent.38 Even though piano figuration and no dialogue are most commonin segues to the recapitulation, three movements privilege dialogue or simplepiano/orchestra alternation.39 The status of dialogue as purveyor of intimategrandeur, however, is often compromised in development sections by confronta-tional characteristics – the quick-fire modulations and affirmative orchestragesture in K. 482, bars 214–22, the modal shift in K. 450, bars 149–56 and theharsh juxtaposition of piano semiquavers and snarling orchestra in bars 330–45 of

50 PIANO CONCERTOS

34 K. 451, bars 116–18; K. 459, bars 106–12; K. 466, bars 115–21; K. 467, bars 108–10; K. 482, bars126–29.

35 K. 451, bars 128ff.; K. 453, bars 110ff.; K. 456, bars 128ff.; K. 459, bars 131ff.; K. 466, bars 127ff.; K.467, 128ff.; K. 488, bars 99ff.; K. 491, bars 147ff.; K. 503, bars 170ff. See the tabular representationof secondary theme dialogue in Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 78.

36 K. 491/i’s formal expansiveness, leading to a kind of double solo exposition demarcated by twoseparate cadential trills (bars 199–200 and 263–65), follows the first of these patterns in bars165–200. Passagework in the second half of the solo exposition works in an analogous fashion tothe first of the two patterns as well: it begins in bar 220, is interrupted for dialogue in bars 249–56,and then features until the cadential trill (bars 257–62).

37 From 42 bars (231–73) and 52 bars (309–61) in K. 467 and 491 to 16 bars in K. 456 (202–10;222–28).

38 See K. 450, bars 149–56, 189ff.; K. 451, bars 185–98; K. 459, bars 229–35; K. 482, bars 214–22; K.488, bars 143–56, 164–70; K. 491, bars 289–92, 330–45; K. 503, bars 228–53, 260–75.

39 For figuration at this juncture, see K. 451, bars 211ff.; K. 456, bars 222ff.; K. 466, bars 242ff.; K. 467,bars 266ff.; 482, bars 253ff.; 488, bars 189ff.; 491, bars 354ff. For dialogue and straightforwardalternation, see K. 450, bars 189ff.; K. 453, bars 219ff.; K. 459, bars 241ff.

K. 491 (discussed below).40 These exchanges demonstrate grandeur in as far as thepiano is set against a large orchestra (which participates in full in the K. 491passage and at the conclusion of the K. 482 passage), but not the kind of grandeurassociated with intimate and refined interaction (as witnessed in soloexpositions).

Unsurprisingly given its formal function, the recapitulation recaptures theintimate grandeur of Mozart’s solo-exposition dialogue. The reprise of materialfrom two sections (orchestral ritornello and solo exposition) rather than one alsoemphasizes the interweaving of grandeur, intimacy and brilliance. At the openingof the recapitulation Mozart characteristically brings together musical proceduresfrom the onset of the orchestral ritornello and solo exposition sections in thecontext of dialogue between the piano and orchestra. This comprises successivereprises of material originating at the beginnings of both sections, either repro-duced exactly (K. 453, 459, 482) or modified slightly (K. 450, 451, 456, 466, 488).41

It is as if Mozart is symbolically integrating the grandeur of the orchestra’s arche-typal role exemplified by the orchestral ritornello with the intimate grandeur ofthe piano’s and orchestra’s dialogue from the solo exposition, in order to rein-force the aesthetic and stylistic (as well as the self-evident formal) significance ofthe moment of recapitulation.

The restatement of significant thematic material from the orchestral ritornellothat is omitted in the solo exposition again casts light on Mozart’s integration ofgrandeur, intimacy and brilliance. The return of this category of material in six ofthe eleven piano concertos under discussion includes dialogue between the pianoand the orchestra in every case except one;42 even orchestral ritornello materialnot selected for inclusion in the solo exposition, then, later demonstrates intimategrandeur. With the exception of only one movement (K. 482), in which the rele-vant orchestral ritornello themes reappear early in the recapitulation, the repriseof material is followed immediately by the onset of brilliant passagework thatbuilds to the piano’s final cadential trill.43 The direct progression from piano/orchestra dialogue new to the recapitulation to solo passagework thus helps main-tain equilibrium between intimate grandeur and solo brilliance.

In sum, the first movements of the eleven grand piano concertos from 1784–86actively negotiate the stylistic and aesthetic balance required of the concerto bylate eighteenth-century writers and articulated by Mozart himself. The formalalternation of tutti and solo sections provides a foundation for alternating


40 On the confrontational qualities of these dialogues in K. 450 and 482 in the context of the move-ments in their entirety and set in historical/aesthetic perspective, see Keefe, Mozart’s PianoConcertos, pp. 45–74.

41 For details on the specific procedures in each of these movements, see Keefe, ‘Concertos inAesthetic and Stylistic Context’, pp. 86–7.

42 K. 450, bars 249ff.; K. 459, bars 358ff.; K. 467, bars 351ff.; K. 482, bars 276ff., 314ff.; K. 491, bars452ff. The exception – a theme from bar 51 of K. 503 that returns without dialogue in bar 365ff. –is discussed below.

43 K. 450, bars 264ff.; K. 459, bars 348ff.; K. 467, bars 359ff.; K. 491, bars 463ff.

aesthetic qualities and is refined in the oscillating intimate grandeur and brillianceof the solo exposition; the piano/orchestra confrontations in the developmentsection add an unambiguously grand dimension to piano/orchestra dialogue; andthe reprise of orchestral ritornello material in the recapitulation accentuates stillfurther the co-existence of intimate grandeur and brilliance.

The finales of K. 450–503 also demonstrate concern for balancing grandeur,intimacy and brilliance. Nine of the eleven movements (K. 450, 451, 456, 459, 466,467, 482, 488, 503) are cast in a sonata-rondo form that integrates elements ofconcerto form (especially the ritornellos at the beginning of the movement and atthe end of the solo exposition), and can be referred to as concerto rondos.44

Mozart’s standard procedure in these movements – ensuring basic equilibriumbetween the intimate grandeur of piano/orchestra dialogue and the brilliance ofpiano passagework – is to begin each of his formal sections except C with dialogueand to incorporate figurative writing at the end of the A and B sections and duringC. Often the dialogue is of a straightforward, full-theme variety at the beginningof every section excluding C (K. 450, 456, 459) or at the beginning of almost everysection (K. 482, excluding A’’’ and K. 488, excluding A’’); otherwise a variety oftechniques are employed at these junctures such as split-theme and imitativedialogue in addition to full-theme dialogue (K. 451, K. 467, K. 503). Even thoughK. 466 operates somewhat differently – the dialogic role of the main theme dimin-ishes uncharacteristically over the course of the movement45 – Mozart compen-sates for the relative absence of dialogue in this context by incorporating itelsewhere. At the (re-)entry of the piano, for example (bar 64), the closing gesturein the flute, 2nd oboe and 1st violin (A-C#-D) is taken up by the soloist in athematic echo of the opening solo theme from the first movement of K. 466 (bar77). In addition, the F-minor theme (bar 93) incorporates thematic dialoguebetween piano and orchestra (bars 93–102) and the return of the solo re-entrytheme in G minor includes both intricate give and take between piano and winds(bars 241–46) and a rapid antecedent-consequent dialogue (piano/winds, bars247–62). In light of these dialogic subtleties it is overstating the importance of thepiano and orchestra’s exchange of the main theme in the context of interaction inK. 466/iii as a whole to assert that ‘an aberrant rondo theme for the piano . . .[destroys] the very concept of the mutual rondo’ (that is, a rondo characterized byreciprocal solo and orchestral statements of the main thematic material).46 In fact,the apparently ‘radical’ features of this concerto rondo – the return of B in tonicmajor at the end (bar 355), the F-minor theme heard at a point at which the B

52 PIANO CONCERTOS

44 James Webster coins the term concerto rondo for these Mozart movements in ‘Are Mozart’sConcertos “Dramatic”? Concerto Ritornellos versus Aria Introductions in the 1780s’, in Mozart’sPiano Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, p. 113. Most commonly, they are ABACABA or ABACBA in design.

45 Compare the beginning of the movement (bars 1–18), the opening of A’ (bars 168–83) and thefinal statement of the main theme that gives way to the tonic major version of B (bars 347–54).

46 Joseph Kerman, Concerto Conversations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), p.109.

section might reasonably have been expected (bar 93) and the reprise beginningin the minor subdominant with the solo re-entry theme (bar 231) – could beexplained as Mozart compensating for the relative lack of piano/orchestraengagement with the main theme by providing opportunities for interaction else-where; each of these passages includes dialogue of one sort or another.

Mozart juxtaposes dialogue (intimate grandeur) and passagework (brilliance)in the finales of K. 450–503 as another way of maintaining balance between them.In all three movements of Mozart’s concertos, the piano commonly elaboratesand embellishes its dialogic responses to orchestral material, or plays arpeggiatedand scalar material during an orchestral response; in league with the orchestra,though, the piano combines or blurs the distinction between passagework anddialogue in most pronounced fashion in the finales. This takes several forms.Sometimes the piano and orchestra engage in dialogue with the kind of bril-liant-style material that is normally presented by the soloist alone.47 Elsewhere,the piano right and left hands simultaneously integrate figurative writing anddialogue with the orchestra, an especially striking example being the C section ofK. 467/iii (bars 240–313), which, unusually for this section of a concerto rondo,features piano/orchestra dialogue almost throughout (bars 240–70; 278–95).48

The dialogue/passagework juxtaposition thus adds another dimension to thestylistic ‘medium’ sought by the composer. Just as piano/orchestra dialogue –following Koch – integrates intimacy and grandeur, so simultaneous dialogue andpassagework incorporates intimacy, grandeur and brilliance.

K. 449 re-visited

K. 449, its first movement in particular, foreshadows several of the aforemen-tioned stylistic characteristics associated with K. 450–503, such as the confronta-tional dialogue at the opening of the development section (bars 188–204) and thesynthesis of orchestral ritornello and solo exposition at the beginning of the


47 The strings and bassoons produce two bars of figurative material in response to the piano at theend of the A section of K. 451/iii (bars 51–2); the strings play four bars of semiquaver scales thatecho preceding quaver-crotchet figures in the winds and also semiquaver scalar passagework inthe piano in K. 459 (see bars 221–22; 225–26 recapitulated in 409–10, 413–14); the winds partici-pate in a brilliant-style antecedent-consequent dialogue in K. 466/iii (bars 247–63) featuringquick-fire, sequential quaver motion; and the winds extend the full-theme piano/orchestradialogue at the beginning of the B section of K. 482/iii with an elaborate semiquaver flourish in theflute that pre-empts – in its trill-like oscillation – the subsequent passagework in the piano (seebars 128–47, especially 144ff.).

48 The sequential quaver dialogue between the oboes/bassoons and the piano left hand in bars278–95 is heard concurrently with semiquaver figurative writing in the piano right hand. Giventhe paucity of passagework in the C section (only bars 295–304 in addition to the segment in ques-tion) and the expectation – based on Mozart’s standard practice in his concerto rondos from1784–86 – that passagework will feature prominently in this section, it is possible that theright-hand figuration in bars 278–95 is designed not only to integrate intimate grandeur and bril-liance but also to provide a more equitable balance between the appearance of both techniquesacross the section as a whole than would have been witnessed had it been omitted.

recapitulation (see Chapter 1). Along with its three predecessors K. 413–415, K.449 also integrates dialogue and passagework – especially in the first movementagain – in many of the same ways as K. 450–503. K. 413/i, 414/i and 449/i featuredialogue in the main theme of the solo exposition (bars 53–60, 80–4 and 95–104respectively) and the secondary theme of the same section (bars 120ff., 115ff.,137ff.); all four concertos highlight solo passagework in the transition, in the finalstages of the solo exposition and in the development section; and K. 414 (like K.449) brings together the openings of the orchestral ritornello and solo expositionat the beginning of the recapitulation to create orchestra-piano dialogue (see bars196–217), subsequently reprising in dialogue thematic material not heard sincethe orchestral ritornello (bars 252–63).

K. 413–449 and K. 450–503 are demonstrably different too. Lacking the highlevel of technical virtuosity of K. 450–503 as well as the large orchestra – withconcomitant intricate wind writing and forceful sonic presence from the entiregroup – K. 413, 414 and 415 are more modest in scope than later works. As a resultthey are able to strike a ‘happy [stylistic] medium’ more straightforwardly thantheir successors since brilliant virtuosity, orchestral grandeur and piano/orches-tral intimate grandeur are each less pronounced and the possibility of imbalanceis consequently less marked. While K. 449 sets the stylistic stage for the ensuinggrand works, it cannot be regarded as a grand concerto – as Mozart informs ushimself – on account of the smaller orchestra employed.

But we need to probe the stylistic resonance of K. 449 more deeply if we want toappreciate the significance of Mozart’s new grand concerto conception, withaesthetic and stylistic balance at its core. In the development and at the opening ofthe recapitulation of the first movement of K. 449, Mozart brings grandeur, bril-liance and intimate grandeur into sharper relief than before and in contexts thatopen up new stylistic horizons. In their confrontation in the early stages of thedevelopment section – the first of its kind in Mozart’s concerto oeuvre as we haveseen – the piano and orchestra juxtapose brilliant segments with grand segmentsin the type of grand exchange that is apparent in later works. Above all, Mozartensures genuine parity between brilliance and grandeur at this juncture byfeaturing equal-length segments and by avoiding a resolution to the confronta-tion that would indicate that either the piano or the orchestra – and their respec-tive worlds of brilliance and grandeur – had prevailed. In fact, both parties giveground in the aftermath of the confrontation, the piano by adopting the orches-tral trill figure (perhaps as a gesture of reconciliation) and the orchestra by fore-going their stark forte unisons for more harmonious, piano movement in thirds(bars 204–12); the piano and orchestral material subsequently moves into closerrelation too (see the arpeggios and octaves in bars 214–18). Mozart is equallycareful to balance contrasting aesthetic characteristics at the end of the section, onthis occasion orchestral grandeur and the intimate grandeur of piano-orchestradialogue. Extending our discussion from Chapter 1, the grandeur associated withthe orchestra’s confrontational interruption of the piano’s meandering chromaticlines is followed just eight bars later at the piano’s re-entry by a delicate dialogue

54 PIANO CONCERTOS

that transforms one of the previous agents of instability (the piano’s ascendingchromatic lines) into a gesture of intimacy. On crucial occasions, then, K. 449’sorchestra behaves like a large one (especially in standing its ground against thepiano) when in fact it is only a small one, thus illustrating – in conjunction withthe piano – how intensification in one domain (grandeur) is best complementedby promoting another domain as well (brilliance or intimate grandeur). This inturn provides a blueprint for stylistic balance in the ensuing grand concertos. It isno accident that the arrival of the grand orchestra in K. 450 coincides with greatersolo virtuosity. A simple comparison of the volume of passagework in the firstmovements of K. 449 and K. 450–53 supports Mozart’s claim that the laterconcertos are the ones that are ‘bound to make the performer perspire’: while K.449 contains 73 bars in a first-movement total of 347, K. 450, 451 and 453 eachcontain 108, 88 and 85 in movements of 308, 325 and 349 bars respectively.49 Alarger orchestra results in a greater orchestral presence and also more dialogue,since all orchestral voices are thoroughly ‘worked’ (gearbeitet)50 and since thewind now participate more actively and independently than in Mozart’s previousconcertos; a greater element of grandeur and more pronounced intimate gran-deur necessitate a greater volume of solo virtuosity in order to maintain aestheticand stylistic balance. Such balance is not new to K. 450–503, but becomes agoverning aesthetic and stylistic principle of Mozart’s new grand concerto style.Moreover, it is K. 449 – introducing a novel type of active orchestral engagementwhile paying due attention to the stylistic implications of so doing – that stimu-lates Mozart’s imaginative leap in the direction of greater grandeur, intimacy andbrilliance all at the same time.

K. 491 and K. 503

The grand concerto from 1784–86 that illustrates Mozart’s stylistic balance at itsmost extreme is the C-minor concerto, K. 491. Already identified as an apotheosisamong Mozart’s piano concertos for its dialogue51 it must also now be recognizedas a climactic work in terms of stylistic equilibrium. And as such, it represents thebeginning of a new process of stylistic re-invention in Mozart’s concertos.

The first movement of K. 491 contains both the most powerful confrontationbetween piano and orchestra in Mozart’s concerto repertory (bars 330–45) andthe most protracted sequence of piano/orchestra dialogue in his first movements(bars 362–463). Just as increased solo virtuosity and increased orchestral partici-pation in the earlier grand concertos are mutually dependent, so are the con-


49 These totals include semiquaver and triplet-quaver passagework. See K. 449: bars 104–11, 113,115, 117–19, 154–67, 186–87, 190–91, 194–95, 198–99, 202–03, 223–25, 249–54, 256, 258, 260–66,301–18; K. 450: bars 60, 62, 63–68, 81–84, 96–101, 109–10, 112–35, 154–65, 170–85, 207–09,225–30, 241–48, 264–82; K. 451: bars 84–95, 108, 110–15, 145–68, 191–92, 199–218, 229–37,268–82, 297–305; K. 453: bars 91–93, 99–108, 124–32, 153–69, 184–206, 275–83, 304–17.

50 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 3 (1800–01), col. 28.51 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 75–100.

frontational and intricate dialogic passages in K. 491/i. Bars 330–45 (see Ex. 2.1) –a paradigmatic example of confrontational dialogue (see Chapter 1) – not only pitthe piano against the orchestra but also starkly juxtapose orchestral grandeur andsolo brilliance: Mozart marshals his entire orchestral ‘army’ for the forte tuttis(with the exception of the trumpets and the timpani) and sets it against archetypalbrilliance (arpeggiated semiquavers) in the piano. But the orchestra do not enterin this context merely ‘to keep up the grandeur of the piece’ in Kollmann’s words.For the dialogue itself is the grandest of Mozart’s concerto exchanges, the pianoand orchestra asserting their respective positions with unprecedented force andmajesty and moving further from the intimate grandeur model of piano/orchestra dialogue than any other passage in Mozart’s concerto oeuvre. Corre-spondingly, the beginning of the recapitulation up to the piano’s semiquaverarpeggios and scalar flourishes preceding the recapitulation’s concludingcadential trill (bars 362–463) feature an unparalleled volume of piano/orchestradialogue of the intimate grandeur variety.52 Almost every bar from 362–427consists of either the first or the second segment of a piano/orchestra dialogue;even the ensuing piano brilliance (428–43) is complemented by dialogue amongwind instruments, before piano/orchestra dialogue re-appears in bars 452–63.53

The organization of dialogue in the recapitulation section as a whole – bothbetween piano and orchestra and among individual instruments and piano rightand left hands – fulfils a structural role, namely bringing together symmetricalarrangements from the orchestral ritornello and solo exposition sections.54 Butthere is an aesthetic and stylistic purpose as well. By re-establishing intimate gran-deur in such a pronounced fashion in the recapitulation, Mozart provides aperfect foil for the remarkable grand confrontation from the developmentsection; equilibrium among grandeur, brilliance and intimacy is uppermost inMozart’s mind in K. 491/i, its extremes intensified considerably in relation topreceding works.

K. 491/ii, following the first movement’s example, brings intimate grandeurand brilliance into a more striking relationship than in earlier slow movements. Inthe B and C sections of this Rondo (bars 20–38 and 43–62 respectively), the windlead full-theme dialogues with the piano, performing without accompaniment.The wind are given a type of ornate writing in the B section in particular that isnormally only the soloist’s domain (see the demisemiquaver flourishes in bars21–22 and 29–30), initiating brilliance themselves rather than leaving it to thepiano. As a result of the elaborate wind writing, the piano’s dialogued passagesembellish the preceding material only slightly; the intimate grandeur of piano-winds dialogue is complemented by the brilliance of both interlocutors.

Several of Mozart’s grand concerto slow movements foreshadow the

56 PIANO CONCERTOS

52 Although bars 467–70 in the piano part are written as dotted minims, semiquaver scalar elabor-ation is almost always added.

53 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 75–100, especially Figure 2, p. 85.54 Ibid., pp. 85, 91–94.


Ex. 2.1: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491, 1st movement, bars329–46

prominent writing for the wind (often unaccompanied) in K. 491/ii. In thesonata-rondo of K. 451/ii, the piano and the wind engage in a number ofdialogues: they share the main theme in bars 9–16, perform a split theme in bars16–24, and imitate each other in bars 45–51, 65–67 and 85–92 (also includingsplit-theme dialogue in 91–92). In K. 482/ii (a hybrid of theme and variation androndo forms), two extended passages highlight solo roles assigned to the wind: the28-bar B section consists exclusively of elaborate wind writing (bars 65–92); andthe C section (bars 125–44) contains dialogue between flute and bassoon withmaterial just as elaborate as that from the B section of K. 491/ii. And the B sectionin K. 488/ii (ABA’ form) begins with a solo theme in the flutes, clarinets andbassoons (bars 35–38; with a one-line cello accompaniment) that includes apianistic triplet semiquaver accompaniment in the 2nd clarinet.

K. 491/ii, not without precedence in its exposed and elaborate wind writing,combines intimate grandeur and brilliance in more marked fashion thanMozart’s earlier concerto slow movements. The wind contributions to piano/orchestra dialogue in K. 451/ii are less brilliant than those in K. 491/ii; and theextended solo passages for wind in K. 482/ii and the single 4-bar passage for solowind in K. 488/ii lack the intimate grandeur of K. 491/ii, containing no dialoguewith the piano (K. 482) and obfuscating dialogue through wind/piano doubling atthe beginning of the consequent phrase (K. 488, bars 39–40). In sum, wind partic-ipation in K. 451/ii, 482/ii and 488/ii paves the way for the apotheosis of aestheticbalance in K. 491/ii, but does not match it.55

If aesthetic equilibrium reaches its zenith in K. 491, what of Mozart’s nextpiano concerto, No. 25 in C, K. 503, completed a few months later on 4 December1786? K. 503 and K. 491 have traditionally been regarded as kindred spirits: K. 503is ‘deliberately complementary to its great predecessor’, ‘the rival and the comple-ment of the C minor’, a ‘triumph whence every shadow of strife has vanished’ asopposed to a ‘conflict which no victory had ended’ (K. 491), and an ‘epic’ thatmatches the preceding ‘tragedy’.56 K. 503 is also by common consent one ofMozart’s greatest masterpieces in the concerto genre, a ‘summit’ among hismature concertos, demonstrating ‘a concentration of workmanship and a gran-deur which make it the counterpart to the “Jupiter” Symphony among the

58 PIANO CONCERTOS

55 An analogous argument could also be made for K. 491/iii, which features a level of wind involve-ment unrivalled by Mozart’s earlier grand concerto variation movements – the wind performseach half of variations 2, 4 and 6 by themselves (with the exception of isolated string lines). IrvingR. Eisley even goes so far as to claim that K. 491/iii is the ‘[concerto] movement most completelydominated by the winds’. See Eisley, ‘Mozart’s Concertato Orchestra’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1976/77,p. 16. On Mozart’s variation movements – including those from the grand concertos – as theyrelate to matters of rhetorical detail, see Elaine R. Sisman, Haydn and the Classical Variation(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 196–234.

56 See Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 176; Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, pp.416, 420; Radcliffe, Mozart Piano Concertos, p. 62. Stanley Sadie also remarks that ‘the C minor [K.491] is more profitably considered alongside the other 1786 concerto, the C major K503, for inthese two the symphonic approach of K466 and 467 is pursued alongside the treatment of colourand character of K482 and 488’. See New Grove Mozart, p. 125.

concertos’ and the best specimen of ‘Mozart’s fusion of the concerto with Haydn’sprinciples of thematic and motivic development’.57

Indubitable greatness aside, K. 503 is more revealing for its departures fromMozart’s preceding piano concerto style – especially in the first movement – thanfor its similarities. The beginning of the solo exposition, for example, is unparal-leled in its rapid combination of orchestral grandeur, intimate grandeur(piano/orchestra dialogue), intimate interaction more generally, and solo bril-liance. The piano enters innocuously, imitating the orchestra’s outline of C majorharmony and its trill (modified in triplet quavers and semiquavers; bars 91–6); itthen introduces nine bars of semiquaver figurative brilliance (bar 103–11) as asegue to the return of the archetypically grand main theme (bar 112). The inti-mate grandeur of piano/orchestra dialogue is almost always present at the initialentry of the soloist in Mozart’s first movements (as explained above) and brilliantwriting heard on several occasions, but the integration of both styles in a clear,unambiguous fashion is unusual.58 At any rate, Mozart saves his succinct, unprec-edented masterstroke for the ensuing passage (see Ex. 2.2). In the 7th bar of theorchestra’s restatement of the main theme the piano re-enters with figurativesemiquavers (bars 118–19) that support the underlying V7 harmony, purged ofthe ostentatious brilliance of bars 103–11. Re-visiting its registral highpoint fromthe semiquaver build-up (f’’’) and emerging imperceptibly from the shadow ofthe flute’s sustained f’’’ (bars 116–18), the piano creates remarkable intimacy – ifnot exactly the intimate grandeur of dialogue, then intimacy generated fromsimultaneous close engagement with the orchestra and re-appropriation of bril-liance. The piano’s re-entry, moreover, lays a foundation for the subsequenttransformation of the main theme (bars 120–25). The grand theme presentedforte by the entire orchestra now assumes a delicacy born of its piano presentationin the winds and dialogic echoes in the piano; archetypal grandeur in theorchestra (bars 112–17) morphs into intimate grandeur (bars 120–25).

The passage from the piano’s initial entry in K. 503 until the dialogued state-ment of the main theme (bars 91–125) is notable not because it challengesMozart’s prevailing aesthetic balance of grandeur, brilliance and intimacy, butbecause it so assiduously demonstrates this balance in such a short space of time.Intimate grandeur gives way to brilliance and a grand theme; brilliance is inte-grated into an intimate context; and a grand theme is transformed into one thatexhibits intimate grandeur. In the passage as a whole, then, grandeur and bril-liance are neatly circumscribed by intimate grandeur.


57 See Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 175; Blom, Mozart, p. 207; H.C. Robbins Landon,‘The Concertos: (2) Their Musical Origin and Development’, in The Mozart Companion, ed.Landon and Donald Mitchell (New York: Norton, 1969; first published 1956), pp. 264–65.

58 K. 451 includes a one-bar imitation of the orchestra’s closing gesture (bars 75–76) beforeembarking on a brilliant, embellished version of the main theme (bars 77ff.); and K. 467 intro-duces the piano in bar 74 with a semiquaver variant of the preceding material in the solo wind,immediately becoming a figurative build-up to the V7 pause in bar 79. For solo brilliance at thisjuncture, see also K. 450, bars 63–70 and K. 482, bars 89–93.

60 PIANO CONCERTOS

Ex. 2.2: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 25 in C major, K. 503, 1st movement, bars116–26

Like the development section confrontation and recapitulation dialogue in K.491/i but on a smaller scale, the passage under consideration from K. 503confirms the privileged position of aesthetic and stylistic balance in Mozart’sconcertos. K. 503/i is the only Mozart piano concerto first movement that comesclose to rivalling K. 491/i in overall length and scope (432 bars to K. 491/i’s 523bars); it is unsurprising then that aesthetic equilibrium should again take astriking form. However, the brevity and succinctness of the K. 503/i passage –placed symbolically at the first point in the work that the ‘worlds’ of the piano andthe orchestra collide – also initiates modest experimentation on Mozart’s part inregard to the distribution of brilliance and intimate grandeur. At several momentsMozart departs from the standard practices of his earlier grand concerto firstmovements. The two orchestral interruptions of the piano’s brilliant figuration inthe run-up to the cadential trill of the solo exposition (bars 195–98; 202–04), forexample, are out of the ordinary. The soloist disrupts its own figuration at thisjuncture of several of Mozart’s earlier works,59 but not in K. 503/i, where theorchestra (wind) interrupts the piano’s passagework. The wind effect is also moremarked than corresponding effects in earlier works, since slow-moving,homophonic fragments are inserted into a texture dominated by rapid pianopassagework.

The temporary suspension of piano brilliance and concomitant sense ofdisjunction in bars 195–98 and 202–04 of K. 503/i is accentuated in the con-cluding bars of the solo exposition. Instead of maintaining forward momentumin the run-up to the cadential trill through semiquavers (K. 451, 453, 456, 466,488, 491), triplet quavers (K. 459), or a combination of the two (K. 450, 467, 482),the piano in K. 503/i introduces a thrice-repeated 7-quaver pattern (bars 208–10).Heard against only a sustained D in the flute and a repeated semibreve D in thepiano left hand, the 7-quaver pattern creates momentary metric uncertainty,undermining the rhythmic drive to the cadential trill. Thus, the piano forgoesbrilliance at the very point that we would least expect it to do so.

The development and recapitulation sections of K. 503/i also demonstrateoriginal approaches to intimate grandeur and brilliance. The contrapuntalopening of the development features a dialogic tour de force (piano, wind andstrings; bars 228–53), going against the grain of Mozart’s grand concerto develop-ment sections.60 Three-way dialogue continues, moreover, for a further 16 bars(260–76), now combined with scalar and arpeggiated figuration in the piano. Anew procedure is also evident in the recapitulation. In each of the grand concertofirst movements preceding K. 503 that delay the reappearance of a theme from theorchestral exposition until the recapitulation, the theme in question is presented


59 Cases in point are the sforzando syncopated writing and ensuing bar of quavers/semiquavers inbars 152–55 and 159–61 of K. 456/i, and the new thematic material heard unaccompanied in bars171–72 of K. 459/i and bars 163–68 of K. 467/i.

60 For an explanation of this passage, including a diagrammatic representation of dialogue, seeKeefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 94–95.

in dialogue between the piano and the orchestra on its return.61 In K. 503/i,though, the march theme from the orchestral exposition is heard only in the wind(bars 365–72; originally bar 51), the first half against a piano trill and the secondagainst semiquaver arpeggiated figuration. Thus, intimate grandeur is unexpect-edly eschewed, the piano taking an opportunity to exploit brilliant passageworkinstead (bars 369ff.)

In K. 503/i, Mozart’s modifications to his standard methods of combininggrandeur, brilliance and intimacy reveal not a wholesale shift away from aestheticbalance, but a reconfiguration of this balance in light of stylistic experimentation.Neither the wind interruptions to the piano passagework towards the end of thesolo exposition nor the piano’s subsequent 7-quaver patterns ultimately detractfrom the function of this passage as a virtuosic showpiece for the piano; as a result,the broad alternation of intimate grandeur and brilliance across the solo exposi-tion (discussed above) remains in place. Similarly, in spite of the prominence ofdialogue in the development, Mozart continues to highlight piano passagework inthe second half of the section, perhaps rendering the piano writing especiallyostentatious in the re-transition (bars 282–89; see in particular the arpeggiatedsemiquavers in contrary motion in bars 286–89) in order to compensate for anabsence of figurative writing in the first half of the section. In addition, the lack ofpiano/orchestra dialogue at the return of the theme from bar 51 in the recapitula-tion does not weight this section too heavily in favour of brilliance – for four barsat least (365–68) the prevailing piano passagework is set aside, as it is again in thehomophonic wind interpolations and the piano’s 7-quaver pattern originallyheard in the solo exposition (bars 380–82, 386–87, 393–95).

Stylistic experimentation in K. 503/i is significant even though aesthetic andstylistic balance remains a priority. Above all, Mozart continues a process ofre-invention in K. 503 that was initiated by the climactic K. 491; more systematicreappraisals of his concerto style will follow in his final two works in the genre, K.537 and 595 (see Chapter 3). Just as K. 449 initiates re-invention, stimulated bycontrasting conceptions of the concerto genre and an interrupted genesis of thefirst movement that sets the two conceptions in sharp focus, so K. 491 begins anew process, manipulating existing procedures to a point where Mozart deemedstylistic change necessary. For Mozart had reached a stylistic apotheosis in K. 491:dialogue will never again be as protracted, sophisticated or carefully designed in apiano concerto first movement; dialogic confrontations will never approach thelevel of intensity of the first movement development section; the wind will never

62 PIANO CONCERTOS

61 See K. 450, bars 248–64; K. 459, bars 341–47; K. 467, bars 351–59; K. 482, bars 276–94 and 314–30;K. 491, bars 452–62. Three themes from the orchestral exposition of K. 491 not appearing in thesolo exposition are brought back consecutively in the recapitulation, but only the third featurespiano/orchestra dialogue (bars 452–62). I would argue that Mozart forgoes piano/orchestradialogue in bars 435–44 and 444–52 in order to invoke the symmetrical arrangements of both theorchestral and solo expositions across the recapitulation as a whole. See Keefe, Mozart’s PianoConcertos, pp. 82–88, 91–94.

again be as prominent across an entire movement as in the second movement;and formal schemes will never be as complex – nor will a movement be asprotracted – as K. 491/i. Retaining the broad scope and gravitas of its predeces-sor’s first movement, K. 503/i re-appraises certain aspects of Mozart’s concertostyle, setting the stage for further change in K. 537 and K. 595.


3

A Complementary Pair:Stylistic Experimentation in Mozart’s Final

Piano Concertos, No. 26 in D, K. 537 (the ‘Coronation’),and No. 27 in Bb, K. 595

WITH his Piano Concerto No. 25 in C, K. 503, completed in Vienna on 4December 1786, Mozart brought an extraordinary sequence of Viennese

concertos to a close. In the space of four years (1782–86) he had composed 15masterworks, endearing himself to the Viennese public through acclaimedperformances at the Burgtheater, Trattnerhof and Mehlgrube.1 Alongside hissingspiel Die Entführung aus dem Serail (1782), his opera Le nozze di Figaro(1786), and his six string quartets dedicated to Haydn (K. 387, 421, 428, 458, 464,465, published in 1785), these concertos established Mozart as a leading light onthe Viennese musical scene.

In contrast to his prolific concerto production of 1782–86, Mozart completedonly two more piano concertos between the end of 1786 and his death in 1791:No. 26 in D, K. 537, nicknamed the ‘Coronation’ on account of Mozart’s perfor-mance of the work at the coronation festivities for Leopold II in Frankfurt on 15October 1790, and No. 27 in Bb, K. 595.2 In spite of the success of the former onthe nineteenth- and early twentieth-century concert stage, neither is among hismost popular instrumental works, nor – with the notable exception of severalcommentaries on the latter – among his most critically acclaimed.3 In fact, nomajor instrumental work from Mozart’s entire Viennese period has suffered

1 Mozart testifies to the success of his piano concerto performances in letters to his father dated 24March and 10 April 1784. In addition, he lists an impressive 176 subscribers for his series ofsubscription concerts in the spring 1784 season. See Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, pp. 870–73.

2 Mozart entered K. 537 and 595 into his thematic catalogue, the Verzeichnüss aller meiner Werke,on 24 February 1788 and 5 January 1791 respectively. However, K. 595 probably had a protractedgenesis stretching back to 1788, the stylistic ramifications of which are discussed below. See Tyson,Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, pp. 153, 156. It is also possible that Mozart’s initial ideasfor K. 537, a 21-bar fragment for the first movement and a sketch for the second, date back to early1787, or even (in the case of the former) December 1786. See Tyson, ‘Mozart’s Piano ConcertoFragments’, in Mozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. Neal Zaslaw, pp. 70–71.

3 Two French critics even suggest that it is partly because K. 537 was so popular in the nineteenthcentury that it was often shunned in the twentieth century. See Jean Massin and Brigitte Massin,Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Paris: Fayard, 1970 [first published 1959]), p. 1070.

comparable ignominy in the hands of commentators as K. 537. CuthbertGirdlestone identifies it as ‘one of the poorest and emptiest’ of Mozart’s pianoconcertos; Denis Forman describes it as ‘an occasional piece of the second rank’which is ‘uneven in workmanship’; Georges de Saint-Foix regards it as less ‘pro-found’ than its predecessors in the concerto genre, ‘intended rather for the gloryof a great virtuoso’; Philip Radcliffe finds it ‘slight and sketchy’; Jean and BrigitteMassin represent it as an attempt on Mozart’s part to get back in touch with hismusical public ‘and not [as] a work of profound exploration’ (explorationprofonde); Eric Blom comments that it is ‘curiously empty’, making a ‘rather staticimpression’; Jean-Victor Hocquard considers it ‘very much inferior’ (bieninférieur) to Mozart’s 12 preceding piano concertos (K. 449–503); and ArthurHutchings, going furthest of all in his condemnation of the second movement,wishes he ‘had the end seats . . . only [regretting] that Mozart stooped so low’.4

Setting aside gratuitous dismissals of K. 537, Mozart’s penultimate pianoconcerto is regarded in any case as stylistically distinct from his precedingsequence of works. Arthur Hutchings recognizes K. 537 both as ‘a reversion to thegalanterie of J.C. Bach’ and ‘as an isolated phenomenon, not . . . a member of theprogressing series’.5 Forman also identifies a stylistically backward quality to K.537, stating that ‘[t]he orchestration generally has slipped back to the pre-[K.]449style with scarcely any individual writing for the woodwind’.6 Girdlestonecomments too that ‘the lack of all interplay . . . is particularly distressing; noconcerto since 1782 had been so devoid of it’.7 Even Chris Goertzen’s detailedstudy of the orchestration of K. 537, explaining ‘regressive’ features such asunison doublings, the absence of chordal antiphony in the strings and winds, andthe absence of the winds for the majority of the first movement’s solo expositionas ‘compromises’ that accommodate performances without wind instruments,comes across as an extended apology for weaknesses not evident in Mozart’s otherViennese concertos.8

Positive appraisals of K. 537 also emphasize Mozart’s departures from hisearlier concerto style. Charles Rosen, an eloquent proponent of the work, identi-fies stylistically progressive qualities, notably the emphasis on melodic succession,and therefore regards it as fundamentally different from Mozart’s precedingconcertos, indeed as a ‘revolutionary’ work: ‘We cannot listen to it with the same

A COMPLEMENTARY PAIR 65

4 See Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 456; Forman, Mozart’s Concerto Form, pp. 237,243; Georges de Saint-Foix, W.A. Mozart: Sa vie musicale et son oeuvre, vol. 4. L’épanouissement:Figaro, Don Juan et les grandes symphonies (Paris: Desclée, 1939), p. 318 (‘Il nous apparaît moinspoussée en profondeur, et plûtot destiné à la gloire d’un grand virtuose’); Radcliffe, Mozart PianoConcertos, p. 65; Massin and Massin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, p. 1069; Blom, Mozart, pp. 133,207; Jean-Victor Hocquard, La pensée de Mozart (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1958), p. 159;Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 188.

5 Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 185, 186.6 See Forman, Mozart’s Concerto Form, p. 243.7 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 458.8 See Chris Goertzen, ‘Compromises in Orchestration in Mozart’s Coronation Concerto’, The

Musical Quarterly, 75 (1991), pp. 148–73.

expectations that we have for the other works. It demands to be judged by laterstandards: viewed in this light, it can be seen as the greatest of early Romanticpiano concertos’.9 In a similar fashion to Rosen, R.G. Reynolds argues in generalterms that tonal relationships in the first movement of K. 537 anticipate theRomantic idiom, thus marking a departure from Mozart’s earlier practice.10

Although sanguine and insightful analyses – especially by Austro-Germanscholars – continue to rehabilitate K. 537 critically speaking, they do not directlyaddress a major source of critical disgruntlement, and an issue vital to our appre-ciation of stylistic re-invention, namely the relationship of K. 537 to Mozart’searlier piano concertos and to K. 595.11

In contrast to K. 537, K. 595 is distinguished from its Viennese predecessors inboth stylistic and affective terms. Girdlestone, locating ‘neither the complexitynor the curious details of its great predecessors’, finds that ‘virtuosity is almostentirely absent. No other concerto is so devoid of it. . . . Mozart appears torenounce his very conception of the genre and bring his piano down to the level ofan orchestral instrument’; Hermann Abert argues that K. 595 is similar in formalconstruction to the earlier works but ‘differs noticeably from them in its wholemanner [Haltung]’, featuring a more personal and resigned tone sharply differen-tiated from the passion of the two preceding minor-key concertos, K. 466 and K.491; Massin and Massin detect a lack of ‘strong dramatic tension’ (forte tensiondramatique) in comparison to the 1785–86 concertos; Hocquard asserts that the‘strange detachment’ (détachment étrange) and ‘serene indifference’ (indifférencesereine) of K. 595 far outweigh superficial similarities with Mozart’s precedingconcertos and that affective contrasts in the first movement lack the feverishnessand capriciousness of works from earlier years; H.C. Robbins Landon statescategorically: ‘How different is K. 595 from the full-blooded concertos of theearlier Viennese period, with their infinite promise of things to come. Thechromaticism in K. 595 is no longer restless . . . nor are there mysterious, hiddenundertones of leashed passion’; and Forman, perceiving an ‘uneven work’, claimsthat ‘the gaiety and wit of the Melodic concertos have gone, the bustle and drive ofthe Galant style has become mechanical. The work does not aspire to the heroicplane of the great Symphonic concertos.’12 Even when K. 595 is not compared to

66 PIANO CONCERTOS

9 Charles Rosen, The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (New York: Norton 1971), pp. 259,260.

10 See Reynolds, ‘K. 537: Regression or Progression?’ Music Review, 34 (1974), pp. 142–48.11 On the first half of the first movement of K. 537 and on connections between tutti blocks from the

orchestral exposition and similar timbral occurrences later in the movement, see JuttaRuile-Dronke, Ritornell und Solo in Mozarts Klavierkonzerten (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1978),pp. 99–109 and 160–65. Ruile-Dronke also addresses the placement of specific ritornello materialin the first movement of K. 537 and the ramifications of this placement for the integration ofsonata form techniques into the concerto. See ‘Der Ort der Solokadenz im Konzert KV537:Überlegungen zur Satzanlage bei Mozart’, Mozart Studien, 5 (1995), pp. 173–82. For a brief, recentexamination of the recapitulation of K. 537/i see Manfred Hermann Schmid, Orchester und Soloistin den Konzerten von W.A. Mozart (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1999), pp. 313–16.

12 See Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, pp. 471, 478; Abert, W.A. Mozart: Zweiter Teil,

Mozart’s earlier piano concertos, its unique attributes are implicitly or explicitlyrecognized. Saint-Foix identifies a ‘dreamy melancholy that flavors this wholeastonishing masterwork!’13 Wolfgang Hildesheimer cites ‘the quality of a trans-figured farewell’ often associated with K. 595.14 And Alfred Einstein, an effusiveadvocate of the work, asserts that it ‘stands “at the gate of heaven.” . . . It was not inthe Requiem that he said his last word, however, but in this work. . . . This is themusical counterpart to the confession he made in his letters to the effect that lifehad lost attraction for him.’ K. 595, moreover, is ‘so perfect that the question ofstyle has become meaningless’.15

Given the chronological separation of K. 537 and 595 from Mozart’s 1782–86sequence of piano concertos (at least in regard to the completion dates of thesefinal two works), it is no surprise that critics stress stylistic and affective depar-tures from Mozart’s idiom. Nor is it remarkable, on account of the three-year gapbetween the completions of K. 537 and K. 595 (February 1788, January 1791), thatwriters draw attention to the striking stylistic differences between them (in partic-ular the profusion of virtuosic writing for the soloist in K. 537 and its scarcity in K.595). But the questions of how and, perhaps more importantly, why K. 537 and595 depart from stylistic procedures evident in Mozart’s earlier Viennese pianoconcertos, and of precisely how the two works themselves relate to each otherhave never been addressed in detail. The possibility, for example, that the first twomovements of K. 595 were composed in 1788, three years ahead of Mozart’sVerzeichnüss date of 5 January 1791 and at approximately the same time as thecompletion of K. 537 – recently proposed tentatively by Alan Tyson uponstudying the paper types of the autograph score – renders connections betweenthe two works especially intriguing, even accepting the possibility that parts of K.537 itself date back to early 1787 and initial sketches even to December 1786.16

Despite sharply contrasting musical characteristics such as the piano’s ostenta-tious virtuosity in K. 537 and the more measured approach in K. 595, Mozart’slast two piano concertos share a number of important features. For the only timein his sequence of Viennese piano concertos, for example, Mozart casts the secondand third movements of adjacent works in the same forms; both middle move-ments have an ABA design and both finales are sonata-rondos.17 In addition, the


1783–1791 (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1956), p. 598; Massin and Massin, Mozart, p. 1125;Hocquard, La pensée de Mozart, p. 206; H. C. Robbins Landon, ‘The Concertos: (2) Their MusicalOrigin and Development’, in The Mozart Companion, ed. Landon and Donald Mitchell (NewYork: Norton, 1956), p. 278; Forman, Mozart’s Concerto Form, p. 248.

13 Saint-Foix, W.A. Mozart: Sa vie musicale et son oeuvre, vol. 5. Les dernières années (Paris: Desclée,1946), p. 170 (‘reveuse mélancholie, qui parfume cet étonnant chef-d’oeuvre tout entier!’).

14 Wolfgang Hildesheimer, Mozart, trans. Marion Faber (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1977; Englishedition, New York: Vintage, 1983), p. 300.

15 Einstein, Mozart, pp. 314, 315.16 On K. 595, see Tyson, Mozart, 153, 156; on K. 537, Tyson, ‘Mozart Piano Concerto Fragments’,

pp. 70–71.17 Among Mozart’s earlier Viennese piano concertos, two of the so-called ‘subscription’ set, K. 413

and K. 415 from 1782–83 – published in 1785 as Op. 4 nos. 2 and 3 respectively – come closest to K.

second movements contain striking internal correspondences. Their initial Asections follow the same formal patterns (solo piano presentation of the maintheme, orchestral presentation of the main theme, solo piano continuation of thetheme leading back to a restatement of the beginning of the theme, concludingorchestral tutti), are similar in length (43 and 48 bars respectively) and includecomparable writing in their concluding orchestral passages, where suddenfull-orchestra fortes in the third bar succeed two piano bars scored for strings,horn(s) and bassoon(s); their B sections, in turn, are both in a ‘romance’ style,characterized by sparse orchestral scoring and eloquent simplicity and expres-sion.18

Striking stylistic and formal similarities between the second movements of K.537 and 595 inevitably encourage comparison of the ostensibly dissimilar firstmovements. Indeed, Mozart is at his most stylistically innovative in these move-ments; determining the relationship between his last two piano concertos is there-fore particularly challenging in this context. In an attempt to gauge theexperimental nature of K. 537 and 595, the complementary qualities of the twoworks, and ultimately their unique place in Mozart’s concerto repertory, I shallfirst turn to specific manifestations of stylistic experimentation in the first move-ments of K. 537 and 595, and then proceed to situate these manifestations in theirwider compositional contexts. As we shall see, K. 537 and 595 represent a meticu-lously planned continuation to the process of stylistic re-invention initiated bythe climactic K. 491 and by K. 503, albeit without fundamentally challenging thebalance of grand, brilliant and intimate qualities that characterize Mozart’s grandconcertos from K. 450 onwards.

Stylistic experimentation in the first movements of K. 537 and 595

The most stylistically remarkable passages in the first movement of K. 537 occurin the solo exposition and recapitulation. Eight bars into their statement of thesecondary theme in the solo exposition (bar 172), for example, the strings fadeaway, allowing the piano to engage in a 14-bar solo passage (bars 180–93; see Ex.

68 PIANO CONCERTOS

537 and 595 in this respect. Both middle movements are in slow-movement concerto form (i.e.without a development section); however, K. 413’s sonata-rondo finale carries a ‘Tempo diMenuetto’ indication, while K. 415’s sonata-rondo incorporates two Adagio sections in bars49–63 and 216–30. On connections among K. 413, 414 and 415, see Ellwood Derr, ‘SomeThoughts on the Design of Mozart’s Opus 4, the “Subscription Concertos” (K. 414, 413, and 415)’,in Mozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, pp. 187–210. James Webster designates sonata-rondomovements that incorporate ritornello characteristics as ‘concerto-rondos’. See ‘Are Mozart’sConcertos “Dramatic”? Concerto Ritornellos Versus Aria Introductions in the 1780s’, in Mozart’sPiano Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, pp. 107–37, at p. 113.

18 On the ‘Romance’ style in five of Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos see Kathryn L. Shanks Libin,‘ “Romance” Style and the Narrative Voice in Mozart’s Keyboard Concertos: K. 451, 466, 467, 537,and 595’ (unpublished paper read at the study session of the Mozart Society of America, Boston,30 October 1998). For a discussion of K. 466/ii, titled ‘Romance’, see Grayson, Mozart: PianoConcertos Nos. 20 and 21, pp. 57–63.

3.1). Brief passages of figuration for unaccompanied piano are not uncommonimmediately after the presentation of the secondary theme in the solo expositionsof the first movements of Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos.19 In addition,several movements include unaccompanied extensions to the preceding presen-tations of the secondary theme.20 However, the K. 537 passage, an extension of thepiano’s decorated version of the theme, is extraordinary, not only because it islonger than any of the corresponding passages in Mozart’s other Vienneseconcertos but because it demonstrates a harmonic richness and a contrapuntaland sequential intricacy that has little precedent earlier in the movement. Whilecorresponding passages in earlier concertos remain harmonically unadventurous,K. 537’s passage uses Neapolitan harmony as a pivot to colourful ascending anddescending sequential writing. It is as if Mozart’s piano has wandered off on itsown monologic excursion, unaware of either Mozart’s typical procedure at thisjuncture or the stark harmonic contrast its material has created with thepreceding secondary theme.21

An equally startling juxtaposition of contrasting harmonic styles occurs in therecapitulation of K. 537/i. Following the restatement of the secondary theme,Mozart segues to a theme heard in the orchestral but not the solo exposition (bars383–94, originally bars 58–74). At a point where he previously introducedsubdominant minor harmony in the strings (bar 70, although spelled with an A#in the violins rather than a Bb), Mozart now employs a full orchestra/piano fpsubdominant minor chord (bars 395–96) as a springboard for a startling iv – dim7

(A-C-Eb-F#) – dim7 (B-D-F-G#) progression (bars 395–400, see Ex. 3.2) immedi-ately preceding the extended I6/4 – V7 – I cadential progression (bars 401–409).Again, there is no comparable writing at the corresponding moments of thoseMozart Viennese piano concerto first movements that delay the restatement ofsignificant thematic material from the orchestral exposition until the recapitula-tion (K. 414, 450, 459, 467, 482, 491, 503). To be sure, the return of such thematicmaterial is usually followed, as in K. 537, by the beginning of virtuosic figuration


19 K. 413 (bars 138–44), K. 414 (bars 127–36), K. 415 (bars 108–18), K. 449 (bars 154–61), K. 450(bars 119–25), K. 482 (bars 171–78) and K. 595 (bars 153–57) all contain segments of solo pianowriting between 3 and 11 bars in length. At the corresponding junctures of K. 466 and K. 503, solobars in the piano are interspersed with accompanied material over more extended periods (bars143–64 and 191–206 respectively) than in K. 413, K. 414, K. 415, K. 449, K. 450, K. 482 and K. 595.

20 See K. 451 (bars 138–40), K. 456 (bars 136–41) and K. 459 (bars 144–48). Bars 136–41 of K. 456 arefollowed by the piano’s solo rendition of the antecedent phrase of a theme from the orchestralexposition (bars 142–45). In K. 467, the conclusion of the secondary theme (bars 128–43) isfollowed by the piano’s unaccompanied two-bar statement of the main theme’s head motif, subse-quently passed to the strings and the woodwinds.

21 The secondary theme is itself, according to Konrad Küster, the ‘most unusual’ (ungewöhnlichste)among the first movements of Mozart’s piano concertos, given the way in which its initial appear-ance in the orchestral exposition is modified in the solo exposition and shortened in the recapitu-lation. See Küster, Formale Aspekte des ersten Allegros in Mozarts Konzerten (Kassel: Bärenreiter,1991), p. 160.

that builds to the piano’s concluding cadential trill,22 but on none of these occa-sions is the harmonic or affective contrast with the immediately precedingthematic material so stark as it is in K. 537. It is entirely typical of Mozart’s modusoperandi in the concerto and elsewhere, of course, for distinctive harmonies,harmonic procedures, or progressions appearing early in a movement to be real-ized most emphatically later on (in this case, subdominant minor harmony, aswell as the terse diminished triads previously featured in the piano part in bars145–51 and 329–35). The alternation of arpeggiated semiquaver figuration andconjunct material (in one-bar units) in bars 395–400 of K. 537 also recalls thealternation of similar material (in two-bar units) in the extraordinary piano/orchestra confrontations from the development sections of K. 449/i and K. 491/i(see Chapters 1 and 2). Bars 395–400 of K. 537/i are exceptional, however, fordisplacing this harsh alternation from the development to the recapitulationsection while purging it of its confrontational quality (the piano and the orchestraare no longer set against each other as in the K. 449 and 491 passages) and placingit immediately after a diatonic thematic presentation.

In fact, the abrupt harmonic contrast between bars 180–93 and 395–400 of K.537/i on one hand, and the passages preceding these bars on the other, is

70 PIANO CONCERTOS

22 See K. 414, bar 264; K. 450, bar 264; K. 459, bar 348; K. 467, bar 359; K. 491, bar 463; and K. 503,bar 372. In K. 491, three orchestral exposition themes omitted in the solo exposition reappear insuccession (bars 435–44, 444–52, 452–63). K. 482 is the odd movement out, with both of theorchestral exposition themes omitted from the solo exposition reappearing early in the recapitula-tion (bars 276 and 314).


characteristic of Mozart’s disjunctive continuations throughout the movement.Rosen cites ‘long athematic passages, setting off one section from another’ in theorchestral exposition (bars 32–37 and 57–58).23 Uneven transitions and odddiscontinuities also prevail in the solo exposition. While the piano’s presentationof the secondary theme (bar 164), for example, ends on the tonic of the secondarykey in bar 171, the restatement in the strings begins on the same harmony only inbar 172, leaving a bar of descending semiquaver filler in the piano, which in anycase jumps awkwardly down an octave (a–A, bars 171–72). In addition, there is asomewhat unwieldy transition from the piano’s presentation of the main theme atthe beginning of the section to the orchestra’s first tutti interjection of the soloexposition (bars 99–103). Whereas Mozart normally elides the piano’s cadencewith the beginning of the first segment marked tutti to produce a smooth transi-tion from piano to orchestral contributions, often incorporating piano/orchestradialogue at the beginning or end of the tutti to enhance this fluid effect, he avoidsan elision in K. 537/i (bar 99), makes no attempt to engage his piano and orchestra


23 Rosen, Classical Style, 259. For a brief discussion of the distribution of ritornello material in theorchestral exposition of K. 537 as compared to the distribution in subsequent ritornellos, seeRobert Forster, Die Kopfsätze der Klavierkonzerte Mozarts und Beethovens: Gesamtaufbau,Solokadenz und Schlussbildung (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1992), p. 58.


in dialogue, and stresses the rigidity of the sectional divide by prefacing the tuttiwith an unduly long ii6 (bars 91–95) – I6/4 (95–98) – V (98) – I cadential progres-sion in the piano.24 It is as if Mozart is deliberately accentuating harmonic andthematic discontinuities in the movement as a whole in an attempt to contravenehis established stylistic practices.

While K. 537/i is stylistically experimental both in the solo exposition and reca-pitulation, K. 595/i contains a particularly remarkable development section. Likethe preceding work, Mozart’s final piano concerto brings the issue of musicalcontinuity to the fore mostly as a result of exploration in the harmonic domain. Atthe beginning of the development section, for example, the piano enters in Bminor (bar 191), an augmented fourth from the dominant key established at theend of the solo exposition and a semitone above Bb, the tonic of the movement(for bars 185–204, see Ex. 3.3).25 No other first-movement development sectionin Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos begins in so distant a key.26 The majorityopen either in the dominant (K. 414, 415, 449, 456, 488), the dominant minor (K.413, 450, 482, 537), or the relative major (K. 466, 491); three begin in the mediantkey (K. 459, 467, 503), one in the flattened mediant (K. 453), and one in thesupertonic (K. 451). Thus, each of the first 16 Viennese piano concertos begins itsdevelopment section in a key closely related to the preceding dominant – bVI in K.453, the result of an interrupted cadence in D, is the most distant of these – whileK. 595 bucks the trend considerably.27

More striking than the actual choice of key for the piano’s re-entry at the begin-ning of the development section is its harmonic preparation in the preceding barsand the modulatory procedures of the succeeding passage (see Ex. 3.3). In bars183–85, the dominant F is reconfirmed via a dim7 – I6/4 – V7 – I progression;

72 PIANO CONCERTOS

24 For smooth transitions from piano to orchestral segments see K. 413 (bar 68), K. 414 (bar 82), K.415 (bar 67), K. 453 (bar 94), K. 456 (bar 87), K. 459 (bar 106), K. 466 (bar 91), K. 467 (bar 107), K.482 (bar 94), K. 488 (bar 82), K. 491 (bar 118), and K. 503 (bar 112). In several of these instances –K. 413, 415, 466, 482, 491, 503 – the first tutti constitutes an orchestral presentation of the maintheme of the movement. For manifestations of dialogue at this juncture, see the transitions intothe tutti section of K. 414 and out of the tutti sections of K. 413, 414, 459, 467, 488, 491, 595.

25 I take the beginning of the development section in first-movement concerto form to coincide withthe re-entry of the soloist following the orchestral tutti after the piano’s cadential trill. On anumber of occasions, including K. 595/i, this tutti section modulates away from the dominant.

26 The opening of the development section of K. 456’s sonata-rondo finale (also in Bb) offers some-thing of a precedent for this moment; as in K. 595/i, the section begins in B minor. But the processof moving to B minor in each movement is very different. While the modulation is abrupt anddisorientating in K. 595/i (as described in the paragraph below), it is fluent and lucid in K. 456/iii,moving from I/Bb – I4/2/Bb – VI7/Bb or VI7/b – i6/b – V9/b – dim7 (over dominant pedal) – V/b – i/b(bars 162–71).

27 According to Karol Berger, the uniqueness of this passage in K. 595/i also extends to the formalpunctuation in the bars immediately preceding the development section. For Berger, ‘the articula-tion at the end of the second tutti is blurred in a unique way: the preceding linked appendix (bars183–85) seems to be repeated, but it almost immediately begins to modulate, and then is inter-rupted, to be followed by the second solo in bar 191’. See ‘The First-Movement Punctuation Formin Mozart’s Piano Concertos’, in Mozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, pp. 239–59, at p. 253.



chromatic lines then lead to a different diminished seventh chord (Bb-Db-E-G) inbars 186, 188 and 190 (respelled C#-E-G-A#), and to the abrupt arrival of B minorin the piano in bar 191. In the space of a mere 6 bars, the music travels from F tothe distant key of B minor, an uneven transition for which the first half of themovement had offered little preparation. But an even more audaciously disjunc-tive passage follows. After the piano’s statement of the main theme in B minor, thestrings outline yet another diminished seventh harmony, the third in 12 bars(C-A-F#-D#, bars 194–96) and one that does not function either as a smoothsuccessor to B minor (bar 194) or as an effective antecedent to the ensuing Cmajor. The diminished seventh harmony in the strings and the subsequent step-wise descent in the oboes and bassoons (C,A – G,B – F#,A) render the arrival of Cmajor in bar 197 extremely brusque; once again, the music has progressed to apoint of far remove in the course of just 6 bars (B minor – C major, bars 191–97).Even the ensuing C major presentation of the main theme – which gives theimpression of an unsettling restart to the development section after the previousunsuccessful attempt – is promptly contradicted by C minor and Eb major arpeg-gios in the winds and piano respectively (bars 201–204), with textural andharmonic continuity resuming at bar 202.

The overt and startling experimentation at the outset of the developmentsection of the first movement of K. 595 is complemented by covert and under-stated originality at the section’s close.28 Preparation for the recapitulation in thefirst movements of Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos usually features eitherdialogue between the piano and the orchestra (K. 413, 450, 459) or pianopassage-work accompanied by the orchestra that segues into a restatement of themain theme (K. 451, 456, 467, 482, 488, 491, 503, 537).29 In K. 595/i, however,both techniques are uniquely combined at this juncture to create a mellifluoussectional transition. The piano’s modified version of the main theme (bars231–34) passes to the oboes and bassoons (bars 235–41), and the piano’s tripletarpeggio figuration is subsumed by the orchestral texture rather than (as is almostalways the case) standing out from it; the strings then recapitulate the maintheme in full (bar 242).30 Resolution of the disjunction from the beginning of the

74 PIANO CONCERTOS

28 Konrad Küster also comments on the unusual, striking nature of the middle segment of the devel-opment section of K. 595/i – the central sequence – where the orchestra accompanies the piano’ssequenced figuration with ritornello material. See Küster, Formale Aspekte, pp. 142–43.

29 K. 456’s recapitulation – in the latter category – is also preceded by a four-bar passage in the winds;and K. 453 features alternation between the piano and the orchestra, but not dialogue. K. 415 and449 do not follow either pattern. For a discussion of the development-to-recapitulation transitionof K. 449/i, somewhat pre-empted by the corresponding moments in K. 415, 413 and 414, seeChapter 1.

30 This presentation of the main theme in the reprise (as in the solo exposition) is also unusual, atleast in relation to the original statement of the theme at the beginning of the movement. AsKonrad Küster explains, the absence of the initial ‘introductory’ bar in the solo exposition andrecapitulation leads to adjustments to these statements of the main theme in order to accommo-date regular phrasing (see bars 81–96 and 242–57) that complement the initial 16-bar statement inthe orchestral exposition (bars 1–16). See Küster, Formale Aspekte, p. 192.

development – smooth dialogue among the piano, winds and strings replacingthe earlier stilted exchange – is enhanced by the harmonic progression in bars235–42: the subtle move from D major to D minor harmony (bars 235–37) andthe use of a diminished seventh (bar 239) to segue smoothly to the dominant ofBb replace the abrupt major/minor shifts (F-b, C-c-Eb) and diminished seventhharmonies that had begun the section.

Just as two types of passages new to Mozart’s piano concerto developmentsections in K. 595/i are closely linked, the second resolving disjunctions from thefirst, so stylistic originality at the end of the recapitulation of the movementrelates closely to innovation in the development. Immediately after its cadentialtrill in bars 334–35, the piano participates in an antecedent/consequent dialoguewith the orchestra (bars 335–38), bringing back material that had preceded the Bminor passage at the beginning of the development (bars 182–85). The orches-tra’s ensuing chromatic line (bars 338–39, corresponding to bars 185–90 and57–58) is followed by a bII6 – I6/4 – V7 progression in the piano (bars 340–42, Ex.3.4, corresponding to bars 59–61 in the orchestral exposition), ultimately recon-firming the tonic Bb in bars 346 and 351–52. Thus at a moment analogous to thepiano’s introduction of B minor at the beginning of the development (namely,after the ascending chromatic lines in the orchestra) as a means for effecting insta-bility, the piano now reintroduces Cb harmony (enharmonically B) as a contribu-tion to tonal stability (i.e. reconfirming Bb), re-establishing the conventionalharmonic function for the sonority as a Neapolitan sixth. Although Mozart hadreintroduced his soloist after the cadential trill (excluding cadenza sections) in K.491/i, and in K. 271/i and 246/i in his Salzburg piano concertos, on none of theseearlier occasions did he lend the reappearance such an explicit and succinct senseof harmonic resolution.31

Viewed collectively, Mozart’s stylistic experiments in K. 537/i and 595/ichallenge fundamental aspects of his earlier concerto writing. Both movementsintroduce abrupt juxtapositions of harmonically contrasting material (the begin-ning of the development section of K. 595 and several aforementioned passages inthe solo exposition and recapitulation sections of K. 537), while avoiding theoutright opposition of piano and orchestral forces evident in Mozart’s earlier


31 In an article on the first movement of K. 595, David Rosen explains the return of the soloist in bar336 as ‘an understandable response to a compositional problem: the incompatibility betweenMozart’s usual formal procedure and the actual musical material of K. 595’. Although I takeRosen’s point that the return of bars 59–75 in bars 340–56 satisfies Mozart’s self-imposed ‘rule’that all the material from the orchestral exposition must reappear at least once in the remainder ofthe movement, I fail to see that the piano’s presence is any more formally effective than wouldhave been a straightforward repetition (or recasting) of the orchestral scoring from the earliersection. Why would Mozart have found it more effective for the orchestra ‘to reenter with a forte’in bar 352 when the orchestra had already asserted its authority with sforzando chords in bars 335and 338 following the piano’s cadential trill? See Rosen, ‘The Composer’s “Standard OperatingProcedure” as Evidence of Intention: the Case of a Formal Quirk in Mozart’s K. 595’, Journal ofMusicology, 5 (1987), p. 86.

Viennese first movements (bars 188–204 of K. 449/i, bars 192–220 of K. 466/i andbars 330–45 of K. 490/i, for example); both experiment with piano figuration,omitting it when expected (after the secondary theme of K. 537) or reconstitutingit at an important formal juncture (the end of the development section of K. 595);and both initiate unexpected thematic and harmonic disjunctions (the uneventransitions in K. 537 and the abrupt harmonic shifts and C-major ‘restart’ to thedevelopment in K. 595). That said, the fundamental feature of Mozart’s grandconcertos, aesthetic and stylistic balance (Chapter 2), remains uncompromised inK. 537/i and K. 595/i, just as in K. 503/i. The solo passage after the secondarytheme of the K. 537 exposition delays the onset of pianistic brilliance, but does notreplace it; the startling segment after the reprise of the orchestral expositiontheme in the K. 537 recapitulation coincides with the onset of piano figurationleading to the final cadential trill, maintaining the important role of solo bril-liance at this juncture of the movement; and the pronounced and understatedstylistic modifications at the beginning and end of the K. 595/i developmentsection do not prevent piano figuration from gaining a foothold in between. Incontinuing the re-invention process initiated in K. 491, then, Mozart developsnew stylistic techniques (a process he began in K. 503) rather than changing hisaesthetic outlook on the genre.

In sum, K. 537/i and K. 595/i are poles apart in overall mood and affect, but areboth concerned at a basic level with similar issues of stylistic experimentation.This is perhaps not surprising when we take into account Alan Tyson’s suggestionthat the first two movements of K. 595 could have been composed betweenDecember 1787 and February 1789 and possibly in the summer of 1788 alongsidethe last trilogy of symphonies; this would put them close to the completion of K.537 in early 1788. But the similar spirit of stylistic experimentation in, andpossible chronological proximity between K. 537 and 595 require us to explainwhy these movements are as they are, an issue that can only be addressed bymoving beyond the confines of their first movements and indeed beyondMozart’s concerto repertory altogether.

76 PIANO CONCERTOS


Mozart’s stylistic experimentation in context

Tyson’s hypothesis that Mozart wrote the first two movements of K. 595 atapproximately the same time as the symphonies Nos. 39, 40 and 41 is supportedby stylistic similarities between experimental passages in the first movement ofthe piano concerto and famous, harmonically audacious passages in the sympho-nies. Close correlations are particularly evident at the beginning of the develop-ment sections of K. 595/i, K. 550/i (Ex. 3.5) and 550/iv (Ex. 3.6), where Mozartemploys very similar compositional devices to matching effect. Just as he precedesthe piano’s re-entry in bar 191 of K. 595/i with chromatic lines that end on dimin-ished seventh harmony, so he initiates the development section of K. 550/i with atwo-chord extension to the Bb – V6/4/3 of G, ascending chromatically from F# – G– G# in the violins and winds and concluding on a diminished seventh chord (seebar 101). In addition, the piano wind descents in stepwise descending thirds in K.595/i (bars 196–97) reappear in identical contexts – immediately followingdiminished seventh harmony and preceding a version of the main theme – in bars102–105 of K. 550/i and 133–35 of K. 550/iv. Moreover, the first point of arrivalfor the chromatic lines (diminished seventh harmony and wind transition in bars100–104 of K. 550/i) corresponds closely to the start of the development section ofK. 595/i, which follows chromatic lines and diminished seventh harmonies: theremote key of F# minor for the statement of K. 550/i’s main theme (bar 105) is onesemitone below the tonic, G, just as the distant B minor at the correspondingjuncture of K. 595/i is one semitone above the tonic, Bb. Equally, the threedifferent diminished seventh harmonies heard over 12 bars of K. 595/i (183–95)are outlined in successive bars in a remarkable segment of K. 550/iv (bars 129–32,Ex. 3.6) deemed ‘almost atonal’ (fast atonal) by one recent writer;32 the forteunison, linear presentation in K. 550/i also corresponds to the forte unison, linearstatement of diminished seventh harmony in the strings in K. 595/i (bars 194–96).Thus Mozart employs the same compositional devices at the same juncture ofeach of his three movements in order to effect strikingly similar harmonicdisjunction, providing the kind of ‘bizarre tonal sequences’ and ‘striking modula-tions’ often remarked upon by Mozart’s contemporaries.33


32 Peter Gülke, ‘Triumph der neuen Tonkunst’: Mozarts späte Sinfonien und ihr Umfeld (Kassel andStuttgart: Bärenreiter-Metzler, 1998), p. 251.

33 Writing in 1801, Johann Karl Friedrich Triest remarked on the ‘bizarre ideas in many of[Mozart’s] instrumental works, which have attracted the criticism of a number of grammarians,’clarifying in a footnote that these included ‘bizarre tonal sequences’. According to Triest, however,Mozart ‘drowns out the voice of criticism . . . by striking modulations etc.’ See ‘Remarks on theDevelopment of Music in German in the Eighteenth Century’, trans. Susan Gillespie in Haydn andhis World, ed. Elaine Sisman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 365, 393. For lateeighteenth- and early nineteenth-century complaints about the complex nature of Mozart’s lateworks, including their harmonic and tonal procedures, see Neal Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies:Context, Performance Practice, Reception (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 529–30.

78 PIANO CONCERTOS

Ex. 3.5: Mozart, Symphony in G minor, K. 550, 1st movement, bars 99–105

Ex. 3.6: Mozart, Symphony in G minor, K. 550, 4th movement, bars 125–35

Connections among daring passages in K. 595/i, 550/i and 550/iv revealstylistic cross-fertilization between Mozart’s concertos and symphonies, illus-trating that stylistic re-invention has important inter-generic implications andmanifestations (on which much more will be said in Chapter 7). Correspon-dences between audacious passages in the first and third movements of K. 537and 595 further reinforce the careful and systematic nature of Mozart’s harmonicexperimentation in the context of his concertos. After the presentation of theB/‘secondary’ theme and shortly before the cadential trill in the dominant in thesonata-rondo finale of K. 537, for example, the piano and orchestra engage in aspiralling, vi6/4 – IV4/2 – II7 – dim7 – II4/2 – dim7 – I – i – bII6 – dim7 – I6/4 progres-sion (bars 126–32). This progression, not found elsewhere at this juncture amongMozart’s rondo-based Viennese piano concerto movements, complementsdistinctive passages from K. 537’s first movement.34 Just as Neapolitan harmonyacts as the starting point for the sequential solo piano progression after thesecondary theme in K. 537/i, providing the impetus for harmonic exploration,now it functions (in bar 130) as the pivot back to the dominant, bringing theharmonic digression to a close; the distinctive, repeated alternation of diminishedtriads and diatonic harmonies in bars 146–51 of K. 537/i is invoked in the II7 –dim7 – II4/2 – dim7 – I progression in bars 127–29 of K. 537/iii; and the abruptjuxtaposition of three different diminished seventh harmonies in bars 210–11 ofK. 537/i shortly before the solo exposition’s cadential trill parallels the appearanceof three different diminished seventh harmonies at the very same formal junctureof K. 537/iii (bars 127, 128, 131). In addition, the beginning of the development(C) section of K. 537/iii closely resembles the opening to the development sectionof K. 595/i both in terms of tonal processes and in terms of the specific devicesused to effect abrupt harmonic transition. Just as stark, forte unisons andascending four-note chromatic lines contribute to harmonic disjunction in K.595/i (for example, bars 194–96 and 185–90), so these same elements are pivotalin effecting a sharp modulation from the dominant of B minor to Bb major in thespace of just four bars in K. 537/iii (184–88, Ex. 3.7; see in particular the F#unison in bars 184–85 and the four-note chromatic ascent in the flutes, oboes,and piano right hand in bars 185–86). Equally, the tonal starting points for bothsections complement each other; whereas the development section of K. 595/ibegins in B minor, a semitone above the tonic key, and is preceded by the domi-nant key, the development (C) section of K. 537/iii begins in Bb major, a semitoneabove the dominant, and is preceded (as expected in a sonata-rondo A’ section)


34 K. 537/iii is best characterized as a sonata-rondo of the ABACBA variety. Unusually in the develop-ment (C) section, Mozart incorporates an adapted repeat of music stretching from the solo themeto the B theme (bars 48–88, recast in bars 204–39) beginning in the subdominant and modulatingto the tonic; thus, an ABACABA categorization would not be inappropriate. Mozart’s pianoconcertos K. 414, 415, 449, 450, 451, 456, 459, 466, 467, 482, 488, 503, 537 and 595 contain finalesin rondo or sonata-rondo form. While two movements in addition to K. 537/iii include cadentialtrills in the dominant at the end of their B sections (K. 456 and 482) and almost all incorporatepiano figuration, only K. 537/iii combines a bold harmonic progression with both of these features.

by the tonic.35 The subsequent arrival of the subdominant key (Eb major, bar 202)in K. 595/i, following major and minor keys a third below (C major, bars197–200; C minor, 201–202), marks an important moment in the developmentsection – the reestablishment of textural fluidity and modulatory stability – just asthe restatement of the piano’s main theme in the subdominant key in K. 537/iii(G major, bar 204), following major and minor keys a third above (Bb major, bars188–95; Bb minor, 196–97), fulfils the important structural function of initiatingan unusual recapitulatory section.

K. 491 re-visited

The crucial question as to which factors we should ultimately attribute Mozart’sharmonic and tonal audacity in K. 537 and 595 remains unanswered. In anoften-cited article from 1984, Rose Rosengard Subotnik identifies Mozart’s lastthree symphonies as works that ‘give musical articulation to an incipient philo-sophical outlook’ in which reason and rationality are compromised by sensuous,irrational and illogical elements.36 The resultant ‘critical worldview’ is evident in‘elements with intrinsic individuality, . . . elements that impair the primacy offunctional significance by calling attention to sensuous values’37 and reveals itself

80 PIANO CONCERTOS

35 The A’ section comprises the piano statement of the main theme in bar 152 and the orchestra’srepeat in bar 159. V/b is established in bar 180.

36 Rose Rosengard Subotnik, ‘Evidence of a Critical Worldview in Mozart’s Last Three Symphonies’,in Developing Variations: Style and Ideology in Western Music (Minneapolis: University of Minne-sota Press, 1991), pp. 98–111; quotation from p. 99. This essay was first published in EdmondStrainchamps, Maria Rika Maniates and Christopher Hatch, eds., Music and Civilization: Essays inHonor of Paul Henry Lang (New York: Norton, 1984), pp. 29–43.

37 Subotnik, ‘Mozart’s Last Three Symphonies’, p. 104.

Ex. 3.7: Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 26 in D, K. 537, 3rd movement, bars184–88

in a number of passages in these three works, including those already cited in K.550. Given the aforementioned parallels between Mozart’s bold symphonic andconcerto passages and the possibly close proximity in composition (or comple-tion) of K. 543, 550, 551, 537 and the first two movements of 595 in 1788, is itconceivable that Mozart’s general outlook or ‘worldview’ underwent a significanttransformation at this time?

Subotnik gives no indication of what may have prompted Mozart’s ‘criticalworldview’ in 1788; nor does stylistic evidence offered here support her generalsupposition that Mozart’s ‘intrinsic individuality’ and ‘sensuous values’ divertedhis attention from ostensibly ‘logical’ or ‘rational’ compositional processes. Onthe basis of musical and contextual approaches to solo/orchestra relations,neither K. 537 nor 595 breaks the familiar mould of prevailing co-operation, aswould have been expected had Mozart undergone a radical change in philosoph-ical outlook. (This is true in spite of modifications to his standard first-movementrelational paradigm.)38 And the use of similar compositional devices in symphonyand concerto at the same structural junctures and to very similar harmonic effect,as well as the cyclic reappearance of these devices in K. 537, suggest a meticulousand organized approach to harmonic experimentation, one that cannot be identi-fied meaningfully as more or less ‘irrational’ than corresponding procedures inearlier works. In the context of the piano concertos at least, one of Subotnik’smanifestations of ‘universal reason’ characterizing the ‘pre-critical’ Enlighten-ment, ‘the necessity of rational resolution within form’,39 is sooner confirmedthan contradicted by Mozart’s harmonically bold and experimental writing.From a formal perspective, the deliberately awkward and unexpected dis-junctions of harmony and instrumental interaction at the beginning of the devel-opment section of K. 595/i necessitates the elegant dialogue and fluid modulatoryprocess at the end of the section and, in turn, the ‘correct’ use of Neapolitanharmony after the cadential trill at the end of the recapitulation; furthermore, thestriking nature of this process is enhanced by the originality of each of thesemoments by comparison with corresponding passages in Mozart’s earlierconcertos.

Although Mozart’s experimentation in K. 537 and 595 cannot be attributedconvincingly to a shift in his philosophical outlook around 1788, it can beexplained as a continuation of the concerto re-invention process initiated in 1786.Mozart’s sequence of piano concertos reached its zenith in 1786, as we have seenin Chapter 2, with K. 491’s climactic integration of grand, intimate and brilliantstylistic qualities. The special significance of K. 491, as well as its immediatesuccessor K. 503, was recognized shortly after his death – Beethoven explained to


38 See Keefe, ‘The Stylistic Significance of the First Movement of Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24 inC minor: A Dialogic Apotheosis’, Journal of Musicological Research, 18 (1999), pp. 248–52, andKeefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 94–96.

39 See Subotnik, ‘Mozart’s Last Three Symphonies’, pp. 101–05 for brief explanations of this andthree other categories.

Johann Baptist Cramer after attending a performance of K. 491 in 1799 that ‘Weshall never be able to do anything like that!’ and Rochlitz remarked in 1798 that K.503 was ‘the most magnificent and difficult of all his hitherto known concertos,which his wife published after his death’ and ‘[maybe] the most magnificent of allthe concertos which have ever been written’40 – and admiration has continued tothe present day.41 Whether intentionally or not, critics have cast an uncertainshadow over K. 537 and 595 by emphasizing the relentless intensity of K. 491 andthe magnificence of K. 503, transcendent qualities that neither of the later worksreplicates. While such comparisons give the impression that K. 537 and 595 aresomething of an anti-climax in affective as well as qualitative terms, an under-standing of the process of stylistic re-invention leads us to a significantly differentand entirely more positive appraisal.

There is evidence in the first movements of both K. 537 and 595 that Mozartreshaped aspects of his concerto style specifically in response to the corre-sponding movement of K. 491. As explained above, the juxtaposition of semi-quaver arpeggios and conjunct writing in equal-length units of K. 537’srecapitulation (bars 395–400) invokes the big confrontation from the develop-ment section of K. 491/i (bars 330–45). However, the innovative quality of thismoment in K. 537/i – its appearance in the recapitulation and its avoidance ofalternating piano and orchestra to oppositional effect – is especially revealing as acompositional response to K. 491/i. For, as we have seen, the correspondingpassage in K. 491/i is itself a climactic moment in Mozart’s concerto oeuvre,invoking passages from earlier works and transcending their level of confronta-tional intensity at the same time.42 Given that the orchestra employed in K. 537 issmaller than that of K. 491, and that Mozart possibly wrote K. 537 to accommo-date performances without wind instruments in any case,43 it is quite likely that hewould have been unable to replicate the extraordinary oppositional force of the K.491 passage even if had wanted to do so. By retaining the musical characteristics ofthe earlier passage, relocating them in a different section and transforming their

82 PIANO CONCERTOS

40 See Elliot Forbes, ed., Thayer’s Life of Beethoven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), p.209, and Maynard Solomon, ‘The Rochlitz Anecdotes: Issues of Authenticity in Early MozartBiography’, in Mozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 24–25.

41 The modern representation of either or both K. 491 and K. 503 as Mozart’s greatest achievementsin the piano concerto genre was solidified in Anglo, French and Germanic critical traditions byDonald Francis Tovey, Cuthbert Girdlestone and Alfred Einstein respectively. Tovey uses an anal-ysis of the first movement of K. 503 ‘to discover the true concerto form’ in his seminal 1903 essay,‘The Classical Concerto’. See Essays in Musical Analysis: Concertos and Choral Works (London,1935–39; reprint London: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 16–23. Girdlestone describes K. 491and K. 503 as ‘the glorious culmination of Mozart’s work as a concerto writer’ in Mozart and hisPiano Concertos, p. 389. And Einstein explains K. 503 as ‘a grandiose conclusion’ to Mozart’s ‘greatperiod of concerto writing’ in Mozart: His Character, his Work, pp. 312, 311.

42 See Keefe, ‘Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24 in C Minor’, p. 243, and Keefe, Mozart’s PianoConcertos, pp. 89–91.

43 See Goertzen, ‘Compromises in Orchestration’.

interactional function, Mozart showed that he could re-work a distinctive stylisticfeature of his piano concertos to innovative effect.

Combined transformation and innovation by comparison with K. 491/i alsocharacterizes the first movement of K. 595. The re-introduction of the piano afterits cadential trill in the recapitulation (excluding the cadenza) occurs only in K.491 and K. 595 among Mozart’s Viennese concertos. In both cases, the piano’sreappearance, together with accompanying orchestral material, illuminates aconnection to the development section. The staccato, arpeggiated figures passedamong the winds after K. 491/i’s cadenza (bars 509–17) have appeared previouslyonly at the end of the development section (bars 355–61); in addition, they arecombined with semiquaver figuration in the right hand of the piano and dottedminims in the left on both occasions. In K. 595/i, as we have seen, the ‘correct’ useof Neapolitan resolves the disjunctive use of B minor at the beginning of thedevelopment, as well as constituting part of an extended formal resolution – thereappearance of material absent since the orchestral exposition. Thus, just asdialogue among the winds in bars 509–17 of K. 491/i fulfils an important struc-tural function, reinforcing the symmetrical balance of interactional groupingscharacteristic of the movement as a whole,44 so the passage after the piano’scadential trill in the K. 595 recapitulation is connected directly to the moststriking harmonic moment in the entire movement; rigour in dialogic organiza-tion exemplified by the concluding passage of K. 491/i gives way to an original,integrated approach to disjunctive and fluid harmonic progressions epitomizedby the corresponding passage of K. 595/i.

Given the formal and dialogic complexity of the first movement of K. 491, it isperhaps no surprise that Mozart experimented with his standard paradigm ofsolo/orchestra relations – dialogic co-operation in the solo exposition and reca-pitulation sections and less intimate, often confrontational exchange in the devel-opment – in the corresponding movements of K. 537, K. 595 and K. 503 as well.45

It is more remarkable, however, that the continuation of re-invention throughstylistic experimentation was so carefully planned for complementary effect in thefirst movements of K. 537 and 595. Mozart’s musical approach in regard to thepiano concerto is consistent in K. 537 and 595, since he contravenes his standardapproaches to harmonic and thematic succession at important formal juncturesand his typical attitudes towards the placement of piano figuration in both move-ments. But the points at which K. 537/i and 595/i are at their most uncompro-mising are quite different: whereas the former is stylistically innovative amongMozart’s piano concertos in the orchestral exposition, solo exposition andrecapitulation sections, the latter breaks new ground in the development and afterthe recapitulation’s cadential trill. Mozart’s experimentation at complementary


44 See Keefe, ‘Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24 in C Minor, K. 491’, especially pp. 237, 244–48, andKeefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 85, 91–94.

45 Keefe, ‘Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24 in C Minor, K. 491’, pp. 248–52, and Keefe, Mozart’sPiano Concertos, pp. 94–96.

locations covering all principal sections of the movement and important stylisticissues of harmony, thematic succession, formal function and piano virtuosity,points to a systematic re-assessment of his compositional modus operandi in thepiano concertos – continued re-invention, then, carried out in organized,methodical fashion.

*

Ultimately, our study necessitates a significant reappraisal of the position of K.537 and 595 in Mozart’s concerto oeuvre. While the commonly held view thatMozart was less interested in the piano concerto in the years 1787–91 than in1782–86 is not unreasonable given his drastic decrease in productivity (twoworks, as opposed to 15, over a similar time period),46 it does not do justice to thesignificance of K. 537 and 595 either as important concertos in their own right oras a complementary pair of innovative works that continue the re-inventionprocess initiated in K. 491. To be sure, Mozart might have composed K. 537 in ahurried fashion, which uniquely among the Viennese piano concerto autographscores is incompletely notated in the solo part. But hasty work on Mozart’s part isnot commensurate, of course, with a lack of compositional rigour or with theabsence of a process of stylistic re-evaluation.47 (After all, how often in hisViennese years was Mozart not up against a pressing compositional deadline ofone sort or another?) By engaging in an organized, self-reflective re-assessment ofimportant facets of his piano concerto style in his last two works, Mozart demon-strated both a persisting commitment and a careful, methodical approach to thegenre, in spite of the relatively brief amount of time it occupied in thecompositional activities of his final years.

Just as critical judgments of K. 537 are clouded by supposed lapses,hurriedness, and disinterest on Mozart’s part, so judgments of K. 595’s position inMozart’s oeuvre – even when the work itself is greatly admired48 – are somewhatmisrepresentative in their combined emphases on the nostalgic, resigned, reti-cent, introspective, and departing qualities of the work. For example, Girdlestonereports on the ‘resignation and nostalgia’ in all three movements, Abert on the‘resigned tone’, (resigniertes Ton) Saint-Foix on a type of enchantment witnessed‘at the end of the day [for Mozart]’, (la fin du jour) Hutchings on ‘an economy andrestraint that make it seem confidential between composer and listener’,Hocquard on the ‘strange detachment’, Einstein on the ‘mood of resignation’ in

84 PIANO CONCERTOS

46 Most recently, Küster explains Mozart’s decrease in concerto productivity as ‘yet another exampleof a genre having served its turn and retreated for a time to the background of his interest’, evendetecting the beginnings of a loss of interest in the 1785–86 concertos. See Küster, Mozart: AMusical Biography, trans. Mary Whittall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 252.

47 In any case, the important passages in the first movement discussed above are all notated in full inthe autograph score in both piano and orchestral parts. See Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, PianoConcerto No. 26 in D major (‘Coronation’), K. 537: the Autograph Score (New York: Dover, 1991).

48 In addition to Einstein’s praise for K. 595 quoted above, Girdlestone comments that K. 595 ‘is inevery point the equal of the finest’. See Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 489.

which ‘every stirring of energy is rejected or suppressed’, Blom on ‘a kind ofchastened mood’, Landon on a work that is ‘no longer restless’ and completelydifferent from ‘the full-blooded concertos of the earlier Viennese period, withtheir infinite promise of things to come’, Hildesheimer on the ‘quality of transfig-ured farewell’, Rosen on the ‘iridescent’ chromaticism of the first-movementdevelopment section conveying an emotion that ‘never disturbs the grace of themelodic line’, and Forman on the first movement as ‘an appropriate epitaph’ toMozart’s concerto sequence.49 It is not that these remarks are necessarily imper-ceptive or inappropriate, but rather that they detract from the central stylisticsignificance of the work by implying that the composer dwells on past achieve-ments in K. 595, and – somehow aware that this would be his final contribution tothe piano concerto genre – signs off with an exquisitely measured swan song. Forhowever much we wish to hear affective qualities of resignation, nostalgia, orrestraint in K. 595, we must conclude that the compositional reality was verydifferent. Nothing if not practical and pragmatic, Mozart was looking decisivelyto the future in both K. 595 and K. 537, attempting in overt and covert fashions tore-invent his approach to the genre.


49 See Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 471; Abert, W.A. Mozart, p. 598; Saint-Foix,W.A. Mozart, vol. 5, p. 175; Hutchings, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 191; Hocquard, La pensée deMozart, p. 206; Einstein, Mozart: His Character, his Work, p. 314; Blom, Mozart, p. 207; Landon,‘The Concertos’, p. 278; Hildesheimer, Mozart, p. 300; Rosen, Classical Style, p. 263; Forman,Mozart’s Concerto Form, p. 248.

. II .

STRING QUARTETS

4

An Integrated ‘Dissonance’:Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ Quartets and the

Slow Introduction of K. 465

EVER since their completion and publication in 1785, Mozart’s six stringrquartets dedicated to Haydn, K. 387 in G, K. 421 in D minor, K. 428 in Eb, K.

458 in Bb, K. 464 in A and K. 465 in C, have elicited strong reactions from musi-cians and critics alike. The private performance of the last three works of the setwith Mozart and Leopold in Vienna on Saturday 12 February 1785, less than amonth after Mozart had finished K. 465, prompts Haydn’s famous proclamationto Leopold: ‘Before God and as an honest man I tell you that your son is thegreatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste and,what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition.’1 The remarkabletechnical proficiency of these works is echoed shortly thereafter by the theoristHeinrich Christoph Koch, who admires ‘their special mixture of the strict and freestyles and the treatment of harmony’ and by Mozart’s first biographer FranzXaver Niemetschek who identifies ‘a treasure-house of the finest thoughts, and amodel and example of the art of composition’ in which everything ‘is carefullyconsidered and perfected’.2 But praise for the ‘Haydn’ quartets was by no meansuniversal in the years following their publication. In the 23 April 1787 edition ofKarl Friedrich Cramer’s influential Magazin der Musik a reporter accuses Mozartof ‘[aiming] too high in his artful and truly beautiful compositions . . . [His] newquartets . . . may well be called too highly seasoned – and whose palate can endurethis for long?’3 Likewise, Dittersdorf – although motivated by a desire in 1788 topromote his own six quartets to Artaria as more marketable than Mozart’s –confirms that the ‘Haydn’ quartets ‘because of their unrelenting, extreme artful-ness . . . are not everyone’s purchase’.4 Other musicians had problems playing

1 See Bauer, Deutsch and Eibl, eds., Briefe, vol. 3, p. 373; translated in Anderson, ed., Letters, p. 886.2 See Koch, Introductory Essay on Composition, p. 207; Deutsch, Documentary Biography, p. 505.

Deutsch quotes from the second edition of Niemetschek’s biography published in Prague in 1808;the first edition dates from 1798.

3 See Deutsch, Documentary Biography, p. 290.4 Quoted in translation in Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies, p. 529. Daniel Heartz remarks on

Dittersdorf’s shrewd skills as a publicist in Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School, 1740–1780(New York: Norton, 1995), p. 449.

them, Giacomo Gotifredo Ferrari commenting on receipt of a copy fromMozart’s student Thomas Attwood in the late 1780s, that he had ‘tried them . . .with various dilettanti and teachers, but we could not play anything but the slowmovements, and even these only with difficulty’ and John Marsh remarking in1799 that he and his fellow musicians ‘found them so very difficult, that . . . noneof us co’d do them anything like justice’.5

Specific criticism of the ‘Haydn’ quartets in the late eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies – pace Koch – invariably focuses on harmonic and tonal issues. AsConstanze reports in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung of 1799: ‘Now and thenthese quartets had a curious fate. When the late Artaria sent them to Italy, hereceived them back “because the engraving was so very faulty” – that is, the manyunfamiliar chords and dissonances were taken there for engraving errors.’6 Need-less to say, the most notorious passage was the slow introduction to the firstmovement of K. 465 (see Ex. 4.1 for its opening bars), source of the quartet’s nick-name the ‘Dissonant’ or ‘Dissonance’. Beginning with Giuseppe Sarti, who,writing between 1784 and 1802, harshly reprimands Mozart for cross relations,nineteenth-century critics treat the introduction as a theoretical cause célèbre.7

François-Joseph Fétis and A.C. Leduc (a pseudonym, in all likelihood forRaphael-Georg Kiesewetter or Peter Lichtenthal) engage in a volatile debate aboutthe merits of this passage between 1829 and 1832, attempting to outdo each otherwith different ‘corrections’ to the opening bars.8 Fétis’ corrections, which softenthe dissonances by delaying the initial A in the first violin by one crotchet and theviola F# and 2nd violin C# by one quaver each, are subsequently praised byAlexandre Oulibicheff in his famous Mozart biography of 1842, on the groundsthat musicians had long considered the dissonance resulting from the 1st violin’sAn inherently wrong.9 In addition, Gottfried Weber (1832) takes issue with theAb/A cross relation in the slow introduction to K. 465, citing the contrary expecta-tions aroused by these two notes. In response, he offers a total of six alternativeversions to Mozart’s opening bars, all of which negate the offending cross rela-tion.10 Even the most influential theorists of the twentieth century, HeinrichSchenker and Arnold Schoenberg, draw attention to these extraordinary openingbars. Schenker claims that ‘the A-flat and the A approach each other so closely

90 STRING QUARTETS

5 See Georges de Saint-Foix, ‘A Musical Traveler: Giacomo Gotifredo Ferrari (1759–1842)’, TheMusical Quarterly, 25 (1939), p. 460, quoted in Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 81; and BrianRobins, ed., The John Marsh Journals: The Life and Times of a Gentleman Composer (1752–1828)(Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon, 1998), p. 701.

6 See Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 79. Although Eisen issues a cautionary note about the truth-fulness of Constanze’s anecdotes in general, he finds no reason to doubt her comments about thereception of the ‘Haydn’ quartets.

7 See Julie Anne Vertrees, ‘Mozart’s String Quartet K. 465: The History of a Controversy’, CurrentMusicology, 17 (1974), pp. 96–114.

8 Ibid., pp. 99–105.9 Ibid., p. 101.10 Ibid., p. 106.

that the ear is tempted to hear them together, and it becomes difficult to make animmediate and clear distinction between the different functions of these twotones’.11 In contrast, Schoenberg acclaims the enduring ‘thrill of novelty’ at thebeginning of K. 465: ‘I feel it over and over again when there is that daring contra-dictory entry of the first violin on A, directly after the A-flat just left by the viola.’12

There is, of course, much more to the chromaticism of K. 465’s slow introduc-tion than the initial Ab/A cross relation, disproportionately emphasized in criticaldiscussions of the section. Evaluating the mysterious, enigmatic quality of thesection as a whole, twentieth-century writers have often strayed into descriptiveor critical hyperbole. For Hermann Abert, in his seminal biography of Mozart, theslow introduction presents ‘the picture of a mind weighed down by gloomyforebodings and striving to master its spiritual oppression’ in which Mozart ‘doesnot leave the stage of unconsciousness. Only in the allegro does the composeropen his eyes, so to speak, and pursue the battle consciously’.13 Eric Blom finds itexceptional in its ‘curiously ambiguous’ methodology in which ‘the riddleremains’. Nevertheless, ‘one could not do without the sharp sting this passagenever fails to give to one’s emotions or even without its ever-new incitement toone’s curiosity’.14 In sympathy with Abert, Marshall Brown identifies the slowintroduction as an early example of a musical ‘reverie’ in which the ‘gradual emer-gence of conscious form out of chaos’ in metrical, tonal and sonorous domains

AN INTEGRATED ‘DISSONANCE’ 91

11 Schenker, Harmony (1906), trans. Oswald Jones (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp.346–47. For a graph of the Adagio introduction to K. 465 see Schenker, Free Composition (Der freieSatz) (New York: Longman, 1979), Fig. 99 (3).

12 ‘On the Question of Modern Composition Teaching’ (1929), in Style and Idea: Selected Writings ofArnold Schoenberg, ed. Leonard Stein (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984 [1st paper-back edition with revisions]), pp. 374–75.

13 Abert, W.A. Mozart, vol. 2, pp. 145–46. Translation from Marshall Brown, ‘Mozart and After: TheRevolution in Musical Consciousness’, Critical Inquiry, 7 (1980–81), pp. 689–706, at p. 697.

14 Blom, Mozart, pp. 214–15.

Ex. 4.1: Mozart, String Quartet in C, K. 465, 1st movement, bars 1–5

foreshadows a type of opening common in the nineteenth century, exemplifying‘the generation of form from within rather than its imposition from without’.15

Mozart’s introduction does nothing less than ‘[call] the genre [of the stringquartet] into question, just as it does the tonality’.16 Most recently, MaynardSolomon, in a tour de force of exaggerated prose, suggests that the opening bars‘immediately plunge into the center of symbiotic terror . . . Here, Mozart hassimulated the very process of creation, showing us the lineaments of chaos at themoment of its conversion to form. He has created an unprecedented network ofdisorientations, dissonances, rhythmic obscurities, and atmospheric dislocations.Without knowing precisely where we are, we know that we are in an alienuniverse.’17

The clear message from secondary sources, then, is that the slow introductionto K. 465 occupies a special place in Mozart’s oeuvre. But the extent to which thepassage represents a point of stylistic climax for Mozart and a hinge for futuredevelopment – that is, a locus of re-invention – requires scrutiny. Howeverinsightful, general critical studies and specific analytical commentaries have notusually situated the slow introduction in its wider compositional context andhave thus failed collectively to address the simple question central to under-standing the section’s possible contribution to a re-invention process: why exactlydid Mozart begin K. 465 in such a rich, intense and ostensibly audacious way? Tobe sure, the Adagio can be explained as an introduction in the traditional func-tional sense of heightening the anticipation of the ensuing Allegro, creating afeeling of arrival at its onset (the darkness to light analogy is common in thesecondary literature, including in a Masonic context18) and predicting many of itsmusical events – motivic, thematic, harmonic, rhythmic etc.19 From a rhetoricalperspective, for example, the Hauptsatz or main idea, understood as ‘the poly-phonic network of all four voices at the beginning of the introduction’ is ‘reinter-preted’ and ‘reconstituted’ in various ways in the ensuing Allegro.20 Equally, theprominent conflict between the Ab and An in bars 1–2 of the introductionre-surfaces later in the first movement and in each of the three subsequent move-ments.21 But according to standard practice in the late eighteenth century, Mozart

92 STRING QUARTETS

15 Brown, ‘Mozart and After’, pp. 698, 694.16 Ibid., p. 701.17 Solomon, Mozart: A Life (New York, 1995), p. 200.18 See Jacques Chailley, ‘Sur la signification cachée du quatuor de Mozart K. 465, dit “les Disso-

nances” et du 7ème quatuor du Beethoven’, in Natalica musicologica: Knud Jeppeson septuagenariocolleges oblata, ed. Bjorn Hjelmborg and Soren Sorensen (Copenhagen: Wilhelm Hansen, 1962),pp. 283–92.

19 See William DeFotis, ‘Rehearings: Mozart, Quartet in C, K. 465’, 19th Century Music, 6 (1982–83),pp. 31–8, at pp. 33–5.

20 See Mark Evan Bonds’ analysis of the slow introduction and exposition of K. 465 in WordlessRhetoric, pp. 102–10. (Quotation taken from p. 102.)

21 See James M. Baker, ‘Chromaticism in Classical Music’, in Music Theory and the Exploration of thePast, ed. Christopher Hatch and David W. Bernstein (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993), pp. 233–307, at pp. 289–91. For other connections between musical procedures in the slow

would have been expected to integrate his slow introduction into the musicalfabric of his quartet in these sorts of ways, irrespective of the content of the intro-duction.22 In short, techniques of inter-sectional integration explain neither theremarkable stylistic and affective contrast between the Adagio and Allegro norMozart’s possible reasons for writing this highly distinctive opening in the firstplace.

In order to gauge the stylistic profile of K. 465’s slow introduction and to ascer-tain its stylistic significance, we must look beyond the confines of K. 465 itself. Asis well known, Mozart draws attention to the connection between his six worksand his dedicatee’s preceding set of quartets by referring explicitly to Haydn’s Op.33 set – on at least one occasion (K. 421/iv) taking a Haydn movement as hismodel (Op. 33, no. 5/iv) – raising the spectre of Haydn’s compositional influenceon Mozart and of Mozart’s professional and personal motivations towardsHaydn.23 In this context, Mark Evan Bonds has suggested that K. 465/i representsa transformation of Haydn’s Op. 33, no. 3/i, Mozart ‘[following] Haydn’s lead innumerous points of texture, rhythm, harmony, and large-scale form . . . whileestablishing the unique identity of his own opening movement’.24

Even if we accept that Mozart’s slow introduction alludes procedurally to theopening of Haydn’s Op. 33, no. 1, both passages undermining the tonic at anunexpected juncture,25 we cannot consider the correlations between the twopassages in question Mozart’s only reason for writing his Adagio in this highlydistinctive way. For K. 465’s Adagio (unlike Haydn’s implicit introduction) also


introduction of K. 465 and those in the second, third and fourth movements, see DeFotis,‘Mozart, Quartet in C, K. 465’, pp. 35–36.

22 The theorist Francesco Galeazzi remarks in 1796: ‘It is good practice that the Introduction (if thereis one) be sometimes recalled in the course of the melody, so that it should not seem a detachedsection and be entirely separated from the rest.’ See Bathia Churgin, ‘Francesco Galeazzi’sDescription (1796) of Sonata Form’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 21 (1968), pp.181–99, at p. 191. On formal and motivic correspondences between Mozart’s slow introductionsand subsequent first-movement material, see Rudolf Klinkhammer, Die langsame Einleitung inder Instrumentalmusik der Klassik und Romantik (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1971), pp.84–93.

23 See Bonds, ‘The Sincerest Form of Flattery?’ pp. 365–409. For an overview of the issue of influencein the second as well as the first half of the 1780s, see Simon P. Keefe, ‘Haydn’s Influence onMozart: the Case of the String Quartet’, Haydn Society of Great Britain Journal, 15 (1995), pp.2–17.

24 Bonds, ‘The Sincerest Form of Flattery?’ pp. 380–87, at p. 387. On the possible influence of K.465/i – both the slow introduction and the Allegro – on the first movement of Beethoven’s stringquartet Op. 59, no. 3, see James Webster, ‘Traditional Elements in Beethoven’s Middle-PeriodString Quartets’, in Beethoven, Performers, and Critics, ed. Bruce Carr and Robert Winter (Detroit,1980), pp. 94–133, at pp. 103–11. Jacques Chailley links K. 465 to Beethoven’s earlier‘Razumovsky’ quartet, Op. 59, no. 1, on account of the connections both quartets exhibit withFreemasonry rituals. See ‘Uber die Bedeutung des Dissonanzen-Quartetts von Mozart und des 7.Quartetts von Beethoven’, Wiener Figaro, 38 (May 1970), pp. 6–14. For general resemblancesbetween the opening of K. 465 and openings of several nineteenth-century and early twenti-eth-century works, see DeFotis, ‘Mozart, Quartet in C, K. 465’, pp. 37–38.

25 Bonds, ‘The Sincerest Form of Flattery?’ pp. 383–84.

stretches the slow introductory paradigm from the 1780s to its limits. While a con-temporary symphonic section typically consists of ‘a stable tonic passage at thebeginning and a stable dominant passage at the end, with or without interveningmaterial or clear paragraph divisions’, and opens with a ‘memorable rhythmicprofile’,26 Mozart’s K. 465 famously clouds the tonic with tonally nebulous andrhythmically indistinctive entries in the viola, 2nd violin and 1st violin at thebeginning, a segue to a Bb pedal via F# to Bb stepwise motion in the cello (bars 4–5)after the establishment of V6/5 in bar 4 (see Ex. 4.1), and the sequential repeat ofbars 1–4 a whole tone lower in bars 5–8. Even the establishment of the structuraldominant as the inevitable ‘goal’ of a slow introduction27 is compromised in K.465; the chromatic intensity of the bars preceding the establishment of the domi-nant in bar 16 is more than a means to an end, drawing attention to its own luxuri-ance through a striking V7 – half dim. – VI7 – v6/5 – V6/5 – I – dim. – dim. – v6 –vi7 – bVI7 – iv6 – Italian Aug. 6th – V progression in bars 13–16. Given the richvein of chromaticism running through the ‘Haydn’ works, noted by almost everycommentator, K. 465’s Adagio could be heard as a harmonic climax to the set as awhole as much as it is heard as an introduction to the ensuing Allegro of the firstmovement – a view we shall investigate in more detail below. In any case, theAdagio’s problematic status as an introduction per se is a sufficient reason forextending an investigation of it to small-scale procedures and large-scale organi-zation in Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ quartets, in an attempt to gauge the function andsignificance of this remarkable passage in the context of the complete ‘Haydn’ setand, indeed, Mozart’s Viennese string chamber music repertory in its entirety.

K. 465/i and the ‘Haydn’ set

The overall tonal and formal arrangement of the ‘Haydn’ quartets (see Fig. 4.1below), with K. 465 as the final work of the set, demonstrates careful and cogentplanning on Mozart’s part, even in spite of a protracted compositional genesisthat included a break of at least one year between summer 1783 and late 1784.28

Each quartet features three movements in the tonic and a slow movement in the

94 STRING QUARTETS

26 See Webster, Haydn’s ‘Farewell’ Symphony, p. 162 and Elaine R. Sisman, ‘Genre, Gesture, andMeaning in Mozart’s “Prague” Symphony’, in Mozart Studies 2, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford:Clarenden Press, 1997), pp. 27–84, at p. 33. For comprehensive surveys of slow introductionsfrom the classical period, see Klinkhammer, Die langsame Einleitung, and Marianne Danckwardt,Die langsame Einleitung: Ihre Herkunft und Ihr Bau bei Haydn und Mozart (Tutzing: HansSchneider, 1977).

27 Webster, Haydn’s ‘Farewell’ Symphony, p. 163.28 On the genesis of the ‘Haydn’ quartets, see Tyson, Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, pp.

82–105. Mozart planned a six-work set from the start. In a letter to the publisher J.G. Sieber on 26April 1783 (at which point he had completed only K. 387) Mozart explained that he had been‘composing six quartets for two violins, viola and cello’. See Bauer, Deutsch and Eibl, eds., Briefe,vol. 3, p. 266, and Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 846. Since Mozart, on at least one occasionin 1781, distinguished between composing and writing music out – ‘Of course, I composed a lotbut wrote down nothing’ (Bauer, Deutsch and Eibl, eds., Briefe, vol. 3, p. 121; Anderson, ed. and

subdominant (or the relative major in the minor-key work, K. 421); and adjacentpairs of quartets (i.e. K. 387 and 421, 428 and 458, 464 and 465) alternate theplacement of minuet and slow movements.29 This careful tonal and formal plan-ning is not unique to the ‘Haydn’ works among Mozart’s string quartet sets. Thethree-movement quartets, K. 155–160, composed in Northern Italy in 1772 andearly 1773, are arranged in a descending circle of 5ths (the keys ofD–G–C–F–Bb–Eb) with major-key slow movements in the outer works andminor-key slow movements in the second, third, fourth and fifth. In addition, theK. 168–73 set, written in Vienna in August and September 1773, places the slowmovement third in the middle quartets (K. 170, 171) and second in the first,second, fifth and sixth, closing the first and last quartets in the sequence with fugalfinales (K. 168 and 173). Mozart even demonstrates sensitivity towards overalllayout in his three late ‘Prussian’ quartets, choosing different tempi, characterindications, and meters for his outer movements, and perhaps rejecting an initial6/8 finale to K. 590 because it would have reproduced the 6/8 character of the K.589 finale.30

In the ‘Haydn’ set, Mozart strengthens formal, tonal and structural affinitiesamong quartets by connecting symmetrically arranged works (i.e. K. 387 and 465,421 and 464, 428 and 458). The keys of the ‘paired’ works are situated a fifth apart(G and C, d and A, Eb and Bb), and the quartets linked in other ways as well. K. 421and 464, for example, are the only two featuring theme and variation movements,and the only two with slow movements not cast in sonata or slow-movementsonata form; K. 428 and 458, the middle works in the set, are the only ones in flatkeys, the Bb tonality of K. 428’s trio predicting the tonality of K. 458. The linksbetween K. 387 and K. 465 are, perhaps, strongest of all. They are the only twoquartets with trio sections in the tonic minor; their adjustments to the straight-forward exposition-development-recapitulation sonata design occur in comple-mentary movements (the finale of K. 387 and the first movement of K. 465); andthey both demonstrate thematic and motivic links to Mozart’s G-minor frag-ment, K. 587a, probably written contemporaneously with K. 387.31

In addition to ‘pairing’ works, Mozart accentuates other affective and proce-dural connections between his six quartets. The overall ‘character’ of each workreveals a careful arrangement of the whole, the colourful inner works (K. 421, 428,458, 464) complementing the less complex outer works (K. 387, 465).32 In more


trans., Letters, p. 737) – it is not impossible that many ideas for his six quartets were already inplace in his mind when he wrote to Sieber in April 1783.

29 The original Artaria edition from 1785 features K. 428 and 458 in reverse order, thus alternatingminuet and slow movements from work to work across the set.

30 See Christoph Wolff, ‘Creative Exuberance vs. Critical Choice: Thoughts on Mozart’s QuartetFragments’, in The String Quartets of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven: Studies of the AutographManuscripts (Isham Library Papers, III), ed. Christoph Wolff and Robert Riggs (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 191–210, at p. 199.

31 Ibid., p. 202.32 See Wilhelm Seidel, ‘Sechs musikalische Charaktere: Zu den Joseph Haydn gewidmeten

Streichquartetten von Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1984/85, pp. 125–29.

specific thematic terms, three Allegro movements from the ‘Haydn’ set, K. 458/i,464/i and 464/iv, are interrupted by melodically related passages predominantlyin semibreves and minims; according to Georg Knepler, these and several otherpassages from the set invoke the ‘Es lebe die Liebe’ motto from Die Entführung ausdem Serail, in the process strengthening motivic connections between works inthe series.33 The rapprochement between minuet and sonata movement-types inall six minuets also brings Mozart’s cyclical conception to the fore.34 Further-more, these minuets demonstrate similar compositional strategies, playing withphrase structures and deploying ‘unexpected suspensions, mutually contradic-tory elements of passagework, and other examples of harmonic audacity in thefour-part writing’.35

It is possible that the integration of the individual ‘Haydn’ quartets is typical ofMozart’s thinking in his multi-opus published works in general. Ellwood Derr hasexplained that the three piano concertos published as Opus 4 in 1785 ‘coalesce . . .into one splendidly integrated larger work, in which operations set forth in K. 414are expanded upon in K. 413 and finally culminated in K. 415’, offering additional

96 STRING QUARTETS

33 Knepler, Wolfgang Amadè Mozart, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1995), pp. 243–45.

34 See Walter Pfann, ‘ “Ein bescheidener Platz in der Sonatenform . . .” Zur formalen Gestaltung desMenuetts in den “Haydn-Quartetten” Mozarts’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 52 (1995), pp.316–36, at p. 335.

35 Küster, Mozart: A Musical Biography, p. 195.

Fig. 4.1: The tonal and formal arrangement of the ‘Haydn’ quartets

K. 387 K. 4211. G – Sonata form d – Sonata form2. G/g – Minuet and trio F – Ternary (ABA)3. C – Slow mvt. Sonata form d/D – Minuet and trio4. G – Sonata form/fugue d – Theme and variations

K. 428 K. 4581. Eb – Sonata form Bb – Sonata form2. Ab – Sonata form Bb – Minuet and trio3. Eb/Bb – Minuet and trio Eb – Slow mvt. Sonata form4. Eb – Sonata rondo (ABACBA) Bb – Sonata form

K. 464 K. 4651. A – Sonata form C – Sonata form (with slow introduction)2. A/E – Minuet and trio F – Slow mvt. Sonata form3. D – Theme and variations C/c – Minuet and trio4. A – Sonata form C – Sonata form

evidence of Mozart’s perception of ‘opus-wholeness’ in the collective publicationof the six violin sonatas K. 296, 376, 377, 378, 379 and 380 as Opus 2 in Vienna in1781.36 The Opus 10 ‘Haydn’ quartets, like the piano concertos Opus 4, wereperformed collectively on at least one occasion (Saturday 15 January 1785), givingthe ‘audience’, most notably the dedicatee, an opportunity to appreciate thesubtleties of the set’s organization first hand.37

The appearance of an especially startling opening gambit in the last quartet ofthe ‘Haydn’ series, K. 465, rather than in any of the preceding five,38 together withthe cohesive structure of the set, offer clues to the function of Mozart’s extraordi-nary slow introduction in the set as a whole. On the one hand, the introduction’stopical content – the fantasia style replete with connotations of musical freedomand uncertainty, creative imagination and peculiarity of effect – unfolds in aself-evidently original way in the context not only of the ‘Haydn’ quartets but ofMozart’s entire instrumental oeuvre, ‘[transforming] tonality itself into a topic’ inunique fashion.39 On the other hand, however, its most striking harmonic proce-dures – the chordal build-up in the opening bars, the descending bass linethrough bVII to bVI and the manner of establishing the dominant – are drawn to aremarkable degree from Mozart’s earlier works in the set. These procedures fromMozart’s first five works, heard at moments that are functionally and/orpositionally analogous to the K. 465 Adagio, are certainly modified and intensi-fied in the K. 465 introduction; they are also combined in such a way as to estab-lish the Adagio’s role as a harmonic culmination to the cycle.

The striking cross relation and modally uncertain opening to K. 465’s Adagio,resulting from the initial, individual entries on C, Ab, Eb and A in bars 1 and 2, arepre-figured in K. 421/i, K. 428/i and 428/ii. The four-bar unison opening to K.428/i, for example, sets an An dotted minim in bar 2 against an Ab minim in bar 4,


36 See Derr, ‘Some Thoughts on the Design of Mozart’s Opus 4, the “Subscription Concertos” (K.414, 413, 415)’, in Mozart’s Piano Concertos, ed. Zaslaw, pp. 187–210, at p. 190.

37 See Leopold’s letter to Nannerl of 22 January 1785 in which he explained that ‘last Saturday[Mozart] performed his six quartets for his dear friend Haydn and other friends, and . . . has soldthem to Artaria for a hundred ducats’ in Bauer, Deutsch and Eibl, eds., Briefe, vol. 3, p. 368; andAnderson, ed. and trans., Letters of Mozart, p. 885.

38 The opening of K. 428/i is also remarkable, Hans Keller labelling the first four bars an ‘anti-tonalmotif’. See ‘The Chamber Music’, in The Mozart Companion, ed. Landon and Mitchell, pp.90–137, at p. 122. But the radical opening of K. 428/i dictates the entire course of the first move-ment in a more pronounced fashion than the slow introduction to K. 465, thus standing out fromsubsequent material in a less vivid way than the opening material of the later quartet. As Wye J.Allanbrook writes in her engaging interpretation of K. 428/i: ‘This opening quietly confounds theconventional initiatory codes, and the movement takes its course from there, stressing the piquantand the disjunct; to describe the progress of the exposition is to describe a string of the contingentand the arbitrary.’ See ‘ “To Serve the Private Pleasure”: Expression and Form in the String Quar-tets’, in Wolfgang Amadè Mozart: Essays on his Life and Music, ed. Stanley Sadie (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996), pp. 132–60, at p. 156.

39 See V. Kofi Agawu, Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 47. On the fantasia style in general, see Ratner, Classic Music,pp. 308–15.

exploits this opposition in the ‘genuinely shocking dissonance of the movement’(bars 23–24) when the two notes are heard as a cross relation in the first violin andviola,40 and playfully interchange the two notes in the subsequent bars of the tran-sition (25–29). The dissonance created by the An at the opening is certainlydifferent in effect to the corresponding dissonance in bar 2 of K. 465; while theformer acts as a chromatic lower neighbour note, resolving to Bb in the same barand initiating further chromatic neighbour notes in bar 3, the latter is left exposedin a more striking fashion. The procedural connection between the opening of K.428/i and bars 1 and 2 of K. 465 is rendered more explicit, however, at the begin-ning of the development section (Ex. 4.2); overlapping dominant- and tonic-orientated statements of the main theme in bars 69–72 and 71–74 of K. 428/i leadto an alternation of Abs and an An (bars 73–74), including a cross relation betweenthe second violin and viola/cello, in the process of confirming the key of C minor.The ensuing two bars of repeated quaver Cs in the cello (bars 75–76), markedpiano, reinforce the link between this passage and the opening two bars of K. 465.Equally, Eb and An, heard as the third interval in bar 2 of K. 465, form the secondinterval of K. 428 (bars 1–2), again in the context of both a piano dynamic and astriking texture (the unison opening of K. 428 and the high, protruding An in K.465). Just as Eb and An are juxtaposed in K. 465 (bar 2) in the context of an imita-tive process in C minor/major, so they are also juxtaposed starkly in the imitationat the beginning of K. 428/i’s development section in the course of a modulationto C minor (bar 72, Ex. 4.2). The Eb/A ‘dissonance’ is realized in an especiallypotent fashion, moreover, in the development section of K. 428/ii, establishing itas an important ‘motif’ in the quartet as a whole. Imitation in inversion from bars45ff. (see Ex. 4.3), complementing the imitative entries at the opening of K. 465,culminates in bar 48 in a remarkable juxtaposition of Eb minor harmony and anA-major triad in the viola (spelled, enharmonically, as Db, Fb, Bbb). Given the veryclose proximity between the composition of K. 428/ii and K. 421/i,41 it is nosurprise that the Eb/A relationship, realized in startling fashion in K. 428/ii,surfaces in the corresponding section of the D minor work as well. Here, thedevelopment begins by lurching into Eb, subsequently modulating quickly to A(see bars 42–50).

Just as the cross relation and the Eb/A juxtaposition from bars 1–2 of K. 465 areforeshadowed in dramatic fashion in K. 421 and 428, so thematic material andmusical procedures from the K. 465 Adagio are presaged in K. 421, 428, 458 and464. At the beginning of K. 428/ii (bars 6–7), for example, the imitative entriesone beat apart and in ascending order, marked piano and with quavers in the celloare similar to bars 1 and 2 of K. 465. In addition, the second theme from the expo-sition of the slow movement of K. 458 (bars 14ff., Ex. 4.4) redistributes all of theprincipal elements from K. 465’s opening bars: the entry of each instrument in

98 STRING QUARTETS

40 Allanbrook, ‘Expression and Form in the String Quartets’, p. 156.41 Alan Tyson has suggested that Mozart began K. 421 at the time at which he was completing the

slow movement of K. 428. See Studies of the Autograph Scores, p. 85.

ascending order, culminating in the 1st violin a sixth above the cello, the repeatednotes in the cello subsequently descending in semitones, and a sequential repeat awhole-tone lower (bars 15 and 16) all foreshadow K. 465. The finale of K. 464 –completed only four days before its successor according to Mozart’s Verzeichnüssdates of 10 January and 14 January 1785 respectively – anticipates K. 465 on twooccasions. At the beginning of the development section, a bar of repeated quavers(marked piano) in the cello (bar 85) precedes an ascending sequence of imitativeentries (again marked piano), as in K. 465. The imitated motif itself resembles theinitial imitated figure in the K. 465 slow introduction, both featuring aminim–crotchet–crotchet–minim (dotted crotchet in K. 465) chromatic unit.The final bars of K. 464/iv also anticipate the beginning of K. 465: the 1st violinconcludes K. 464 and begins K. 465 on the same note (a’’); and the inner voicesend K. 464 with pianissimo, four-note chromatic motifs (minim–crotchet–crotchet), resuming at the opening of K. 465 with motivically, rhythmically anddynamically similar figures in the same register.

Thematic and procedural foreshadowing of the opening bars of K. 465 iscomplemented by harmonic foreshadowing of the Adagio section in K. 387 and421. The establishment of the dominant in bars 14–16 of the Adagio (harmoni-cally annotated in Ex. 4.5a and discussed above) is a close re-working of bars65–66 from K. 421/i (see Ex. 4.5b). The harmonic progressions are audiblysimilar, featuring consecutive diminished chords, submediant minor 7th


Ex. 4.2: Mozart, String Quartet in Eb, K. 428, 1st movement, bars 69–76

Ex. 4.3: Mozart, String Quartet in Eb, K. 428, 2nd movement, bars 45–48

harmony and an Italian Augmented 6th – V preceded by a subdominant minorchord in first inversion (which is, admittedly, a fairly routine harmonic precursorto the Augmented 6th); both incorporate chromatic motion in the first violin andcello; and both end with similar semiquaver figurations in the 1st violin. The twopassages also occur at analogous moments, the establishment of the dominant inpreparation for the exposition in K. 465 complementing the establishment of thedominant in preparation for the recapitulation in K. 421. The most harmonicallycolourful passage in the slow movement of K. 387 (bars 58–69), the secondarydevelopment, also begins by foreshadowing the Adagio introduction to K. 465. Inbars 58–62 (Ex. 4.6), the cello’s distinctive bass line aligns closely to that of the firstnine bars of K. 465: the C–F# corresponds to bars 1–4 of K. 465, the Bb–E to bars5–8 and the Ab to bar 9. Moreover, the imitative nature of the K. 387 passagedescending sequentially by a whole tone, with chromatic movement in the innervoices and a piano dynamic, again predicts the opening of K. 465. The minuetsfrom K. 387 and 421 also foreshadow K. 465’s outlined progression – once morein imitative contexts – from tonic to bVI via bVII in bars 1–9. The beginning of thereprise in K. 387/ii features a I – V – nVII – IV6 – bVI progression (bars 63–70); andthe opening of K. 421/iii a I – V6 – nVII –IV6 – Augmented 6th progression (bars1–7), also incorporating the chromatically descending bass line characteristic ofK. 465 (bars 1–10).

Viewed collectively, the anticipations of distinctive processes from K. 465’sAdagio underscore systematic working on Mozart’s part. In keeping with thecareful organization and integration of individual works in his ‘Haydn’ set(discussed above), Mozart foreshadows the K. 465 Adagio in each of his precedingfive quartets. Almost every striking procedure from the introduction – the initial‘dissonances’ heard in an imitative context, the chromatically descending bassline in conjunction with a distinctive progression from tonic to bVI harmony viabVII, and the rich segue to V in preparation for the exposition – is anticipatedearlier in the set. Moreover, the relevant material in K. 387–464 invariably occursat a moment that is positionally and/or functionally analogous to the anticipatedmaterial, namely at the beginning of a movement (K. 421/iii, K. 428/i, K. 428/ii) orsection (K. 421/i, bars 42–50; K. 428/i, bars 69–75; K. 464, bars 85–88), during the

100 STRING QUARTETS

Ex. 4.4: Mozart, String Quartet in Bb, K. 458, 3rd movement, bars 14–16


Ex. 4.5a: Mozart, String Quartet in C, K. 465, 1st movement, bars 13–16

Ex. 4.5b: Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, 1st movement, bars 65–66

Ex. 4.6: Mozart, String Quartet in G, K. 387, 3rd movement, bars 58–62

secondary development, where remaining in the tonic is the goal rather thanmodulating to the dominant (K. 387/ii, bars 63–70; K. 387/iii, bars 58–62),42 or aspart of establishing the dominant in preparation for a return to the tonic (K.421/i, bars 65–66). Thus, the remarkable opening to K. 465 is thoroughly inte-grated into the musical argument of the ‘Haydn’ set, combining and intensifyingmany of the most memorable procedures from earlier quartets in such a way as torepresent an appropriate apotheosis to the complete cycle.

K. 465’s slow introduction as peroration

The integration of K. 465’s Adagio opening into the ‘Haydn’ set as a whole, thesection’s status as a climactic composite of earlier passages, and its startlingcontrast with the succeeding Allegro material, necessitates a serious re-evaluationboth of the Adagio’s compositional function and of its significance to stylisticre-invention in Mozart’s string quartet oeuvre. As discussed above, the Adagiofulfils a standard introductory role of predicting musical events that occur later inthe movement (and in the second, third, and fourth movements as well). In addi-tion, the opening demonstrates musical qualities analogous to those of therhetorical exordium. As Warren Kirkendale notes, Cicero distinguishes betweentwo types of exordium ‘the principium, in plain and direct language . . . and theinsinuatio or “subtle approach”, used to captivate a hostile audience byapproaching the arguments unobtrusively and indirectly’.43 The beginning of K.465 aligns with the insinuatio type often found in Baroque ricercars, in which ‘thevoices creep in quietly one by one, gradually and almost imperceptibly increasingthe number of parts from one, to two, three, four, with unobtrusive subjectsavoiding large leaps or faster rhythms’.44 At the same time, however, the Adagiocertainly transcends a basic function of the exordium, starkly contradicting thecommonly articulated requirement that, in Quintilian’s words, ‘The style . . .should not resemble that of our purple patches . . . nor yet should it be prolix orcontinuously ornate; it should seem simple and unpremeditated.’45

The Adagio’s references to passages and procedures from K. 387, 421, 428, 458and 464, summarizing many of the most remarkable moments from the ‘Haydn’quartets in climactic fashion, represents less a harbinger of opus ‘unity’ – a

102 STRING QUARTETS

42 Although K. 387/ii is a minuet and trio movement, its expansive minuet structure and pretensionstowards a synthesis of minuet and sonata forms have been well documented. See, in particular,Wolfram Steinbeck, ‘Mozart’s “Scherzi”: Zur Beziehung zwischen Haydns Streichquartetten op.33 and Mozarts Haydn-Quartetten’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 41 (1984), pp. 208–31, espe-cially pp. 221–27. See also Walter Pfann, ‘ “Ein bescheidener Platz in der Sonatenform . . .” ’, pp.334–36.

43 Kirkendale, ‘Ciceronians versus Aristotelians on the Ricercar as Exordium, from Bembo to Bach’,Journal of the American Musicological Society, 32 (1979), pp. 1–44, at p. 26.

44 Ibid., p. 27.45 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, trans. H.M. Hubbell (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

1920 [reprint 1989]), vol. 4, pp. 58–60. Quoted in Irving, Mozart’s Piano Sonatas, p. 120.

problematic concept in any case – than a sophisticated rhetorical peroration tothe set as a whole. Like an exordium, a peroration must be an ‘[aid] to memory’,(Aristotle)46 and must speak to the emotions of the listener, in the processsummarizing facts and recollecting arguments from the main body of theoration.47 As has been ably demonstrated, allusions and quotations in concludingsections of several of Haydn’s and Mozart’s variation movements produceperorational effects.48 In addition, Mozart’s longest and most intricate symphonicslow introduction, that of the ‘Prague’ Symphony, K. 504 (1786), ends with anine-bar passage (bars 28–36) that is classifiable as a peroration in topical andrhetorical terms.49 Just as the ‘wracking dissonance’ in bars 28–30 of the ‘Prague’‘[works] on the emotions of the audience’ and motivic material in bars 32–35summarizes arguments from earlier in the section,50 so the taut dissonances andother distinctive harmonic procedures in the introduction to K. 465 fulfil bothroles simultaneously for the complete ‘Haydn’ set. Thus, in a tour de force ofingenuity, Mozart infuses his exordial Adagio with the qualities of a peroration,cleverly rendering it both an ‘introduction’ sui generis and a moment of recollec-tion par excellence.

In addition to representing a peroration, the collective invocations of K. 387,421, 428, 458 and 464 at the opening of K. 465 shed light on Mozart’scompositional motivations in the ‘Haydn’ set as a whole. As Wye J. Allanbrookhas argued – taking Koch’s remark that chamber music should ‘serve the privatepleasure of the regent or the court’ as her point of departure – Mozart’s ‘Haydn’quartets are replete with sophisticated inter-textual musical processes that wouldhave appealed only to the connoisseur, illustrating ‘topical and combinatorialprocesses at their purest, in a kind of composer’s laboratory’.51 Inter-textualsophistication, cited by Allanbrook in connection with topical analysis, reaches itszenith in K. 465’s allusions to earlier quartets from the ‘Haydn’ set; the identifica-tion of these allusions, moreover, would have challenged even the most accom-plished connoisseur in Mozart’s audience, the dedicatee. Mozart couldconceivably have intended invocations of his own quartets in the K. 465 Adagio asa complement to his invocations of Haydn’s Op. 33 set in, for example, K. 421/ivand 428/iii. Just as K. 421/iv’s and 428/iii’s overt references to Haydn’s thematicmaterial and formal procedures would have encouraged connoisseurs – Haydn inparticular – to determine how Mozart departed from his models in radicalfashion, so K. 465’s invocations of, and procedural allusions to his own quartets


46 Quoted in Irving, Mozart’s Piano Sonatas, p. 119.47 See Elaine R. Sisman, ‘Pathos and Pathétique: Rhetorical Stance in Beethoven’s C-Minor Sonata,

Op. 13’, Beethoven Forum 3, ed. Christopher Reynolds (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press,1994), pp. 81–105, at pp. 87–88, and Sisman, Haydn and the Classical Variation (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 47.

48 See Sisman, Haydn and the Classical Variation, pp. 139–142, 150, 223.49 Sisman, ‘Mozart’s “Prague” Symphony’, pp. 33–45.50 Ibid., pp. 44–45.51 Allanbrook, ‘Expression and Form in the String Quartets’, p. 135.

would have encouraged speculation as to how Mozart turned the resultant mate-rial into the highpoint of harmonic intensity in the cycle. Moreover, just asMozart’s references to Haydn’s quartets are, irrespective of his motivationstowards his elder in personal and professional terms, a recognition of both theimportance and potential of this music (after all, Mozart would not have adaptedanother composer’s material for his own compositional purposes had he consid-ered the original material musically unworthy), so the musical collage that is K.465’s Adagio implicitly acknowledges the importance and significance of hismaterial. Through actively contemplating his own achievements from K. 387–464in the Adagio of K. 465, Mozart constructs a rarefied peroration, one that encap-sulates the homogeneous conception of the set.

But the stylistic implications of Mozart’s introduction to K. 465 are wideranging and not limited to the ‘Haydn’ set. The very feature underscoring homo-geneity in the set as a whole – Mozart’s integration of musical procedures from thefirst five ‘Haydn’ quartets at the beginning of K. 465 to climactic harmonic effect –actually denies a sense of homogeneity to the opening sections of K. 465/i. Thecontrast between the chromatic, harmonically lavish Adagio and the diatonic,harmonically straightforward first theme section in the Allegro is stark, unprece-dented in fact in the ‘Haydn’ set. But the combination of stylistically climacticwriting generated from Mozart’s contemplation of earlier passages on the onehand, and procedural innovation (strong sectional contrast) on the other is notparadoxical – it lies at the heart of Mozart’s process of re-invention, as we havealready seen in the piano concertos. K. 449/i engenders a new style of confronta-tion from an intensification of existing musical procedures, precipitating a newapproach to the balancing of stylistic qualities, and K. 491 and 503 collectivelycombine climactic passages of grandeur/intimate grandeur and the beginnings ofstylistic re-alignment; in similar fashion, K. 465/i brings together stylistic intensi-fication (in the harmonic domain) and innovation. The initiation of stylisticchange in K. 503 pursued systematically in the final concertos K. 537 and 595finds a parallel, moreover, in K. 465/i and its relationship to Mozart’s final stringquartets. As we shall see in Chapter 5, the three ‘Prussian’ quartets, K. 575, 589and 590, extend considerably the type of contrast witnessed in K. 465/i, pointingto Mozart’s re-alignment of key stylistic and aesthetic features of the genre.

104 STRING QUARTETS

5

Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ Quartets, K. 575, 589 and 590:Towards a New Aesthetic of the String Quartet

MOZART wrote only four string quartets after completing the ‘Haydn’ set inr1785, the ‘Hoffmeister’ (K. 499) in August 1786 and the ‘Prussian’ quartets

(K. 575, 589 and 590) dated June 1789, May 1790 and June 1790 respectively. Justas late eighteenth-century writers single out the ‘Haydn’ quartets for criticalattention on account of harmonic and tonal intricacies (see Chapter 4), so theyalso refer to striking technical and affective qualities of Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quar-tets, casting the works in a positive light. A death notice in the FranckfurterKayserliche Reich-Ober-Post-Amtszeitung on 7 December 1791 praises the ‘Prus-sian’ works, ‘in which . . . [Mozart] nearly surpassed himself in art, modulationand intensity of expression’.1 In addition, Artaria announcements in December1791 and January 1792 – albeit with a vested interest in selling printed copies –explain that they were ‘received with such general acclamation’ and are among‘the most estimable . . . of the composer Mozart . . . [displaying] all that musicalinterest in respect of art, beauty and taste which must awaken pleasure and admi-ration not only in the amateur, but in the true connoisseur’.2

While it is wise to remain circumspect about writers’ motivations forexpressing lofty sentiments about K. 575, 589 and 590 either in the wake ofMozart’s death or in view of personal financial advancement, the references thesecontemporary writers make to specific musical features suggest a level of admira-tion that is strangely lacking – relatively speaking – in subsequent influential writ-ings. The great nineteenth-century champion of Mozart’s music Otto Jahn, forexample, gives a decidedly mixed report. He claims that ‘there is more stress laidupon elegance and clearness than upon depth and warmth of tone’ citing ‘defer-ence no doubt to the King’s taste’, and recognizes ‘motifs and working-outportions . . . less important’ than expected from Mozart, and identifies ‘middlemovements . . . very fine as to form and effect, but . . . without any great depth offeeling’. Thus, ‘these quartets completely maintain Mozart’s reputation forinventive powers, sense of proportion and mastery of form, but . . . lack that

1 See Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 72.2 Deutsch, Mozart: A Documentary Biography, pp. 436 and 427–28.

absolute devotion to the highest ideal of art characteristic of the earlier ones’.3 Theambivalent reception of Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets persists in twentieth-centurycriticism. In broad agreement with Jahn, Eric Blom maintains that these works are‘more superficial in expression than the six dedicated to Haydn’, on account oftheir need to placate the supposed dedicatee, the King of Prussia, with ‘flatteringlyelaborate cello parts’. While they ‘come . . . near to Mozart’s high-water mark inquartet writing’ they possess neither ‘the depth of the earlier set, nor quite thewonderfully adjusted craftsmanship and polished grace of the separate Quartet inD major (K. 499) – and do not reveal the composer so intimately’.4 And HansKeller, characterizing the ‘Prussian’ quartets as Mozart’s ‘problem’ of having towrite prominent cello parts for the King and his ‘solution’ of writing soloisticallyfor all four instrumentalists, finds one movement – the minuet of K. 590 – inwhich the ‘problem has not been completely solved’.5 He concludes with a dispar-aging remark about K. 590 as a whole: ‘In any case, this is not a last quartet in thesense in which the “Jupiter” is a last symphony.’6 Even Georges de Saint-Foix,incisive and highly positive in his evaluation of the ‘Prussian’ quartets in general,remains doubtful about several movements, in particular the first movement ofK. 590, which features counterpoint in the development section bordering on‘savagery’ (sauvagerie) and a ‘bare, strange’ coda that suggests ‘an empty anxiety’(un vide inquiétant).7

Writers on biographical and stylistic issues in Mozart’s oeuvre often directtheir remarks on the ‘Prussian’ quartets towards Mozart’s soloistic cello writing.8

This is understandable, not least from an historical perspective; both the Artariaadvertisement of 28 December 1791 and Franz Niemetschek’s early biography ofMozart from 1798 refer to K. 575, 589 and 590 as concertante quartets, a populargenre in the late eighteenth century commonly featuring (as in the ‘Prussian’works) soloistic prominence of individual instruments and frequent exchange offull periods and phrases.9 Important though this concertante dimension is, it

106 STRING QUARTETS

3 Otto Jahn, Life of Mozart (1856), trans. Pauline D. Townsend (New York: Cooper SquarePublishers, 1970), 3 vols., vol. 3, p. 16.

4 Blom, Mozart, pp. 217–18.5 See Hans Keller, ‘The Chamber Music’, in The Mozart Companion, ed. Landon and Mitchell, pp.

131–32.6 Ibid., p. 132.7 Saint-Foix, W.A. Mozart, vol. 5, p. 115.8 Influential writers to whom this applies include Charles Rosen, Classical Style, p. 281, and Konrad

Küster, Mozart: A Musical Biography, pp. 317–22.9 For the Artaria advertisement and the biographical reference see, respectively, Deutsch, Documen-

tary Biography, p. 427 and Niemetschek, The Life of Mozart, trans. Helen Mautner (London:Leonard Hyman, 1956), p. 85. My definition of concertante derives from three secondary sources:Ulrich Mazurowicz, Das Streichduett in Wien von 1760 bis zum Tode Joseph Haydns (Tutzing: HansSchneider, 1982), pp. 130–33; Hubert Unverricht, Geschichte des Streichtrios (Tutzing: HansSchneider, 1969), p. 213; and Roland Würtz, Dialogué: Vorrevolutionäre Kammermusik inMannheim und Paris (Wilhelmshaven: Noetzel, 1990), p. 82. For a detailed study of the QuatuorsConcertant tradition see Janet M. Levy, ‘The “Quatuor Concertant” in Paris in the Latter Half ofthe Eighteenth Century’, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1971. For a brief examination of

accounts only cursorily for stylistic differences between the ‘Prussian’ quartetsand their illustrious predecessors in the ‘Haydn’ set. As we shall see, these differ-ences are considerable, calling into question Mozart’s compositional andaesthetic principles in the quartet genre and, as a result, perhaps accounting in ageneral way for nineteenth- and twentieth-century critical negativity.

It is not surprising that Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets, relative to the extraordi-nary volume of writing on his instrumental music in general, are often passedover in the secondary literature. Instrumental works from Mozart’s last five yearscompeting for air-time include the formidable string quintets (K. 515, 516, 593and 614) – ‘[by] general consent, Mozart’s greatest achievement in chambermusic’ in Charles Rosen’s trite formulation10 – and final trilogy of symphonies,Nos. 39–41 (K. 543, 550 and 551), upon which critical attention has been lavished.In addition, Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets never attained the level of popularity onthe twentieth-century concert stage of his ‘Haydn’ quartets, much like the finaltwo piano concertos K. 537 and 595 in relation to his earlier concertos. In fact, asthe ensuing investigation clarifies, the concertos K. 537 and 595 and the quartetsK. 575, 589 and 590 are kindred spirits in stylistic terms, their significance residingin the parallel re-invention processes in which they engage, carried out inresponse to earlier practices in both genres. As we shall see, this is especiallyapparent in the musical contrasts contained in K. 575, 589 and 590, contrasts thatowe their origins in Mozart’s string quartet oeuvre to the juxtaposition of theAdagio and Allegro sections in K. 465/i. I shall look first at how Mozart manipu-lates musical contrast in the technical sense (harmony, theme, melody, dynamicsetc.) such that it becomes a defining stylistic feature of these works and distin-guishes them from the ‘Haydn’ quartets (with the exception of the opening of K.465/i); I shall then set the treatment of contrast in context by discussing prece-dents for it in Mozart’s string chamber works and by evaluating its aestheticsignificance, thus establishing the ‘Prussian’ quartets’ place in Mozart’s process ofstylistic re-invention.

Musical contrast in the ‘Prussian’ quartets

Musical-rhetorical and topical processes, central components of the classicallingua franca, require a composer’s attention to contrast at both the local level andat the level of completing a coherent discourse, as does the principle of unity invariety that surfaces continually in eighteenth-century compositional thought;11

in fact the combination and contrast of musical topics is so fundamental to lateeighteenth-century music that it can be regarded as one of the defining features of

PRUSSIAN QUARTETS 107

Mozart’s treatment of concertante style (but not discussing the ‘Prussian’ quartets) see HermannJung, ‘Mozarts “Concertante”-Behandlung: Einfluss oder Nachklang der “Mannheimer Schule”?’Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991, pp. 77–85.

10 Rosen, Classical Style, p. 264.11 See Ratner, Classic Music, p. 219; Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, p. 95.

so-called ‘classical’ style.12 The exact technical nature of permissible musicalcontrasts in instrumental music remains a hot topic of aesthetic debate in thesecond half of the eighteenth century, even though the practical need for them isnever at issue.13 As Thomas Busby explained un-contentiously in his definitionfrom 1801: ‘Contrast in music is that opposition and relief produced by the differ-ence of style in the several movements of a composition; or the chiara oscura of theseveral passages in the same movement: the alternate crescendos and diminu-endos, pianos and fortes, employed by the composer, to awaken the attention,and interest the feelings, of his audience.’14 While the concept of unity and thepremium placed upon conveying a lucid sequence of musical ideas provokessome resistance to introducing significant contrast in mid-to-late eighteenth-century aesthetic circles – writers such as Engel and Reichardt go as far as toconsider extreme affective changes illustrative of madness15 by implicationcondemning strong musical contrasts – aestheticians in general become progres-sively willing to devise ‘[new], more dynamic, theories of the emotions . . . tojustify ever higher levels of contrast and variety in instrumental music’.16

Programmatic instrumental music, including ‘characteristic’ symphonies,brought strong musical contrasts directly into the instrumental arena,17 and theprevailing late eighteenth-century analogy between symphony and Ode legislatesfor strong internal contrasts as well.18 Marked contrasts in closely juxtaposedexpressive materials are also clearly evident in a number of Haydn string quartetand symphonic movements of the 1780s and 1790s.19 And the musical sublime,according to William Jackson, can be produced by contrast of the most forcefulkind: ‘what would become of our Sublimities, if it were not for the short cut of aPianissimo, so delicate as almost to escape the ear, and then a sudden change intoall the Fortissimo that Fiddling, Fluting, Trumpeting and Drumming canbestow?’20 By the 1780s, indeed, Carl Friedrich Cramer could claim that listeners

108 STRING QUARTETS

12 Ratner, Classic Music, p. 26. For ample evidence of the combination and contrast of musical topicssee, in particular, Agawu, Playing with Signs, and Allanbrook, Rhythmic Gesture in Mozart.

13 See, for example, the articles on contrast in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Dictionnaire de musique(Paris, 1768), p. 121, and Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon, cols. 390–91. Both writers acknowledge thebenefits of employing musical contrast, but recognize that contrasts need to be monitored care-fully and not abused.

14 Thomas Busby, ‘Contrast’, in A Complete Dictionary of Music (London, 1801), no page numbers.15 Richard Will, The Characteristic Symphony in the Age of Haydn and Beethoven (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 137.16 On the concept of Abwechslung (contrast) in eighteenth-century German aesthetic thought, see

Bellamy Hosler, Changing Aesthetic Views of Instrumental Music in 18th-Century Germany (AnnArbor: UMI Research Press, 1981), passim. (Quotation taken from p. 222.)

17 See Will, The Characteristic Symphony, passim.18 See Henning Bey on Klopstock’s ode ‘Frühlingsfeier’ and Haydn’s Symphony No. 82, set in broad

theoretical and aesthetic context, in Haydns und Mozarts Symphonik nach 1782: KonzeptionellePerspektiven (Neuried: Ars Una, 2005), pp. 102–37.

19 See Elaine Sisman, ‘Haydn, Shakespeare, and the Rules of Originality’, in Haydn and his World, ed.Sisman, pp. 3–56, especially pp. 29–35.

20 William Jackson, Observations on the Present State of Music in London (London, 1791), p. 16.

to a C.P.E. Bach fantasy were astonished (in a positive sense) by ‘the novelty of somany often quite heterogeneous, but still . . . interconnected ideas, their unex-pectedness and constant surprises, the boldness of the modulations, of the digres-sions and returns . . . the variety of the separate figures that together comprise thewhole’; Cramer thus implicitly condones contrasts of all sorts.21 From a genericperspective Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets are a world away from late eighteenth-century fantasias, of course, but are similar in at least one respect: as in numerousfantasias, sharp contrast seems to represent a raison d’être for many movements,affecting formal procedures as never before in Mozart’s string quartet repertory.The ‘Prussian’ quartets, as we shall see, do much more than confirm Mozart’sstatus as ‘the greatest master at mixing and coordinating topics’22 and go farbeyond demonstrating that the widespread eighteenth-century compositionaland aesthetic principle of unity in variety is alive and well in Mozart’s chambermusic.

Exactly which types of contrast are to be privileged in our examination of the‘Prussian’ quartets, and why? The late eighteenth-century references to theseworks cited above draw attention to both expressive and technical-proceduralelements (intensity as well as artfulness/modulatory skill) and it is the impact ofMozart’s musical procedures on intense expression and contrast that is of mostinterest for present purposes. Expressive intensity and contrast are by no meanssynonymous, but are inevitably mutually reinforcing: sharp juxtapositions of verydifferent types of material and of very different ways of organizing musical mate-rials ultimately accentuate expressive discrepancies. (Saint-Foix is right to drawattention to the acute contrast between ‘savage’ counterpoint and bare passages inthe first movement of K. 590, but – unaware that such contrasts are at the heart ofMozart’s compositional enterprise in the ‘Prussian’ works – is misguided inparsing this contrast negatively.) Thus, I focus my attention on those contrasts inmusical procedures and materials that lend the ‘Prussian’ works their distinctivestylistic identity in the context of Mozart’s string chamber oeuvre – for example,juxtapositions of leisurely and frenetic writing, of passionately contrapuntal andthematically empty writing, of complex chromatic and ostentatiously straightfor-ward harmonies, of flowing and halting harmonic progressions, and, indeed, ofdisjunctive and florid writing in general. In short, I am interested in those musical‘extremes’, in Thomas Busby’s definition of the term from 1801, ‘which are thegreatest distance from each other in point of gravity or acuteness’.23 On account ofthe pronounced nature of their juxtapositions, the contrasts I describe seem


21 Carl Friedrich Cramer, ed., Magazin der Musik, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1783–86), vol. 2, p. 1251. ‘DasNeue so vieler oft ganz heterogenen, aber doch . . . zusammengewebter Gedanken, ihrUnerwartetes . . . immerdar Ueberaschendes; die Kuhnheit der Modulationen, derAbschweifungen und Wiedereinlenkung . . . die Mannigfaltigkeit der einzelnen Figuren, ausdenen das Ganze zusammengesetzt ist.’

22 Ratner, Classic Music, p. 27.23 Busby, A Complete Dictionary of Music, no page number.

self-conscious; perhaps Mozart draws attention to his own compositionalinvolvement in an analogous way to the late eighteenth-century composer whomakes his or her presence felt through humour.24

Turning to the first movements of the ‘Prussian’ quartets, we see that the divi-sion of much of the material into clearly articulated textural ‘blocks’, as well as thenature of the blocks themselves, accentuate musical contrasts. In K. 589/i, theleisurely unfolding of self-contained first theme (bars 1–20), transition (bars21–45) and secondary theme (bars 45–60) sections stands in opposition to the fastand furious counterpoint of the exposition’s codetta (bars 61–71). Whereas thespacious first and secondary themes divide neatly into beginning-middle-endsubsections in the former (bars 1–6; 6–12; 12–20) and repeated statements passedfrom cello to first violin in the latter, against a prevailing piano dynamic anddifferent textural combinations for each subsection (3+3+4 voices in the firsttheme; 2+3 in the second), the codetta features concentrated four-voice counter-point, marked forte, and a rapid circle of fifths progression (D7–G7–C7–F7–ii/F–I6/4–V7–I), unprecedented procedures in the movement thus far. For much ofthe development the frenetic codetta material (bars 72–76; 104–108) is set againstderivations of the principal thematic material (bars 77–103), abruptly alternatingsinging and brilliant styles in the process; the two musical worlds are reconciled inbars 108–15 and alternated – featuring the head motif and triplet fragments – inbars 116–21. A recomposed passage in the recapitulation (bars 154–61) exploresmusical contrast further: the chords of a conventional vi–ii6–v–i6 progressionarticulated on the first beats of bars 154–57 alternate with diminished intervals(F–B, E–Bb, D–Ab) accentuated by chromatic passing notes and sforzando indica-tions. Imitations and reduced scorings (1st violin/2nd violin and viola/cellodoublings in bars 154–57) characterize both the exposition and developmentsections, but the combination here of textural austerity and harmonic adventur-ousness – as well as the contrast with preceding and succeeding material – rendersthe passage distinctive. It offers a succinct, small-scale exposé of contrast, comple-menting the larger-scale alternations of opposing materials in the exposition anddevelopment sections.

While K. 589/i – pace bars 154–57 – sets ‘blocks’ of opposed material againstone another, K. 590/i employs clearly delineated ‘blocks’ and smooth transitions,creating procedural contrasts and unusual formal quirks in addition to the typesof textural and affective contrast that characterize K. 589/i. Smooth thematic andtextural continuity is maintained between the end of the exposition (bars 73–74)and the beginning of its repeat (bar 1), between the exposition and the develop-ment (bars 73–76), and between the recapitulation and coda (bars 184–88)through unison writing and descending semiquaver scales that transcendsectional divisions; subsequent material in the development and coda sections,

110 STRING QUARTETS

24 On humour in this context, see Mark Evan Bonds, ‘Haydn, Laurence Sterne and the Origins ofMusical Irony’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 44 (1991), especially pp. 69–72.

however, creates blocked contrast. Prior to the establishment of the dominant forthe re-transition (beginning in bar 104), the development divides into twoopposing segments (bars 77–93 and 94–103; see Ex. 5.1 for the end of the first andbeginning of the second). Contrasts between them, and between the first segmentand the preceding unisons, include not only the dynamics and proceduresemployed – piano homophony against fast and furious forte, brilliant-style coun-terpoint (bars 94–103) and forte, descending, brilliant-style unison scales (bars74–75) – but also the respective approaches to thematic working. The firstsegment is remarkably sparse thematically: the two crotchets in the cello (bars76–82, 90–93) and first violin (83–93) are heard in a similar context (in the firsthalf of the bar and in conjunction with an intervallic leap) only in bars 15 and 76,and even then as closing gestures; the chromatic units (1st violin, bars 77–82 andcello, bars 83–88) feature in the second theme section of the exposition but arenow presented in abstract, generic form; and the inner-third/sixth accompani-mental writing prevalent in the 2nd violin and viola (bars 77–93) and found inboth the first and second theme sections of the exposition, again lacks thematicdistinction. It is as if Mozart has deliberately chosen his most undistinguishedmaterial from the exposition for developmental purposes! In complete contrast,bars 94–103 (like bars 74–75) employ the descending semiquaver scales thatderive from bars 2–3, culminating in an ascending semiquaver scale in unison(bars 103–04) that invokes the opening both texturally and thematically. Thecoda (Ex. 5.2) heightens thematic and dynamic opposition from the beginning ofthe development, taking the thematic ‘emptiness’ of bars 77–93 a stage further.While the descending semiquaver unisons at the cross-over from exposition todevelopment begin on the second and flattened seventh degrees of the scale (Dand Bb in the context of C, bars 74–75), subsequently outlining G minor harmony(bar 76), the same descending unisons at the cross-over from recapitulation tocoda extend the sequence to the flattened sixth degree as well (Db in the context ofF, bar 187) and conclude with a stark diminished 7th interval (bar 188); theytherefore accentuate still more the contrast with the ensuing material. Theconcluding bars of the coda (197–98) are also pared down thematically to an evengreater extent than the corresponding bars in the development (bars 92–93), thetexture thinning progressively in bars 196, 197 and 198, until only the crotchetleaps remain (bar 198). The opposition of the forceful unison (bars 185–88) andthe ‘anti-climactic’ concluding bars (189–98) is, in fact, the most pointed musicalcontrast in the movement.

Inevitably, we need to explain how stylistic contrasts discussed above distin-guish the late quartets from their first-movement counterparts in the ‘Haydn’ set,putting aside for a moment their relationship to the progenitor of stark sectionalcontrast in Mozart’s string quartets, the opening of K. 465/i. To be sure, block-likeconstruction in conjunction with textural change is a common feature of the firstmovements of Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ quartets, as, of course, is frequent dynamiccontrast between blocks. In addition, the topical universe is just as diverse andprone to localized contrasts in the first movements of the ‘Haydn’ set as it is in the


112 STRING QUARTETS

Ex. 5.1: Mozart, String Quartet in F, K. 590, 1st movement, bars 92–98

Ex. 5.2: Mozart, String Quartet in F, K. 590, 1st movement, bars 186–98

corresponding movements of the late quartets.25 However, none of K. 387/i,421/i, 428/i, 458/i and 464/i features either as pronounced a contrast of large-scaleblocks as K. 589/i and K. 590/i or as extreme a combination of smooth sectionalsegue and sharp formal delineation as K. 590/i. The combination of heightenedmusical contrast and ‘leisurely’ thematic unfolding (see the closed main themes ofK. 575, 589, and the secondary themes of K. 589, 590 in particular) emphasizingthe ostensibly conflicting pulls of formal relaxation and formal urgency, againdistinguishes the ‘Prussian’ first movements from those of the ‘Haydn’ set.

Mozart’s innovative approach to blocked contrast in the ‘Prussian’ workscontinues in his minuet and trios. In K. 589/iii the A and A’ sections of the trio arerelatively diatonic and free flowing, whereas the B section (bars 60–76, Ex. 5.3) ishighly chromatic and disjunctive. Diminished triads in bars 60 and 62 give way toAb7 harmony in bar 64, subsequently moving to Db6, eb6/5 (ii6/5 of Db) and Ab7harmonies (bars 66–67) in full expectation of a confirmation of Db; instead, ageneral pause leads to G major/C minor harmony (bars 69–71) which, given theharmonic incongruity with the preceding Ab7 and the return to the thematicmaterial and texture of bars 60ff., conveys the impression of a ‘re-start’ to the Bsection. This passage, with both its pause underscoring thwarted harmonic andtonal expectations, and its apparent ‘re-start’, resembles the beginning of thedevelopment section of Mozart’s final piano concerto K. 595/i (discussed inChapter 3).26 For at least one late eighteenth-century critic too, Karl LudwigJunker, pauses are identified as useful mechanisms for conveying intenseemotional states and affective changes,27 thus making them valuable tools forconveying strong contrasts between musical materials as well.

The minuet of K. 575, like the minuet of K. 589, takes its B section as the focalpoint for strong sectional differentiation (see Ex. 5.4). In contrast to thesurrounding A and A’ sections, the B section is un-harmonized, unison texturesin the first seven bars (31–37) accentuated by sharp drops in register, by fpdynamic indications and by unclear harmonic implications and harmonic direc-tion. The subsequent four-bar delineations of diminished and minor 9th harmo-nies (bars 37–40 and 41–44) maintain the textural sparseness and continue tocontrast vividly with the richer A and A’ sections.

In K. 590/iii (Ex. 5.5), the minuet rather than the trio offers alternations of lushchromatic and straightforward diatonic writing. Bars 15–25 from the B sectionand bars 29–37 from the A’ incorporate sensibility-style chromaticism – a succes-sion of C, f/D b, D7 and C7 harmonies over a C pedal in bars 16–19, entirely


25 For topical heterogeneity in the ‘Haydn’ set see in particular K. 428/i as analysed by Allanbrook in‘Expression and Form’, pp. 153–60.

26 Another distinctive concerto quality appears in the A’ section of K. 589/iii, where the 1st violinincorporates four bars of semiquaver arpeggiated, concertante figuration (bars 95–98), a passagewithout precedent in Mozart’s ‘mature’ quartets. On Haydn’s incorporation of concerto charac-teristics – gestural, figurative and formal – into his string quartets, see Floyd K. Grave, ‘ConcertoStyle in Haydn’s String Quartets’, The Journal of Musicology, 18/1 (2001), pp. 76–97.

27 Karl Ludwig Junker, Tonkunst (Bern, 1777), p. 60.

114 STRING QUARTETS

Ex. 5.3: Mozart, String Quartet in Bb, K. 589, 3rd movement, bars 60–77

Ex. 5.4: Mozart, String Quartet in D, K. 575, 3rd movement, bars 31–48


Ex.5.4: cont.

Ex. 5.5: Mozart, String Quartet in F, K. 590, 3rd movement, bars 15–42

chromatic writing in the three upper voices in bars 23–25, and diminished andaugmented 6th harmonies (bars 32, 35) over chromatic part writing and a tonicpedal in the A’ section; the concluding bars of the B and A’ sections go to the otherextreme, providing ostentatiously diatonic, Ländler-like cadential formulations(bars 26–28 and 38–42). The melodic, harmonic and thematic straightforward-ness of these gestures contrasts starkly with the intricacies of the precedingmaterial; their self-conscious unfussiness belongs to a less stylized type of minuetthan the chromatic passages, rustic simplicity thus juxtaposed with cultivatederudition.

Like the first movements of K. 589 and 590, the minuet and trios of K. 575, 589and 590 distinguish themselves stylistically from the corresponding movementsin the ‘Haydn’ set. None of the ‘Haydn’ minuet and trios match the harmonicdisjunction of the B section from the K. 589 trio, the juxtaposition of chromaticrefinement and bucolic cadential activity from the K. 590 minuet, or the abruptopening of the B section of the K. 575 minuet, where alterations in dynamic,textural and harmonic procedures produce sectional contrast. To be sure, theminuets of K. 464 and 465 display localized topical and stylistic contrasts, eachconveying the impression of a ‘Ländler gone haywire’28 and, as a result, somewhatforeshadow the K. 590 minuet. Nevertheless, a new, self-consciously stiff and curtquality characterizes the stylistic interchange in K. 590’s minuet; the corre-sponding interchange in K. 464 and 465 is fluid by comparison. The end of the Bsection of K. 590 gives the impression (unlike, say, the Ländler-like cadences in K.465, bars 16–20 and 55–63) that the rustic, cadential gesture is pulling the chro-matic ‘indulgences’ back into line – the dissimilarity with the preceding music ismarked and the chromaticism is brought to a close in brusque fashion. The Bsection of the K. 464 minuet is the closest precursor to K. 589 and 575: a sudden,forte, half-diminished chord for four consecutive crotchets presented tutti andfollowed by a two-beat silence (bars 42–43), temporarily derails the expectedconfirmation of D. But it is appreciably different from the later movements too.In K. 464 the disruptive moment becomes a feature of the musical argument,

116 STRING QUARTETS

28 See Allanbrook, ‘Expression and Form’, p. 140.

Ex. 5.5: cont.

reappearing in the A’ section in full diminished-seventh form (bars 63–64). Theprocedural integration of the disruptive gesture in K. 464 finds no parallel in theabrupt sectional and gestural contrasts in the ‘Prussian’ movements.29 The mainaim of the B sections of the K. 575 minuet and K. 589 trio appears to lie inproviding direct, self-contained contrast with surrounding material, rather thanin stimulating subsequent alterations to the expected course of musical events inthe reprise.

The tour de force of sectional contrast in Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets comes,fittingly, in his final movement in the genre, K. 590/iv. The transition sectionfeatures an explosive, Sturm und Drang passage (bars 52–65) prior to the estab-lishment of V/C (bar 66), beginning with a perfect cadence into vi, D minor (bars51–52). The leaps in the first violin line, presented forte, are foreshadowed by the2½-octave drop and accompanying forte in bar 38, but the rhythmic and texturalintensity of the passage comes out of the blue; textural concentration increases onaccount of each instrument presenting a different type of material (an angularmelodic line in the 1st violin, accompanimental semiquavers deriving from thehead motif in the 2nd violin, syncopation in the violas, and a chromatic, quaverdescent in the cello). Furthermore, the syncopation in the violas rhythmicallyunderscores several of the 1st violin leaps on the second quaver of the bar (see bars56, 60, 62). In the ‘Haydn’ set the closest point of comparison – again in D minor –is the second variation of the K. 421 finale. Although the distinct instrumentalstrands, syncopations and offbeat fps parallel K. 590/iv, the K. 421 passage ulti-mately lacks the ferocity of its later counterpart.

The Sturm und Drang passage in K. 590/iv is unremarkable in isolation, ofcourse, given the frequency with which the topic surfaces in similarly abruptcontexts in late eighteenth-century instrumental music, but it is significant forforeshadowing a development section (Ex. 5.6) of considerable musical extremes,one that integrates disjunction and smooth continuity in equal measure. Thebeginning – a sudden shunt into bVI (Db) marked forte, for which the exposition’sharmonic processes leave us unprepared – draws attention to the sectionaldemarcation in no uncertain terms; at the end, in contrast, the first violin’s semi-quavers flow seamlessly into the recapitulation in classic, re-transitional fashion,with the three-note repeating pattern that derives ultimately from bars 122ff.cancelling (in bar 184) the preceding three-against-four effect.30 Yet the effortless-ness with which this motif merges into the main theme and reconfirms F belies


29 Although the emphasis on diminished 7th harmonies in the B section of the K. 575 minuet couldperhaps be regarded as a stimulus for the new, fp diminished 7th in bar 56, the connection here ismuch less explicit in textural, rhythmic, gestural and dynamic respects than the correspondingconnection in the K. 464 minuet.

30 The articulation is consistent with the duple meter, but a three-against-four effect results from thecontinual reiterations of a conjunct, three-note semiquaver descent. This is particularly evident inbars 179–80 where the viola’s semiquavers are accompanied only by tied notes in the violins andcello. Albi Rosenthal has recently offered this version of the main theme as a musical analogue ofthe anagrams and word plays evident in Mozart’s letters. See ‘Mozart’s Key Signatures: A Peculiar

the harmonic idiosyncrasies it has wrought earlier in the development. Passedfrom 1st violin to cello to 2nd violin in the opening 16 bars of the developmentsection, the motif in question then links a viola statement (bars 150–55) to anharmonic twist; the C6/5 harmony dominating the preceding five bars gives wayto A/f# harmony (bars 150–52), as if signalling contempt for an implication of thetonic, F, at this juncture. Furthermore, the ensuing circle of 5ths in bars 155–65(A7–D7–G–G7–C7–F–F7–Bb) is obscured harmonically by continued imitationof the motif in the context of chromatic neighbour notes and three-note repeateddescents that disguise the harmonized tones and create a bizarre effect.

In several respects, the development section of K. 590/iv is closely akin to thecorresponding section of the Piano Concerto No. 27 in Bb, K. 595/i discussed inChapter 3. Both deploy moments of disjunction in the early part of the sectionand unspoiled continuity at the end; and both articulate the beginning of thesection with a bold and unprepared modulation (a semitone up from the tonic inK. 595/i and a semitone up from the dominant in K. 590/iv). Moreover, just asMozart, in the development of K. 595, engages in a seemingly self-conscious act ofre-invention in regard to his typical modus operandi in the piano concerti, so inthe development of K. 590/iv he draws attention in similarly self-consciousfashion to a generic aspect of his compositional style, the circle of 5ths. Theimitated semiquavers in bars 155–64 seem wilfully to obstruct what otherwisewould have constituted a clear and straightforward progression; it is as if Mozartis experimenting with the juxtaposition of stylistic normality and abnormality byproblematizing the ostensible simplicity and straightforwardness of a basicharmonic procedure.

Stylistic experimentation allied with re-invention, evident in the complemen-tary qualities of the last two piano concertos, K. 537 and 595 (see Chapter 3), alsoprovides a key to understanding the significance of Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets inhis Viennese string quartet oeuvre. (The intervening work between the ‘Haydn’and ‘Prussian’ sets, K. 499, is discussed below.) In addition to the qualities ofcontrast already outlined, the formal organization of individual movements fromthe ‘Prussian’ quartets bears witness to new compositional thinking. While in the‘Haydn’ set 9 out of 11 first and last movements in either sonata or sonata-rondoform greet the firm confirmation of the secondary key in the exposition withputatively ‘new’ thematic material, only three of six do the same in K. 575, 589 and590.31 The remaining three in the ‘Prussian’ set exemplify Mozart’s heterogeneous

118 STRING QUARTETS

Feature of his Autograph Scores’, in Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven: Studies in the Music of theClassical Period, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 147–50,at 147–48.

31 In the ‘Haydn’ set, see K. 387/i, bars 25ff.; K. 387/iv, bars 92ff.; K. 421/i, bars 25ff.; K. 428/i, bars40ff.; K. 428/iv, bars 60ff.; K. 458/iv, bars 48ff.; K. 464/i, bars 37ff.; K. 465/i, bars 71ff.; and K.465/iv, bars 55ff. The two exceptions are K. 458/i, which adapts an immediately preceding semi-quaver figure after the confirmation of the dominant in bars 53–54, and K. 464/iv, which restatesthe head motif of the main theme at the same juncture (bars 40ff.). In the ‘Prussian’ set, see K.589/i, bars 45ff.; K. 575/iv, bars 58ff. and K. 590/i, bars 31ff.


Ex. 5.6: Mozart String Quartet in F, K. 590, 4th movement, bars 132–88

120 STRING QUARTETS

Ex. 5.6: cont.

approach: K. 590/iv delays the firm, cadential confirmation of the secondary keyarea until late in the section – bar 121, after harmonic excursions through D/d,C/c, Bb7, Eb7, Ab7 (bars 81–95) – whereupon the short and concise nature of theensuing material conveys a codetta-like quality; K. 589/iv restates the main themeimmediately after confirmation of the secondary key (bar 48); and K. 575/i reiter-ates the bars 7–8 motif in bars 49–57 and the first five bars of the main theme (indiminution) in bars 64–66 after the confirmation of the dominant in bars48–49.32 In addition, one of the sonata finales – K. 589/iv – is formally anomalous,perhaps providing further evidence of Mozart’s experimental mindset at thisstage of his career as a string quartet writer. While the A (repeat) B, A’ (repeat)structure of K. 589/iv’s theme (bars 1–28) strongly implies a rondo movement ofsome kind, a sonata structure prevails instead.

K. 465 re-visited

It is necessary at this stage to re-visit the opening of K. 465, since the strongmusical contrast between the Adagio and Allegro of K. 465 is, in at least tworespects, quite different from the contrasts we have now witnessed in the ‘Prus-sian’ works. The tempo change from one section to the next helps accentuate thecontrast between musical material, and has no parallel in the contrasts we havediscussed in the ‘Prussian’ set; and the extended dominant preparation (bars16–22) for the confirmation of C major at the beginning of the Allegro smoothesthe harmonic transition from Adagio to Allegro as distinct from many of thepassages from the ‘Prussian’ works which modulate abruptly in the process ofconveying sharp contrast.

But probing further we also discover a kinship between the contrasts engen-dered by the succession of Adagio and Allegro in K. 465 and the juxtaposition ofstarkly differentiated musical procedures in the ‘Prussian’ set. As is often the casein a fantasia – the prevailing topic of K. 465’s Adagio – the ‘possible directedness’of the slow introduction to K. 465, just like the progression from one contrastingsegment to another in the ‘Prussian’ quartets, becomes less of an issue than ‘thesheer pleasure of disorientation’;33 even if we hear references to earlier works inthe ‘Haydn’ set in the K. 465 Adagio and understand it as a peroration to the set asa whole (Chapter 4), or hear thematic connections between strongly contrasted


32 I resist the term ‘monothematicism’ in the context of these procedures, given the absence of awidely accepted definition. To some extent the distinction between a ‘new’ theme and the state-ment of pre-existent material is clouded by the prevailing, late eighteenth-century rhetorical viewthat a composer should adapt and elaborate a single basic idea over the course of a movement,integrating different material in a variety of musical domains. Nevertheless, there is an audibledifference between the tonal and thematic procedures from the six K. 575, 589 and 590 expositionsdiscussed above and corresponding procedures in the ‘Haydn’ set, where secondary thematicmaterial is appreciably different from material that precedes it.

33 Annette Richards, The Free Fantasia and the Musical Picturesque (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 2001), p. 49.

segments in the ‘Prussian’ set, we are surely invited to experience a degree ofdisorientation too (later critics certainly attest to this experience in K. 465).Valuing the contrast between the harmonic indulgence of the Adagio of K. 465and the light efficiency of the ensuing first theme section, and between thecontrasting segments in the ‘Prussian’ quartets, is an end in itself; hearing justteleological progression from one to the next misses the point. The fundamentallack of integration between Adagio and Allegro from K. 465 and betweencontrasting segments from K. 575, 589 and 590 results in localized stylistic incon-gruity, even if thematic links are also found among the contrasts. But such incon-gruity by no means prevents us from reflecting upon general relationshipsbetween the contrasting segments or sections in question. As Baumgartenexplains in his foundational mid eighteenth-century work on aesthetics: ‘Alldifferences, dissimilarities and inequalities are relations. Consequently if onethinks simultaneously of two things opposed to each other, one thinks not only ofeach one in itself, but also at the same time of their relationship. Thus the thoughtbecomes very clear in that way and can also become vivid as a result.’34 Thedarkness-to-light analogy popular in critical assessments of the opening of K. 465brings to life the Baumgartian proposition that obscure and vivid concepts, ideas,or indeed musical materials are more appreciated the more they contrast.35 Andthe same applies to the ‘Prussian’ quartets. The strong contrasts at play –harmonic, gestural and procedural – enhance our appreciation of the diversematerials that are juxtaposed. Unlike Haydn’s string quartets the incongruitiesand discontinuities in the ‘Prussian’ set are not fundamentally witty orhumourous. Like Haydn’s works, however, they highlight moments of formalarticulation, playing with expectations and conventions and consequentlydrawing attention to the mechanics of their musical construction; contrastbecomes a raison d’être of the style, not a by-product.

In their connections to the movement initiating stylistic re-invention (K.465/i), the ‘Prussian’ quartets are also closely akin to the final piano concertos, aswell as to the grand concertos that follow the beginning of the re-inventionprocess in K. 449. As we have seen, Mozart re-appraises his concerto style in K.503, K. 537 and K. 595 in light of the stylistically climactic K. 491 and exploitsfrom K. 450 onwards the potential for prominent orchestral participation initi-ated by K. 449; equally, in the ‘Prussian’ works, he develops a new intensity ofcontrast to his string quartet writing from the startling contrast between theAdagio and Allegro of K. 465/i, a contrast that itself owes its origins to theAdagio’s manipulation to perorational harmonic effect of musical materials fromearlier ‘Haydn’ works (Chapter 4).

122 STRING QUARTETS

34 Cited in Hosler, Changing Aesthetic Views, p. 95. Translation amended.35 Ibid., p. 95.

The ‘Prussian’ quartets in musical and aesthetic context

Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets together embody an impressive array of contrasts.Harmonic disparities between the middle sections of minuet and trios and theirouter sections, combinations of both blocked contrast and fluent formal continu-ation in a single movement, and conflicting indications of relaxed musicalunfolding and formal urgency serve to establish intense musical contrast as afundamental stylistic feature of these works, a feature that ultimately distin-guishes them from their predecessors in the ‘Haydn’ set.

But crucial questions remain. How exactly do we account for Mozart’sapparent change of stylistic course in the ‘Prussian’ set and how does this changeof course ultimately affect the aesthetic position of these works vis-à-vis contem-porary perceptions of the late eighteenth-century string quartet? The search forprecursors in Mozart’s string chamber music to the stylistic procedures witnessedin the ‘Prussian’ quartets leads inevitably to three major works written betweenthe ‘Haydn’ and ‘Prussian’ sets – the isolated D-major quartet K. 499, the‘Hoffmeister’ (dated 19 August 1786), and the great string quintets K. 515 in Cand K. 516 in G minor (19 April and 16 May 1787).36

The first movement of the string quartet K. 499 is a modest stylistic forerunnerto the ‘Prussian’ works. Just as K. 590/i combines smooth sectional transition andabruptly contrasting material, so K. 499/i integrates continuity and overt sectionaldemarcation, albeit in a less pronounced fashion than K. 590/i.37 Theself-contained first theme (bars 1–22) divides unmistakably into three units: afour-part, primarily homophonic opening (bars 1–12), an imitative middle (bars13–20) and an imitative closing segment featuring one-bar cadential gestures.Distinct musical blocks, demarcated by a cadence in the dominant and a texturalchange, continue to appear after the close of the first theme (see bars 23–40,40–52, 53–57, 57–65, 65–73). Here, however, the avoidance of a full confirmationof the dominant key at the end of each block – bars 52, 56–57 and 64–65 eachfeature an interrupted cadence in A – delays the articulation of the secondarytheme; moreover, the principal candidate for secondary theme status amongthese passages (the violin melody beginning on the upbeat to bar 49) coincidingwith the arrival of I6 harmony in A, is compromised by textural continuity (the1st violin/cello imitation, the sustained E in the viola, and the quaveraccompanimental figure in the 2nd violin). The same combination of unambig-uous sectional articulation and smooth sectional continuity occurs in the devel-opment. While the beginning draws attention to itself with two distinct, two-bar


36 Another of Mozart’s important string chamber works from this period, the string trio, K. 563, isdiscussed in Chapter 7, as are his Viennese piano quartets and piano trios.

37 For a detailed, section-by-section analysis of K. 499/i, focussing on harmonic and thematicprocesses, in particular the domineering role of the main theme, see Wolfgang Gerstoffer, ‘Themaund harmonischer Prozess: Analytische Uberlegungen zum Kopfsatz des “Hoffmeister”-Quartetts KV 499’, Mozart Studien, 3 (1993), pp. 191–207.

units (in A major and A minor respectively) separated by rests, the end features afluent segue into the recapitulation, with the re-constituted, harmonized headmotif and quaver imitation in bars 138–41 flowing with no hint of unevennessinto the unison texture of the reprise of the main theme (bars 142ff.). The coda ofK. 499/i, like the corresponding section of K. 590/i, extends the disjuncture fromthe beginning of the development section, adding a self-contained two-bar unit(bars 241–42) to the existing unit (bars 239–40); musical focus is again placed onthe submediant degree (albeit nvi, rather then K. 590’s bVI). K. 499/i, with itssimultaneous propensity for blocked contrast and fluent sectional continuity andits procedural affinity between development and coda sections, thus foreshadowsthe first movement of K. 590.

In the formal realm, too, K. 499 prefigures stylistic features of the ‘Prussian’quartets. Like K. 590/iv, K. 499/i delays the firm, cadential confirmation of thesecondary key area until late in the section – bar 73 after excursions through f#and F (bars 57–69) – and again produces concise, codetta-like material at thispoint. In addition, the finale of K. 499 includes material that is ambiguous infunctional terms (themes from bars 1 and 44), foreshadowing in a general way the‘Prussian’ quartets’ spirit of experimentation and contrast. At the opening, forexample, the immediate sequencing of material (bars 1–3, 5–7), the disjunctioncaused by silent fourth and eighth bars, the irregular harmonic structure of theinitial seven bars (ii4/2 – IV6/4, bars 2–3; I – I7, bars 6–7) and the bridge-likesequence (bars 22–33), are more suggestive of a transition than a main themesection; the conclusion of this passage on a V7 minim pause, prepared by fourpreceding bars of V7 harmony, also suggests the end of an introductory section.In contrast, the theme from bars 44–59 – by when a transition would be expectedgiven the scope of the exposition – is entirely regular: 4+4 and 4+4 phrases, over atonic pedal in the first eight bars and a conventional I–ii6–V7–vi–I6–ii6/5–V7–Iharmonic progression in the second. Thus, bars 44–59 have a more appropriateprofile for a main theme than the preceding material. This apparent functionalreversal occurs again towards the end of the exposition when the two portions ofthematic material reappear in quick succession in the secondary key area. The bar44 theme is heard in bars 131–45, endorsing the dominant key, while the ensuingbar 1 material (bars 145–55) ultimately assumes a transitional role, leading backto the tonic D for the repeat of the exposition, and to D7 harmony and a collectiveone-bar rest at the opening of the development, whereupon the onset of the bar 44theme in the subdominant G (bar 163), heard as a moment of arrival, recreates theeffect of the D major V7–I progression from bars 43–44. In the recapitulation,both the curtailed, 8-bar presentation of the bar 44 theme in nIII, F major, ratherthan in the tonic (see bars 237–44), and the dominant nature of the bar 1 materialin the Coda (bars 334–83) – in the context of musical closure rather than formaltransition (see bars 359ff.) – redress the prevailing ‘imbalance’; the openingtheme of the movement finally asserts itself as primary thematic material. Inshort, K. 499/iv, demonstrating neither the intensity of surface musical contrastsnor the expressive extremes of ‘Prussian’ movements, nonetheless reveals a

124 STRING QUARTETS

potent disparity between thematic placement and formal function, fore-shadowing the self-conscious manipulation of formal procedures and functionsin the later quartets.

Neither of the first movements of the K. 515 and 516 string quintets – perhapssurprisingly given their broad expressive scope – prefigures the heightenedcontrast and disjuncture of the ‘Prussian’ quartets to the same degree as K. 499.38

K. 515/i, though manifesting a wide array of topics together with co-existingclaims at the local level to opposition and unity and to contrast and continuity,‘essays its course carefully and with exemplary dimensional balance’ in KofiAgawu’s words, avoiding the kind of pronounced textural and harmonic disjunc-ture witnessed in the late quartets.39 K. 516/i is also devoid of abrupt disjuncture,in spite of its division into the type of compositional blocks articulated by texturalchange40 that is characteristic of the late quartet movements. In fact, the exposi-tion as a whole reveals a carefully graded approach to harmonic and texturalintensification: the 3 + 3 statements of the first theme (bars 1–16) lead to a 5-voiceconclusion (bars 18–28); the tonic theme (I(b), bars 29ff.) features similar – buttexturally denser – accompanimental writing to that of the first theme; the relativemajor version of theme I(b) ups the ante harmonically (bars 50ff.) and thentexturally (with the introduction of imitation in bars 56–62); and the secondarytheme material following the cadential confirmation of Bb (bars 63–64) increasesthe level of textural complexity by adding scotch-snap and semiquaver figures tothe existing imitative and accompanimental writing (bars 64–75). The curtharmonic and textural shifts of the late quartets are not in evidence.


38 A number of recent articles have addressed in varying degrees of detail the general stylistic posi-tion of the late quintets (K. 515, 516, 593 and 614) vis-à-vis Mozart’s quartet repertory, albeit notin the context of heightened contrast. Ludwig Finscher discusses the intersection of texturalprocedures in the late quintets and ‘Prussian’ quartets in ‘Bemerkungen zu den spätenStreichquintetten’, in Mozarts Streichquintette: Beiträge zum musikalischen Satz, zum Gattungs-kontext und zu Quellenfragen, ed. Cliff Eisen and Wolf-Dieter Seiffert (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994),pp. 153–62. Harmut Schick considers the increased thematic and textural density and complexityof K. 515 in light of the achievements of K. 465 in ‘Ein Quintett im Diskurs mit demStreichquartett: Mozarts Streichquintett C-Dur, KV 515’, in Mozarts Streichquintette, ed. Eisenand Seiffert, pp. 69–101. Wolf-Dieter Seiffert looks briefly at how groups of Mozart’s quartets (e.g.K. 80–173 and K. 387–499) expose stylistic features that are subsequently incorporated into hisquintets (e.g. K. 174 and K. 515–516) in ‘Vom Streichquartett zum Streichquintett: SatztechnischeBezüge zwischen kammermusikalischen Früh- und Spätwerk bei Mozart’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991,pp. 671–77. In contrast, Thomas Christian Schmidt explains the process in reverse; textural andthematic procedures first evident in the string quintets K. 515 and 516 subsequently infiltrate the‘Prussian’ quartets. See ‘ “Vom Streichquintett zum Streichquartett”? Zur Satztechnik in Mozartsspäter Kammermusik für Streicher’, in Mozart-Jahrbuch 1996, pp. 1–22.

39 For a penetrating analysis of K. 515/i, focussing on the ‘extroversive’ semiotic qualities of topicalinterplay, see Agawu, Playing with Signs, pp. 80–99. (The above quotation is taken from p. 99.)Other important studies of this movement include Rosen, The Classical Style, pp. 266–74, andRatner, Classic Music, pp. 79–80 and passim. On the last movement, see Rudolf Bockholdt, ‘DerSchlusssatz von Mozarts Streichquintett in C-Dur, KV 515: Bau im Grossen und Geschehen imKleinen’, in Mozarts Streichquintette, ed. Eisen and Seiffert, pp. 103–26.

40 See, for example, bars 1–8, 9–17, 18–25, 26–28, 29–44, 49–63, 64–71 and 72–75 in the exposition.

The inner movements of K. 515 and 516 move closer to the style of abruptcontrast from the ‘Prussian’ works.41 The minuet and opening of the trio of K. 515feature rhythmic instabilities and asymmetries countered by a symmetricalLändler theme at the end of the trio’s A section (bars 65–72).42 The rhythmiccontrast between the Ländler theme and preceding material (Ex. 5.7) is accentu-ated by dynamic contrast (forte to piano), by marked textural change and by thesudden intervention of diatonic writing after uncertain chromaticism (bars 57–61imply a I–III6/4–vi6–III6/4–vi6 progression obscured by chromatic neighbournotes in the 1st and 2nd violin). In these respects the A section of K. 515’s trioforeshadows the opposition of material in the corresponding section of K. 590’sminuet, even if the quintet does not boast as clear a juxtaposition of elegant chro-matic refinement and brusque, heavy-footed diatonicism as its quartet counter-part. Like the trio of K. 515, the minuet and trio of K. 516 anticipates the contrastsfrom the late quartets. In the Minuet’s B section an unexpected shift from the keyof C minor to Bb7 harmony (bar 18) on route to Eb (bar 19), coincides with both asudden dynamic and textural alteration, and an abrupt change from the ‘deeplypathetic mood’ in the minor mode43 to the singing style in the major, once againmodestly predicting the K. 590 minuet. The sudden change of gear in this move-ment co-exists with a fluent, carefully crafted transition between minuet and triosections, whereby the final bars of the former (bars 40–43) are re-worked as theopening bars of the latter (bars 43–46). As in K. 499/i, 590/i and 590/iv, then,subtle continuity and unmistakeable discontinuity reside under the same roof.

The celebrated slow movement of K. 516 offers a clearer precursor to thecontrast of the ‘Prussian’ quartets than any other movement in K. 515 or 516. Thefantasy and Sturm und Drang music in bars 5–8 and 18–22 seems to have beenchosen deliberately by Mozart to maximize opposition with preceding andsucceeding material in the first theme and transition sections respectively. Whilethe first four bars are texturally rich and completely diatonic, the next four aresparse, chromatic and fragmentary; similarly, the diatonic and rhythmically rigidbars 18–20 sharply contradict the chromatic and metrically irregular bars 14–18.A prominent disjunction also characterizes the secondary theme section; there is asudden jolt back to the texture, rhythm and homophonic writing of the openingin bars 33–35 following the semiquaver and demisemiquaver movement in bars30–32. Thus, each of the principal segments of the exposition of this movement(first theme, transition, secondary theme) includes striking contrasts anddisjunctions, which collectively fulfil a similarly prominent role to correspondingfeatures in the ‘Prussian’ movements.

126 STRING QUARTETS

41 The order of the inner movements in K. 515 is a matter of debate, since the autograph and Artariafirst edition differ in their placement of these two movements. See Isabelle Putnam Emerson, ‘AQuestion of Order: Andante, Minuet, or Minuet, Andante – Mozart’s String Quintet in C Major,K. 515’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1989–90, pp. 89–98.

42 Ratner describes it as ‘a delicious Ländler tune . . . totally satisfying in its perfect symmetry’, inClassic Music, pp. 78–79.

43 Ratner, Classic Music, pp. 10–11.

To some degree, then, the contrasts of the ‘Prussian’ quartets are a part ofMozart’s string chamber music vocabulary – evident in K. 499, K. 515, K. 516 and,of course, K. 465/i – before the composition of K. 575, 589 and 590 in 1789–90.But their pervasiveness in the ‘Prussian’ quartets, and their overall level of musicalintensity, represents a change of stylistic emphasis for Mozart, one with impor-tant aesthetic ramifications. As is well known, the string quartet was persistentlylikened to a conversation in the late eighteenth century, the common perceptionbeing that themes and motifs passed from instrument to instrument was compar-able to the easy, yet cultivated spirit of salon conversation.44 But late eighteenth-century descriptions of the art of conversation and Mozart’s stylistic practice inthe ‘Prussian’ quartets are fundamentally different. Conversationalists en massestrongly recommend avoiding confrontational scenarios by remaining sensitiveat all times to one’s company: Samuel Johnson counsels James Boswell that the‘happiest conversation’ involves ‘no competition, no vanity, but a calm, quietinterchange of sentiments’; Baron von Knigge advises ‘accommodating ourselvesto the capacities of those with whom we converse’ displaying ‘an unruffled and


44 On the widespread nature of the analogy between the string quartet and conversation in the lateeighteenth century see in particular Ludwig Finscher, Studien zur Geschichte des Streichquartetts 1:von den Vorformen zur Grundlegung durch Joseph Haydns (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1974), pp. 285–89.

Ex. 5.7: Mozart, String Quintet in C, K. 515, 2nd movement, bars 57–68

serene countenance’; and Jean d’Alembert stipulates that ‘conversation is a relax-ation and . . . neither a fencing match nor a game of chess’.45 Individual partici-pants in the ‘Prussian’ quartets show no signs of confronting one another directly,but harshly contrasting blocks and sections establish oppositions betweenportions of the quartet discourse – and these oppositions would seem at odds withconversational decorum since they explicitly condone abrupt changes in the styleand content of the ‘discussion’.

The relationship between the quartet-as-conversation metaphor and the‘Prussian’ quartets is, however, considerably more complex stylistically andhistorically than it might initially appear. For a start, Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ quartetsdo not equate any more straightforwardly than the ‘Prussian’ quartets with para-digms of conversational discourse formulated by writers such as Knigge, Mme. deStaël, and the Earl of Shaftesbury.46 While conversationalists cite equality ofparticipation as a fundamental principle, it is inappropriate as a general charac-terization of the texture of the ‘Haydn’ works. Similarly, the rhythmic, harmonicand expressive idiosyncrasies and irregularities (as described by Allanbrook)provide an analogy, at best, with a kind of down-to-earth, everyday conversationreplete with interactive imperfections rather than with the etiquette-ladenconversational art described by theorists.47

The relationship between the ‘Prussian’ quartets and the aesthetics of conver-sation is made even more problematic than this relationship in the ‘Haydn’ set onaccount of the musical contrasts Mozart puts into effect. The concertante dimen-sion of the ‘Prussian’ quartets partially explains aspects of dialogue that differen-tiate K. 575, 589 and 590 from their ‘Haydn’ predecessors (the leisurely, extendedrepetitions of the secondary themes of K. 589/i and K. 590/i, for example) as wellas the premium placed on textural changes, textural variety and soloisticwriting.48 But the increase in surface intensity in K. 575, 589 and 590 throughcontrast and disjuncture etc. attests to a dramatic quality to the discourse (if not

128 STRING QUARTETS

45 See Colby H. Kullman, ‘James Boswell and the Art of Conversation’, in Compendious Conversa-tions: the Method of Dialogue in the Early Enlightenment, ed. Kevin L. Cope (Frankfurt: Peter Lang,1992), p. 82; Baron von Knigge, Über den Umgang mit Menschen, trans. P. Will as Practical Philos-ophy of Social Life or the Art of Conversing with Men (Lansingburgh, New York: Penniman, 1805),pp. 29, 16; and (for the d’Alembert quotation) The Philosophical Dictionary or, the Opinions ofModern Philosophers on Metaphysical, Moral and Political Subjects, 4 vols. (London: Elliot, 1786),vol. 1, pp. 150–51.

46 See Knigge, Art of Conversing; Anne Louise Germain Staël-Holstein, Germany, trans. from theFrench (Anon.) (New York: Eastburn, 1814); and Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl ofShaftesbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (London, 1711; reprint,Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 1978).

47 This is even more the case for Haydn’s string quartets than for Mozart’s. See Gretchen A.Wheelock, Haydn’s Ingenious Jesting with Art: Contexts of Musical Wit and Humor (New York:Schirmer, 1993), pp. 90–115.

48 For an account of the popular Quatuor Concertant repertoire in the late eighteenth centuryoutlining the importance of these stylistic characteristics, see Levy, The ‘Quatuor Concertant’ inParis. An informative series of definitions of concertant is given on p. 15.

specifically the dialogue between individual instruments) that is much lesspronounced in Mozart’s earlier string chamber works. Neo-classical writers onmid to late eighteenth-century drama stipulate types of dialogic interaction thatcharacterize effectively the interaction of individual sections and blocks in the‘Prussian’ quartets. Joseph de Laporte specifies that characters must engage in ‘abattle of feelings . . . feelings which clash, repel one another, or triumph over oneanother’; Jean Marmontel argues for ‘the interlocutors [having] views, feelings orpassions which are in opposition to one another’; and both Denis Diderot andLouis Sébastien Mercier stress the importance of characters ‘struggling’ with eachother as they convey their respective sentiments.49 The contrasting sections of K.589/i, 589/iii, 590/i, 590/iii and 590/iv give an impression that the collectivequartet unit is in opposition with itself, at least in terms of the contrasting ‘senti-ments’ expressed and the divergent musical processes demonstrated. Drama,then, provides a ‘sense of the spirit that animated’ the contrasts in the ‘Prussian’quartets, to quote Johann Karl Friedrich Triest (1801) on the Mozart imitatorswho include ‘vehement digressions’ in their stylistic portfolio without under-standing Mozart’s motivation for incorporating them.50

The dramatic import of the ‘Prussian’ quartets runs deeper, though, than theiranalogy with theoretical writings on the theatre, affirming a kinship with theircontemporary, more ostensibly dramatic instrumental counterparts, the latepiano concertos. Concerto resonances – particularly virtuosic and soloisticwriting – and references to standard concerto styles and topics such as the brilliantstyle are inevitable (especially given the concertante dimension of the works), butspecific procedural parallels between the ‘Prussian’ quartets and K. 537/595 aremore revealing. As we have seen, both the B section of the K. 589 trio and thedevelopment section of K. 590/iv are closely connected to the remarkable devel-opment of K. 595/i (probably composed in 1788, well ahead of the ‘Prussian’quartets) – K. 589/iii in thwarting harmonic and tonal expectations andproducing a stop-start effect, and K. 590/iv in combining vivid disjunction andmellifluous continuity. Moreover, the complementary quality to the stylisticexperimentations in K. 537 and 595 (described in Chapter 3) finds a parallel in the‘Prussian’ works. While the middle section of the K. 575 minuet offers sharpcontrast to the surrounding material and the corresponding section of the K. 589trio does the same, the K. 590 minuet and trio internalizes (as it were) disjunction


49 See Laporte, Dictionnaire Dramatique (Paris, 1776), vol. 1, p. 385; Marmontel, ‘Dialogue’, inEncyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des Arts et des Métiers, par une société de gens deletters (Paris, 1751–65), vol. 10, p. 883; Diderot, De la poésie dramatique (1758) in Diderot’s Writ-ings on the Theatre, ed. F.C. Green (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936; reprint NewYork: Da Capo, 1978), pp. 177–78; Mercier, Du Théâtre, ou nouvel Essai sur l’Art Dramatique(Amsterdam, 1773), p. 182. For more on the link between confrontational dramatic dialogue asdescribed by late eighteenth-century dramatists and musical dialogue in Mozart’s pianoconcertos, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 45–74.

50 Triest, ‘Remarks on the Development of the Art of Music in Germany in the 18th Century’ (1801),trans. Susan Gillespie, in Haydn and his World, ed. Sisman, p. 366.

by incorporating it into individual B and A’ minuet sections. In a similar vein, theabrupt juxtapositions of musical units in K. 589/i and 590/i are ‘answered’ by thedevelopment of K. 590/iv, a section that merges disjunction and continuity,contrast and similarity, and ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ musical process (the circleof fifths and its surface-level disruption). In fact, K. 590 – in both the minuet andthe development section of the finale – represents a fitting climax to contrasts inthe three-quartet set.

It would be difficult to suggest that Mozart underwent as systematic a processof stylistic re-evaluation in the ‘Prussian’ quartets as that that he undertook in hislast two piano concertos, given the smaller number of Viennese string quartetspreceding K. 575, 589 and 590 (seven) than Viennese piano concertos precedingK. 537 and 595 (fourteen). We can conclude, however, that the last three quartetstap into a similar vein of re-invention. Mozart’s departures from his stylisticnorms in K. 537 and 595 often seem stylistically self-conscious, like passages fromK. 575–590. As we have observed, the imitated semiquavers in bars 155–64 of thedevelopment section of K. 590/iv seem to be designed deliberately to draw atten-tion away from the clear-cut harmonic outline of the circle of fifths. Theco-habitation of different aesthetic and stylistic philosophies in the minuet andtrio of K. 575 appears equally self-conscious. The audacious opening of theminuet’s B section – disorientating in its combination of bold chromaticism andun-harmonized, octave texture – comes from the same stable as the openings ofthe development sections of K. 595/i and the G-minor Symphony first movementand finale (K. 550/i and 550/iv); these bars are far removed from the kind of inti-macy conveyed by the late eighteenth-century ‘quartet as conversation’ meta-phor. But in a complete volte face, Mozart gives us a trio section a few bars laterthat comes as close to the ideal of conversational equality, or ‘Privilege of Turn’ asLord Shaftesbury aptly puts it,51 as any string quartet section he ever wrote. At onestage or another, each of the four instruments presents each of the section’s threeprincipal musical elements;52 we witness textural parity, even though in purelytemporal terms the cello has more melodic material than any other instrument.53

The self-consciously marked stylistic incongruity between the minuet B sectionand the trio feeds directly into the ‘Prussian’ set’s stylistic re-alignment in favourof heightened surface-level contrast.

Like the two late piano concertos, the two string quintets composed shortlyafter the ‘Prussian’ quartets – K. 593 in D, dated December 1790 in the

130 STRING QUARTETS

51 See Shaftesbury, Characteristics of Men, vol. 1, p. 76.52 The three principal elements are the quaver figure introducing the melody (for example, bars

75–76, 103–04, 109–10), the melody itself (bars 77ff., 105–08, 111–14), and the quaveraccompanimental writing (bars 77–94, 95–102, 105–07, 111–13).

53 The stylistically hybrid status of this movement of K. 575 is accentuated in another respect too.The sonata-like expansion of the Minuet A section to incorporate the dominant key confirmationby mid section followed by a ‘secondary’ theme is witnessed in the ‘Haydn’ minuet movements K.387/ii and 428/iii, of course, but is given an additional twist in K. 575 – the ‘secondary’ theme (bars17ff.) is simply a variant of the opening motif.

Verzeichnüss but partly written earlier in 179054 and K. 614 in Eb, dated 12 April1791 – support Mozart’s stylistic re-appraisals in the ‘Prussian’ set. For example,an air of stylistic eclecticism similar to that in K. 575, 589 and 590 pervades thefirst movement of K. 593. Its tour de force of topical interaction – not least in thefirst eight bars of the main theme55 – is no more or less remarkable in itself than,say, the corresponding movement of the C-major quintet, K. 515, but its widelyassorted textures (memorably likened by Leonard Ratner to a ‘crazy-quilt’56) andstriking combination of disjuncture and continuity in the context of structuralinnovation (the return of the slow introduction at the end of the movement)distinguish it from its quintet predecessors and liken it to the contrast-orientatedprocedures in K. 575, 589 and 590. In basic textural terms, this movement is themost rigorously ‘blocked’ of Mozart’s Viennese string quintet first movements.The main theme is divisible into successive fanfare, alla zoppa, brilliant and alter-nating-chord topics in the first instance (bars 22–29),57 paving the way for struc-tural divisions in the remainder of the exposition that are clearly demarcated bytextural change.58 In addition, the topical discrepancy between the magisterialslow introduction – a recitative obligé – and the rapid, quick-fire changes of themain theme, effects the kind of heightened surface-level contrast that is character-istic of the ‘Prussian’ set, even accepting the possibility of thematic links betweenthe introductory and first-theme sections.59 At the same time, however, Mozartcomplements his strict segmentation with formal fluidity, much as he integratesformal continuity and disjuncture in the ‘Prussian’ quartets and the pianoconcerto K. 595.60 The final four bars of the exposition, for example, recreate themusical atmosphere of the end of the slow introduction by invoking the fallingsecond (in the cello), the arpeggiated rise in the 1st violin, the protracted V7harmony, and the collective pause (bar 101) from bars 20–21, thus segueingneatly into the repeat of the exposition. Moreover, the continuation of the alter-nating chords across the exposition-development divide (bars 97–104) smoothesover a moment of formal articulation that we might reasonably expect to be moreclearly demarcated on account of the segmentation of the exposition into distinctblocks. Finally, the end of the recapitulation merges into the reprise of the slow


54 See Tyson, Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, p. 33.55 See Ratner, Classic Music, pp. 129–30, and Agawu, Playing with Signs, pp. 72–79.56 Ratner, Classic Music, p. 130.57 See Ratner, Classic Music, p. 130, and Agawu, Playing with Signs, pp. 76–77.58 Namely the contrapuntal transition (bars 42–63), the return of the main theme fanfare in the

dominant (bars 65–69), the fanfare with contrapuntal additions (bars 70–74), the ‘singing’ stylemelody in the cello with crotchet accompaniment in the upper voices (bars 75–80), the alla brevewriting in the lower voices and brilliant-style writing in the first violin (bars 81–88), the imitativecodetta theme over three separate accompanimental strands in the violas and cello (bars 89–96),and the imitative, alternating chords (bars 97–100).

59 See Charles Rosen, Classical Style, p. 282 for a connection between bars 1–4 and 22–25 in the firstmovement.

60 In a similar vein, Kofi Agawu observes a discrepancy between the main theme’s ‘erratic’ topicalsurface and its ‘cogent, connected, and coherent’ quality, in Agawu, Playing with Signs, p. 75.

introduction through a combination of minor-mode colouration and a thinningof the texture, such that ‘the quiet sound of the cello alone, as at the opening of thework, seems too natural and inevitable to surprise’.61 K. 593/i, then, takes rapidtextural change and textural contrast further than the ‘Prussian’ works, andharmonic disjuncture less far, but reveals a similar propensity for stylistic eclecti-cism to its quartet and piano concerto contemporaries.62

The first movement of K. 614 takes us back to the world of Mozart’s concertos,reinforcing the impression provided by the late quartet movements K. 575/iii,589/iii and 590/iv of stylistic cross fertilization from the final piano concertos tothe late string chamber music. Prominent invocations of the brilliant style are notunexpected, of course, but affinities between K. 614 and Mozart’s concertos rundeep. The exposition begins with a quasi opposition of solo and tutti in bars 1–4,63

and is brought to a close by a quintessentially concerto-like succession of semi-quaver runs, arpeggiated fanfare figurations and cadential trill in the first violin(bars 72–78). The development section goes further, bringing in alternations ofsharply opposed musical material (the sensibility and Sturm und Drang writing inbars 87–106; see Ex. 5.8).64 In Chapter 1 we observed that oppositional confronta-tion gained a stylistic foothold for Mozart in the development section of the firstmovement of his piano concerto K. 449, resurfacing in the corresponding sectionsof K. 451/i, 466/i and 491/i among the concertos, and in ensembles from Figaroand Don Giovanni among the operas. But outright, alternating oppositions of alevel of intensity similar to those in the piano concertos and operas (albeit not indialogue as such), do not appear in Mozart’s string chamber music until his ‘Prus-sian’ quartets and final string quintet. In this respect, bars 87–106 of K. 614/irepresent a zenith in oppositional writing in Mozart’s chamber music – lightlytextured, piano versions of the head motif against heavily textured, irregularlyaccented forte renditions of ostensibly new thematic material – and rival bars330–45 of K. 491/i in their raw alternation of opposing passions. Thus, bars87–106 of K. 614/i capture in microcosm Mozart’s fertilization of his final stringchamber works with the kind of dramatic intensity previously witnessed only inhis larger-scale works.

In sum, the compositional context for the ‘Prussian’ quartets – taking intoaccount the preceding quartets, quintets and two late piano concertos, as well asthe two slightly later string quintets – refines and qualifies, but does not ultimatelydetract from, the innovative nature of these works in Mozart’s quartet oeuvre.The ‘Prussian’ works demonstrate neither the kind of homogeneity witnessed inthe ‘Haydn’ set (Chapter 4), nor the systematic stylistic experimentation of the

132 STRING QUARTETS

61 Rosen, Classical Style, p. 283.62 For more on links (especially thematic and textural) between the string quintets K. 593/i and K.

614 and the ‘Prussian’ quartets, see Ludwig Finsher, ‘Bemerkungen zu den spätenStreichquintetten’, in Mozarts Streichquintette, ed. Eisen and Seiffert, pp. 153–62.

63 Ratner, Classic Music, p. 129.64 For a detailed analysis of the first movement of K. 614 in topical terms, see Ibid., pp. 237–45.

last two piano concertos (Chapter 3), and are partly pre-empted in terms ofheightened contrast in Mozart’s string chamber music by the K. 515 and 516quintets. But they are no less stylistically uncompromising as a result. Tran-scending the contemporary aesthetic notion of the string quartet as conversation,the ‘Prussian’ quartets represent a decisive stylistic move towards dramaticcontrast, a move characterized – as in the final piano concertos – by stylisticre-invention.


Ex. 5.8: Mozart, String Quintet in Eb, K. 614, 1st movement, bars 87–106

. III .

SYMPHONIES

6

The ‘Jupiter’ Symphony in C, K. 551:The Dramatic Finale and its Stylistic Significance in

Mozart’s Orchestral Oeuvre

DISCUSSION of stylistic re-invention in Mozart’s Viennese symphonies isrinherently more problematic than corresponding discussion of his

concertos and quartets: after all, he wrote only six symphonies in Vienna asopposed to 17 piano concertos and 10 string quartets. In contrast to his pre-1781orchestral output (numerous serenades, cassations and divertimenti and at least34 symphonies) the Viennese symphonies occupy only a small place in hiscompositional output as a whole, a discrepancy in numbers of pre- and post-1781works that is either not evident, or not as pronounced, in his concerto and quartetrepertories. What is more (and even by his own remarkable standards), Mozartapparently composed all of his Viennese symphonies, with the possible exceptionof the ‘Prague’, K. 504 (1786), in real haste,1 a state of affairs perhaps not condu-cive at first glance to the reflection and re-appraisal that comprise stylisticre-invention.

It is difficult to argue, however, that a stylistic study of the relationship betweenMozart’s Viennese symphonies set in historical and aesthetic contexts is not aworthwhile topic for scholarly investigation. Collectively these works arecontenders for Mozartian highpoints in a number of stylistic domains, includingtopical and gestural heterogeneity and complexity (K. 504), conspicuousharmonic audacity (K. 550, see Chapter 3) and contrapuntal intricacy and sophis-tication (K. 551/iv).2 It is hard too to counter the oft-voiced opinion that theViennese symphonies represent Mozart’s greatest achievement in orchestralgenres (setting aside the concerto), especially for stylistic issues such as instru-mental interaction, orchestral effects and obligato wind writing, even accepting

1 Mozart confesses to writing the ‘Haffner’ Symphony, K. 385 ‘as fast as possible’ and the ‘Linz’, K.425 at ‘breakneck speed’. See Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, pp. 808 and 859. The final trilogy ofsymphonies, K. 543, 550, and the ‘Jupiter’, K. 551 were completed in less than two months in thesummer of 1788. David Wyn Jones suggests tentatively that ‘preliminary work’ on the final trilogymight have begun earlier in 1788. See Jones, ‘Why Did Mozart Compose his Last ThreeSymphonies? Some New Hypotheses’, Music Review, 51 (1990), p. 284.

2 On the ‘Prague’ Symphony, see Sisman, ‘Mozart’s “Prague” Symphony’, in Mozart Studies 2, ed.Eisen, pp. 27–84.

that earlier benchmark works exist, including the G-minor Symphony, K. 183(1773), the ‘Paris’ Symphony, K. 297 (1778) and the ‘Posthorn’ Serenade, K. 320(1779).3

Confronted with a small number of works written over a six-year period, anembarrassment of musical riches, and no clear documentary lead from Mozart onthe stylistic significance of individual works, how do we orientate our discussionof re-invention, acknowledging its central stylistic components of originality,climax and re-appraisal? We can take our lead here, I think, from the Viennesepiano concertos and quartets. As initial points in re-invention procedures, modi-fying and manipulating pre-existent stylistic practices to climactic and originaleffect, K. 449, K. 491 and K. 465 all appear at the end of a contiguous sequence ofworks in their genres (or in K. 449’s case at the end of one and the beginning ofanother); the special stylistic status of each of these works is supported either byMozart’s own words or by contemporary and later reception. Circumstantialevidence, then, points to the finale of the ‘Jupiter’, K. 551, as the first phase of are-invention process in Mozart’s symphonies – it is the last movement of a trilogyof works composed in quick succession and is labelled a ‘triumph of the newmusic’ (Triumph der neuen Tonkunst) by Johannes Christian Kittel as early as1803, implicitly recognizing its climactic qualities.4 None of Mozart’s othercontenders for stylistic highpoints among his Viennese symphonic movementssurely match either the self-conscious manipulations of the ‘Jupiter’ finale (thefive themes virtuosically combined in the coda must have been pre-planned byMozart to operate in this way), or the extensive thematic integration with earliersymphonic and non-symphonic works brought about in particular by using the1–2-4–3 theme with ‘summative intentions’.5 The weight of reception is consider-able too in assigning the ‘Jupiter’ finale special status in re-invention terms; fewinstrumental movements before or since have been the subject of such openlyreverential commentary (largely directed towards the contrapuntal processes)that attest to its climactic status. Just as the harmonic procedures in the slowintroduction to K. 465, the opposition of piano and orchestra in K. 449, and theextremes of piano-orchestra engagement in K. 491 are situated in aestheticcontexts of rhetorical peroration, confrontation and heightened intimacy/gran-deur respectively, so the intricate counterpoint of K. 551/iv projects into theaesthetic domain of dialogue. Imitative and fugal counterpoint, which dominate

138 SYMPHONIES

3 For a discussion of the aforementioned stylistic issues in K. 183, K. 297 and K. 320 and otherorchestral works Mozart composed between 1769 and 1779, see Simon P. Keefe, ‘The OrchestralMusic’, in The Cambridge Companion to Mozart, ed. Keefe (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003), pp. 92–104, especially 94–100. See also Keefe, ‘The Aesthetics of Wind Writing inMozart’s “Paris” Symphony in D, K. 297’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 2006, forthcoming.

4 Given in Stefan Kunze, Mozart. Sinfonie in C-Dur KV 551, Jupiter-Sinfonie (Munich: Fink, 1988),p. 130.

5 On the latter point, see in particular Peter Gülke, ‘Triumph der neuen Tonkunst’: Mozarts späteSinfonien und ihr Umfeld (Kassel and Stuttgart: Bärenreiter-Metzler, 1998), pp. 74–83, 121–24,209–13 and passim. (Quotation taken from p. 211.)

^ ^ , ,^ ^

Mozart’s finale to a degree unprecedented in his orchestral works, both featureprominently in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century understandings ofdialogue; we benefit, moreover, from marrying dialogue, frequently discussed bylate eighteenth-century commentators on the symphony, with drama, anotheraesthetic preoccupation of writers on the symphony. A systematic investigation ofdramatic dialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finale, then, situated in the context of dramaticdialogue in Mozart’s earlier Viennese symphonies, will identify the movement’sposition in Mozart’s symphonic re-invention process. K. 551/iv’s status asMozart’s final symphonic movement will not provide a complete picture of are-invention cycle, but the initial stage of the cycle will confirm parallels withother Viennese instrumental works. After a brief overview of the reception of the‘Jupiter’ finale and an explanation of the relevance of late eighteenth-centurydiscussions of dramatic dialogue to our appreciation of classical symphonies,6 weshall probe the nature and structure of dramatic dialogue in K. 551/iv. This newhistorical perspective will, in turn, shed light on the stylistic significance of themovement in Mozart’s orchestral oeuvre.

The ‘Jupiter’ finale: reception and context

Few works in the western music tradition have received more lavish praise thanMozart’s ‘Jupiter’ Symphony. Although periodically criticized at the end of theeighteenth century and in the nineteenth century for its over-abundance of ‘har-monic riches’, erudition and ‘laborious technical procedures’, in short for‘[pushing] things a little far’,7 the ‘Jupiter’ quickly established itself as a classic, asymphony perceived as shattering, exalted and ‘wholly above discussion’,featuring a last movement that is ‘without doubt the most successful masterpiece’in the symphonic medium.8 While down-to-earth twentieth-century analytical

THE JUPITER SYMPHONY 139

6 Late eighteenth-century theoretical discussion of the multi-faceted nature of dialogue in opera –literal and musical alike – is much less common than corresponding discussion of theatricaldialogue. In any case, late eighteenth-century symphonies (and chamber works), while no lessimmune than contemporary concertos to expressive and topical links with opera, are texturallydissimilar at a basic level to operatic numbers (equal-voice texture, paradigmatically, as opposedto soloist(s)/orchestra). As a result, parallels between the interaction of symphonic and operatic‘characters’ do not form part of this study.

7 See James Johnson, Listening in Paris: A Cultural History (Berkeley and London: University ofCalifornia Press, 1995), p. 212; Katharine Ellis, Music Criticism in Nineteenth-Century France: ‘LaRevue et Gazette musicale de Paris’, 1834–80 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p.91; Jean-Maurice Bourges’s comment of 1843 quoted in Georges de Saint-Foix, The Symphonies ofMozart (1932), trans. Leslie Orrey (London: Dobson, 1947), p. 153; Allgemeine musikalischeZeitung, 1 (1798), col. 153, given in Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies, p. 530.

8 See Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 10 (1808), col. 495 for the assignation of ‘classic’ status;Robert Schumann, On Music and Musicians, ed. K. Wolff, trans. P. Rosenfeld (New York: Norton,1969), p. 82 for its untouchable standing; and J.C. Kittel, Der angehende praktische Organist oderAnweisung zum zweckmässigen Gebrauch der Orgel bei Gottesverehrungen in Beispielen (Erfurt,1801–03), 3 vols., vol. 3, p. 15, quoted in Kunze, Jupiter-Sinfonie, p. 130, for the statement on thefinale. For more examples of early nineteenth-century reception of the ‘Jupiter’ (1800–28), see

studies of the ‘Jupiter’ Symphony inevitably set deified views of the work intowelcome relief, they cannot obscure the fact that a large proportion of twenti-eth-century commentators are to all intents and purposes in awe of it, especiallyits famous finale.9 Influential critics from the first half of the century lace theirwritings with free-wheeling superlatives. For Georges de Saint-Foix the ‘Jupiter’ isnot only ‘the veritable symphonic testament of Mozart’ but also a decisive,climactic moment in sweeping historical terms, Mozart ‘[revealing] to us all thatmusic has achieved up to this time, and what it will do nearly a hundred yearslater’.10 Eric Blom is scarcely more circumspect, deeming extended commentarysuperfluous in light of Mozart’s achievement: ‘The dizzy culmination comes inthe coda [to the finale], where all five themes appear together in various juxta-positions. . . . We may leave the Symphony at that, I think. What more could besaid?’11 Even in the more sanguine, post-war musicological climate, criticalhyperbole has continued to infiltrate scholarly discourse: Robert Dearling, admit-ting to a kind of critical impotence where the extraordinary finale is concerned,explains that ‘[a]ll a writer can do is to list the themes that are involved and pointout a landmark or two’, and ends with a highfalutin description of the

140 SYMPHONIES

Kunze, Jupiter-Sinfonie, pp. 129–33. Mendelssohn’s compositional response to the ‘Jupiter’ isdiscussed in R. Larry Todd, ‘Mozart according to Mendelssohn: a Contribution to Rezeptions-geschichte’, in Perspectives on Mozart Performance, ed. Todd and Peter Williams (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 158–203, at pp. 162–71.

9 Analytical literature on the ‘Jupiter’ Symphony is vast. For substantial and probing twentieth-century analyses of the symphony, the finale in particular, see (listed here in chronological order):Johann Nepomuk David, Die Jupiter-Symphonie: Eine Studie über die thematisch-melodischenZusammenhängen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953); G. Sievers, ‘Analyse des Finaleaus Mozarts Jupiter-Symphonie’, Die Musikforschung, 3 (1954), pp. 318–31; Hans Grüss, ‘ZurAnalyse der Sinfonien g-moll (KV 550) und C-dur (KV 551) von Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’, inFestschrift Heinrich Besseler zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik,1961), pp. 367–75; William Klenz, ‘ “Per Aspera ad Astra,” or The Stairway to Jupiter’, The MusicReview, 30 (1969), pp. 169–210; John E. Rogers, ‘Pitch-Class Sets in Fourteen Measures ofMozart’s Jupiter Symphony’, Perspectives of New Music, 9–10 (1971), pp. 209–31; Elwood Derr, ‘ADeeper Examination of Mozart’s 1–2-4–3 Theme and its Strategic Deployment’, In Theory Only, 8(1985), pp. 5–45; Kunze, Jupiter-Sinfonie; Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony. For recent philosophicallydriven, quasi analytical studies, see Subotnik, ‘Evidence of a Critical World View in Mozart’s LastThree Symphonies’, in Developing Variations, pp. 98–111 and Gernot Grüber, Mozart Verstehen,pp. 241–58. Important nineteenth-century studies of the ‘Jupiter’ include Simon Sechter, DasFinale von W.A. Mozarts Jupiter-Symphonie (1843), ed. Friedrich Eckstein (Vienna, 1923), andAlexandre Oulibicheff, ‘The “Jupiter” Symphony of Mozart’, Dwight’s Journal of Music, 27 (26October 1867), pp. 121–22; reprinted in Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, pp. 80–5. Recent speculationon why Mozart composed his final trilogy of symphonies and on whether they were performedduring his lifetime can be found in Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies, pp. 421–31; Jones, ‘Why didMozart Compose his Last Three Symphonies?’; and Andrew Steptoe, ‘Mozart and his Last ThreeSymphonies – a Myth Laid to Rest?’ The Musical Times, 132 (1991), pp. 550–51.

10 Saint-Foix, The Symphonies of Mozart, pp. 151–52.11 Blom, Mozart, p. 188. The liberal application of superlatives to the ‘Jupiter’ finale can be found in

other important Mozart literature from the first half of the twentieth century. See for example,Eustace J. Breakspeare, Mozart (London: Dent, 1902 [‘Master Musicians’]), pp. 131–32 and HenriGhéon, In Search of Mozart, trans. A. Dru (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1934), p. 262.

movement’s coda as ‘a grand summation, a fugal apotheosis that combines all sixsubjects in a transcendental display of polyphony to form a magnificent perora-tion’; Hugh Ottoway explains the finale as ‘one of the marvels of Classical music’,Wilhelm Spohr as a ‘triumphant exaltation’ (sieghafte Erhebung) and Jean-VictorHocquard as a religious movement with connotations of ‘Assumption’, ‘glory’and ‘a light atmosphere of heavenly peace, as imponderable as an ancientmystery’; Heinrich Eduard Jacob claims for the symphony as a whole ‘the allure ofa God, who idly opens his hand to release it from a world’; Stanley Sadie describesthe Finale’s coda as ‘an apotheosis of invertible five-part counterpoint withoutparallel in the symphonic literature’; and, most recently, Robert Gutman writesthat the finale is ‘a movement of unexcelled diversity and intellectual power . . . inwhich an astonishing variety of plot, counterplot, and subplot all converge andreach denouement within an overarching structure of universal pardon’.12 Itwould appear that in some critical circles Charles Rosen’s statement that the Dminor Piano Concerto, K. 466, is ‘as much myth as work of art’ is just as relevantto the reception of Mozart’s final symphony.13

It is surprising that attempts to ‘de-mythologize’ the ‘Jupiter’ Symphony (espe-cially its finale) have not focussed systematically – until recently at least – on thesignificance of the work in its immediate aesthetic, theoretical and culturalcontexts.14 Accounting only for superficial musical detail, Mozart could havewritten his finale in full view of Johann Georg Sulzer’s and Johann Abraham PeterSchulz’s technical prescriptions for the symphony in the monumental AllgemeineTheorie der schönen Künste, such is the close correspondence between theoreticaldescription and practical realization. Mozart delivers forcefully on Sulzer’s andSchulz’s requirements that the ‘allegros of the best chamber symphonies containprofound and clever ideas . . ., an apparent disorder in the melody and harmony[e.g. bars 233–53], strongly marked rhythms of different types [passim] . . . freeimitations of a theme (often in fugal style) [passim], sudden modulations anddigressions from one key to another [bars 158–224], strong gradations of loudand soft [passim] . . . [and the combination of] all the voices with one anothersuch that the resulting sound seems almost like a single melody that is in need ofno accompaniment [especially bars 372–401]’.15 To be sure, Sulzer’s and Schulz’s


12 See Dearling, The Music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: The Symphonies (East Brunswick, NJ:Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982), pp. 159, 161; Ottoway, Mozart (Detroit: Wayne StateUniversity Press, 1980), p. 159; Spohr, Mozart: Leben und Werk (Berlin: Verlag der Nation, 1951),p. 351; Hocquard, La pensée de Mozart (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1958), p. 180 (‘la beatitude légère,impondérable comme le mystère’); Jacob, Mozart, oder Geist, Musik und Schicksal (Frankfurt:Verlag Heinrich Sheffler, 1955), p. 387 (‘die Allüre eines Gottes, der lässig die Hand geöffnet halt,um aus ihr eine Welt zu entlassen’); Sadie, The New Grove Mozart (London: Macmillan, 1980), p.131; Gutman, Mozart: A Cultural Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999), p. 689.

13 Rosen, The Classical Style, p. 228.14 Recent studies breaking the trend include Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony (discussed below), Gülke,

‘Triumph der neuen Tonkunst’, pp. 206–26 and (to a lesser extent) Kunze, Jupiter-Sinfonie.15 ‘Symphonie’, Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste (Leipzig, 1771–74), 4 vols., vol. 4, p. 479.

Translation from Thomas Christensen, in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the

theoretical prescriptions are realized in numerous late eighteenth-centurysymphonic movements. But their invocations of the aesthetics of the sublime –the exalted style to which the symphony should aim – appear, at an initial glance,especially appropriate to the ‘Jupiter’ finale.16 As Elaine Sisman has recentlyargued with considerable scholarly panache, the fugal writing and learned stylemanifest in the finale characterize an elevated style opening access to thesublime.17 Three passages in the recapitulation – the continuation of the maintheme in the secondary development (bars 233–53), a brief, sequential extensiontowards the end of the section (bars 326–32) and the double fugue and canon infive-part invertible counterpoint in the famous coda (bars 371–401) – embody, inSisman’s formulation, ‘an ecstatic trajectory, identifying a sublime turn, creatingbafflement and blockage, and finally exultation’.18 The ‘contrapuntal chaos’ of thecoda, moreover, captures the overwhelming nature of Immanuel Kant’s mathe-matical sublime, ‘[revealing] vistas of contrapuntal infinity’ and creating ‘a cogni-tive exhaustion born of sheer magnitude’.19

To some extent, Sisman’s reading of the sublime in the ‘Jupiter’ finale rendersexplicit in historical and aesthetic terms the innumerable expressions of awe inthe critical literature. For in order to appreciate the sublime a listener or readermust experience bewilderment; as Horace explains ‘we are excited and exaltedand overwhelmed by its speed and energy, it is useless to argue and analyse, we areswept away as soon as we begin to read’.20 In addition, the mathematical sublimeinvolves, in Neal Hertz’s formulation, ‘the fear of losing count or of being reducedto nothing but counting . . . with no hope of bringing a long series or a vast scat-tering under some kind of conceptual unity’21 thus accounting for the bafflementof critics who feel that prose is an inadequate mechanism for conveying theextraordinary qualities of the movement.

Whether in the coda to the ‘Jupiter’ finale Mozart actually crosses the linebetween on the one hand counterpoint that can be fully absorbed by a cultivatedlistener cognizant of contemporary musical and aesthetic trends, and on the otherhand ‘vistas of contrapuntal infinity’ revealing a ‘mass of simultaneously writhingfragments, at all rhythmic levels and in all instruments . . . [that] cannot be takenin’,22 is difficult to judge. But it is certainly possible that ‘ideal’ late eighteenth-century listeners – say Heinrich Christoph Koch’s intelligent listeners ‘who come

142 SYMPHONIES

German Enlightenment: Selected Writings of Johann Georg Sulzer and Heinrich Christoph Koch, ed.and trans. Nancy Kovaleff Baker and Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995), p. 106.

16 ‘Symphonie’, Allgemeine Theorie, vol. 4, p. 479 and Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition,p. 106.

17 See Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, pp. 9–15 and 71–72.18 Ibid., p. 78.19 Ibid., p. 79.20 Quoted in Ibid., p. 14.21 Hertz, The End of the Line: Essays on Psychoanalysis and the Sublime (New York: Columbia Univer-

sity Press, 1985), p. 40; also quoted in Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, p. 19.22 Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, p. 79.

entirely dispassionate to the place where music will be performed’23 – could have‘taken in’ the musical sophistication of this section, at least in such ways as to havebeen able to process their experience in a sanguine rather than an exalted andreverential fashion. Early nineteenth-century references to the ‘Jupiter’ as a‘fearful symphony’ and a ‘great, all-powerful and shattering’ work by Rochlitz andCarl Maria von Weber, respectively, allude to the sublime.24 But in the absence ofspecific references to the overwhelming, sublime-orientated nature of the contra-puntal segments of the finale’s recapitulation and coda, Sisman’s interpretation ofthe function of this section remains open to question.

While sublime characteristics of the recapitulation of the ‘Jupiter’ finale aredebatable, dramatic qualities of the movement – broadly conceived as intensemusical processes – are unambiguous. It would be very difficult not to envisagethe last movement as an ‘apotheosis finale’ given the thorough synthesis oflearned and galant styles, as James Webster points out,25 and therefore not to hearthe movement in general terms as a denouement with considerable dramaticimport. Moreover, it would be equally difficult to interpret the finale’s ownconclusion (the contrapuntal segment of the coda) as anything other than themovement’s climax, given the prevalence of fugal and imitative counterpoint inthe main body of the movement and the intensification of these contrapuntalprocedures in the coda.

Although generalized notions of drama and the dramatic in late eigh-teenth-century orchestral music reflect a long-standing critical preoccupationwith its anthropomorphic qualities, their use in an a-historical fashion is unlikelyto cast late eighteenth-century works in sharp critical perspective.26 Historicalcontexts, however, alert us to the possibility of approaching Mozart’s symphonicdrama in well informed fashion. Stylistic features of several of Haydn’s so-calledSturm und Drang symphonies, for example, closely parallel events and plot-related activities in plays performed in close temporal and physical proximity tothe composition of the symphonies. The recognition among late eighteenth-century writers that symphonies can represent the ‘theatre style’ in addition to thechurch and chamber styles, also adds grist to the hermeneutic mill.27 Further-more, Mozart’s own piano concertos have a deep theoretical and practical affinitywith contemporary operatic and spoken theatre, arguably rivalling – in the inten-sity of both dramatic process and of relations among ‘characters’ – the very beston offer on the late eighteenth-century stage.28 Specific references to the dramatic


23 Quoted in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition, p. 146.24 See Gruber, Mozart and Posterity, pp. 78–79.25 Webster, Haydn’s ‘Farewell’ Symphony, p. 185.26 Witness Charles Rosen’s influential and otherwise highly insightful book The Classical Style.

Rosen refers freely to drama and to dramatic processes – indeed they are central to his apprecia-tion of this style – but without evaluating the significance of these concepts in historical terms.

27 On both of these points, see Elaine R. Sisman, ‘Haydn’s Theater Symphonies’, Journal of the Amer-ican Musicological Society, 43 (1990), pp. 292–352.

28 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos.

qualities of classical symphonies proliferate in the early nineteenth-century writ-ings of Jean Paul, Ludwig Tieck and E.T.A. Hoffmann,29 but they are also evidentin late eighteenth-century symphonic criticism, as we shall see.

Dramatic dialogue and the late eighteenth-century symphony

In 1785, three years before the composition of Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, theprominent French aesthetician Bernard Germain, Comte de Lacépède rendersexplicit the dramatic characteristics of the late eighteenth-century symphony.Lacépède is unlikely to have written with Mozart’s works uppermost in his mind,but his admiration for purportedly ‘progressive’ late eighteenth-century Germansymphonists such as Franz Ignaz Beck and Johann Franz Xavier Sterkel reveals acosmopolitan outlook on the genre, an outlook not limited to works by his Frenchcompatriots.30 The symphonic composer should be, in Lacépède’s words:

considering them [symphonies] as just three great acts in a play, to be thinking thathe was working on a tragedy, or a comedy or a pastoral . . .

The first piece, the one that we call the allegro of the symphony would present soto speak the overture and the first scenes; in the andante or second piece, the musi-cian would place the depiction of the tremendous events, the fearful passions, or theagreeable objects which were to constitute the basic content of the piece; and the lastpiece, which we usually call the presto, would offer the last effects of these frightful ortouching passions; the dénouement would also show itself there, and we would seefollowing it the pain, terror and consternation that a fateful catastrophe inspires, orthe joy, happiness and frenzy to which pleasant and happy events give rise.31

Although Lacépède’s comments – indeed those of all French late eighteenth-century critics who write positively about instrumental music – must be regarded

144 SYMPHONIES

29 See Gruber, Mozart and Posterity, p. 79, and Hosler, Changing Aesthetic Views, pp. 190, 227.30 Lacépède recommends for study the concertos, symphonies and symphonies concertantes of Beck

and Sterkel, alongside those by the French composers Jean-Baptiste Davaux, Jean-Baptiste-AiméJanson and his teacher François-Joseph Gossec. See Lacépède, ‘Des symphonies, des concertosetc.’, in La poëtique de la musique (Paris, 1785), 2 vols., vol. 2, p. 341. Lacépède, who moved toParis in 1776, probably encountered Haydn’s symphonies while writing his treatise, givenHaydn’s surge to symphonic prominence in the French capital in the early 1780s. On the latterpoint, see Bernard Harrison, Haydn: the ‘Paris’ Symphonies (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1998), especially pp. 5–25.

31 Lacépède, La poëtique de la musique, vol. 2, pp. 331–32. ‘Mais ensuite il faudroit qu’il ne lesconsidérat que comme trois grands actes d’une pièce de théâtre, qu’il crût travailler à une tragédie,à une comédie, ou à une pastorale . . .

Le premier morceau, celui que l’on appelle l’allegro de la symphonie, en présenteroit pour ainsidire l’ouverture & les premières scenes; dans l’andante ou le second morceau, le musicien placeroitla peinture des évenemens terribles, des passions redoubtables, ou des objets agréables quidevroient faire le fonds de la pièce; & le dernier morceau, auquel on donne communément le nomde presto, offriroit les derniers efforts de ces passions affreuses ou touchantes; le dénouement s’ymontreroit aussi, & l’on verroit à sa suite la douleur, l’effroi & la consternation qu’inspire unecatastrophe funeste, ou la joie, le bonheur & le délire que seroient naître des évenémens agréables& heureux.’

in part as a response to the prevailing French scepticism about the meaningfulnessof instrumental music,32 his suggestion that the symphonic composer putshimself in the mindset of a playwright strikes a chord with Sulzer’s earlier sugges-tion that the composer of a work should draw on quasi dramatic inspiration inorder to reach an appropriate emotional state: ‘The best thing to do would be toimagine some event, situation, or state which highlights most naturally what hewishes to present.’33 But Lacépède goes further than other contemporary writersin bringing the issue of drama in the symphony into close relation with late eigh-teenth-century preoccupations about the genre in general, most importantly inthe textural domain. Shortly after outlining the dramatic shape of the symphony,Lacépède explains how individual segments of the drama might be formulated:

In order to distinguish, as it were, between different interlocutors, we would choosethe most prominent instruments in the orchestra, those whose nature best matchedthe characters we had imagined. We would use them to create a kind of dialogueaccompanied by the rest of the orchestra; sometimes a single instrument would, as itwere, speak, and we would have a kind of monologue; sometimes by joiningtogether they would form a kind of scene with several characters; and when oneneeded to introduce choruses into the drama, the whole orchestra would play in anoisier and more emphatic way, representing a multitude adding its roars to thecries of passion of the most interesting characters.34

By describing dialogue among orchestral ‘characters’, Lacépède highlights one ofthe most popular metaphors for instrumental interaction in the symphony. In asimilar fashion to Lacépède, Jean François de Chastellux explains in 1765 that theworks of German symphonists ‘are a type of Concerto, in which the instrumentsshine in turn, in which they provoke each other and respond; they dispute andreconcile among themselves. It is a lively and sustained conversation.’35 More-over, J.J.O. de Meude-Monpas – in praising the works of Gossec – cites dialogue


32 On fundamental trends in writings on French musical aesthetics from this period, see Maria RikaManiates, ‘ “Sonate, que me veux-tu?” The Enigma of French Musical Aesthetics in the 18thCentury’, Current Musicology, 9 (1969), pp. 117–40.

33 ‘Ausdruck in der Musik’, in Allgemeine Theorie, vol. 1, p. 273, given in Aesthetics and the Art ofMusical Composition, p. 53.

34 Lacépède, La poëtique de la musique, vol. 2, pp. 332–33. ‘Pour qu’on put en quelques sorte ydistinguer différens interlocuteurs, on choisiroit dans l’orchestre les instrumens les plus saillans,et dont la nature conviendroit le mieux au caractères qu’on auroit feints; on s’en serviroit pourformer des espèces de dialogues accompagnés par tout le reste de l’orchestre; tantôt un seul instru-ment parleroit, pour ainsi dire, et l’on verroit une sorte de monologue; et tantôt en se réunissant ilsformeroient des espèces de scènes à plusieurs personages; & lorsqu’on auroit besoin d’introduiredes choeurs dans le drame, tout l’orchestre jouant d’une manière plus bruyante & plus marquée,représenteroit une multitude qui joindroit ses clameurs aux cris des passions des personages lesplus intéressans.’

35 Chastellux, Essai sur l’union de la poesie & de la musique (Paris, 1765), pp. 49–50; as given in MarkEvan Bonds, ‘The Symphony as Pindaric Ode’, in Haydn and his World, ed. Elaine Sisman(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 143.

as an illustration of ‘the good way to write’ (la bonne manière d’écrire) in thesymphonic genre.36

In the context of theoretical writings on the late eighteenth-century symphony,references to dialogue often reflect the critical assumption that symphoniesshould aspire to textural equality among instrumental parts. Classical theoristsciting connections between the string quartet and symphonic genres reinforce theprimacy of participatory equality, since the quartet was widely acknowledged atthe end of the eighteenth century as a metaphorical paradigm of intelligentconversation among equal interlocutors.37 Francesco Galeazzi states, for example,that the symphony is similar to the string quartet ‘with the sole difference of aquite extensive interlacing that must emanate from the various parts’.38 In addi-tion, a writer for the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in October 1800 findsMozart’s symphonies similar in tendency and spirit to his quartets, albeit richerand more energetic.39

Critical references to the prominent role of all instrumental parts in sympho-nies imply equality of participation even when not invoking dialogue. JohannKarl Friedrich Triest (1801) follows Lacépède in implicitly recognizing asdramatic the symphony’s move towards participatory equality. He explains thatcomposers such as Haydn and Mozart ‘took advantage of the more developedinternal and external tonal mechanism to transform voices that had been mereaccompaniments into more obbligato parts. This was done both in works for soloinstruments . . . and in combinations of several instruments, for example insymphonies, quartets etc., where the intent was to achieve a result more or less thesame as that produced by beautiful groups of figures . . . on the stage.’40 Other lateeighteenth-century critics acknowledge the ‘excellence’ of Mozart’s instrumenta-tion in his symphonies, at least according to Franz Niemetschek.41 Mozartexploits the potential of the entire orchestra, as Niemetschek explains with refer-ence to the composer’s output in general: ‘He judged with extreme accuracy thenature and range of all instruments, plotted new paths for them and from each ofthem obtained the utmost effect, so that the greatest melodic potentiality wasrealized.’42

Historical references to dramatic dialogue in the late eighteenth-century

146 SYMPHONIES

36 Meude-Monpas, Dictionnaire de musique, p. 193.37 On the quartet as conversation metaphor see Finscher, Studien zur Geschichte des Streichquartetts

1, pp. 285–89; Barbara R. Hanning, ‘Conversation and Musical Style in the Late Eighteenth-Century Salon’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 22 (1988/89), pp. 512–28; Würtz, Dialogué: Vor-revolutionäre Kammermusik in Mannheim und Paris; Wheelock, Haydn’s Ingenious Jesting withArt, pp. 90–115.

38 Galeazzi, Elementi teorico-pratici di musica (Rome, 1796), 2 vols., vol. 2, p. 289; given in Bonds,‘Symphony as Pindaric Ode’, pp. 144–45.

39 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 3 (1800–1801), col. 27.40 Triest, ‘Remarks on the Development of the Art of Music in Germany in the Eighteenth Century’,

trans. Susan Gillespie, in Haydn and his World, ed. Sisman, p. 370.41 Niemetschek, Life of Mozart (1798), trans. Helen Mautner (London: Hyman, 1956), p. 77.42 Ibid., p. 57.

symphony, to the active participation of all instruments, and to Mozart’s skills asan orchestrator coalesce in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s insightful statementon Mozart’s symphonies in a long lecture on music from the 1820s:

To blend the various kinds of string and woodwind, to learn how to introduce thethunder of the trumpet-blast, how to emphasize first one and then another class ofdistinctive sounds most effectively, has required long experience with the instru-ments themselves . . . Mozart is the great master of instrumentation in this respect.In his symphonies . . . the controlled passing from one class of instruments toanother has often struck me as a dramatic interplay of dialogue of the most variedkind.43

The finale of the ‘Jupiter’ is a particularly good example of the process Hegeldescribes.44 It illustrates in an effective fashion Mozart’s ‘controlled passing fromone class of instruments to another’, the fugal exposition in the strings (bars36–52) leading to imitation between the first violin and cello (bars 56–64), astretto in the strings and winds (bars 64–73), a contrapuntal combination ofthematic material in the first violin and winds in the secondary theme (bars74–86) and a flute/bassoon imitation on the same motif as the earlier firstviolin/cello imitation (bars 86–94). (See Figure 6.1 below.) In accordance withLacépède, each of these passages could even be interpreted as a ‘scene with severalcharacters’.

But correspondences between Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ finale and theoretical discus-sions of drama and dialogue from the classical period go beyond superficial detail.For example Mozart’s reliance on fugal counterpoint, on standard fugal proce-dures such as stretto entries and on imitation (strict and informal) connects hismovement to contemporary discussions of musical dialogue. For the late eigh-teenth-century fugue is often likened to dialogue among a group of people. InJohann Nikolaus Forkel’s formulation (1788), the fugue constitutes statementsand responses of a passionate nature:

Let us imagine a people made emotional by the account of a great event, envisaginginitially a single member of this group, perhaps through the intensity of his feelings,being driven to make a short powerful statement as the expression of his feelings.Will not this emotional outpouring gradually grip the collective members of this


43 See H. Paolucci, ed. and trans., Hegel: On the Arts. Selections from G.W.F. Hegel’s ‘Aesthetics or thePhilosophy of Fine Arts’ (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1979), p. 133. The complete text of Hegel’sextended lecture on music – with the above quotation in a different translation on p. 923 – is givenin T.M. Knox, ed. and trans., G.W.F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1974), 2 vols., vol. 2, pp. 888–958. For succinct accounts of Hegel’s views onmusic, see Stephen Bungay, Beauty and Truth: A Study of Hegel’s Aesthetics (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1984), pp. 133–41, and Julian Johnson, ‘Music in Hegel’s Aesthetics: ARe-Evaluation’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 31/2 (1991), pp. 152–62.

44 While Hegel does not elaborate on specific Mozart symphonies that fit his mould, he obviouslyknew the ‘Jupiter’ – he uses it as an example of ‘a realization of art through the particular form ofmusic and . . . the sensuous reflection of the Idea as individual’. See Bungay, Beauty and Truth, p.54.

people and will he not be followed by first one, then several, then the majority, eachsinging the same song with him, modifying it according to his own way of feeling tobe sure, but on the whole concording with him as to the basic feeling?45

Similarly, Georg Joseph Vogler draws attention in the 1790s to the conversationalnature of fugue, in the process stressing the kind of equality of participation that isalso required of the symphony: ‘the fugue is a conversation among a multitude ofsingers . . . a musical artwork where no one accompanies, no one submits, wherenobody plays a secondary role, but each a principal part’.46 Musical imitation of aless formal nature also falls under the auspices of late eighteenth-century dialogueand constitutes the third of Antoine Reicha’s four definitions of dialogue in hisimportant codification of 1814.47 A case in point is the style dialogué, which ischaracterized by the imitation of motivic material evenly distributed among indi-vidual instruments (in its paradigmatic form).48 Again this brings to mindsymphonic and fugal equality of participation.

The dramatic attributes of instrumental dialogue in Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ finaleare best viewed through the lens of contemporary theoretical writings ondramatic dialogue. The most significant late eighteenth-century French writerson drama, for example, emphasize brevity, liveliness and concision as essentialqualities of successful dialogue. Cailhava (1786) advises the writer of comedy inunambiguous fashion: ‘When the author is free to cut or not cut his dialogue, Iexhort him not to hesitate. A shortened dialogue gives much more movement tothe scene.’49 As a result, the writing for individual characters in a play must besuccinct: ‘In order that the dialogue is shortened well, each character must, theysay, reply appropriately, quickly and in few words to the question asked.’50 Insum, precision is paramount: ‘The dialogue must be precise: that’s the word. Theart of giving it this quality consists not only in shortening it appropriately, inmaking it more or less rapid, according to circumstances: it also consists in notmaking a character speak when he has nothing to say.’51 Joseph de Laporte (1776)

148 SYMPHONIES

45 Forkel, Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik (Leipzig, 1788, 1801), 2 vols., vol. 1, pp. 47–48. This trans-lation is adapted from Hosler, Changing Aesthetic Views, pp. 185–86.

46 Vogler, System für den Fugenbau (Offenbach, 1811), p. 28; given in Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies,p. 544. As Zaslaw points out, Vogler’s remark dates back to the last decade of the eighteenthcentury.

47 Reicha, ‘Huitième Proposition, Qui a pour but de dialoguer la mélodie’, in Traité de mélodie, pp.89–92. The four procedures characterized as dialogue are given on p. 89.

48 On musical characteristics of the style dialogué see Würtz, Vorrevolutionäre Kammermusik, pp.55–86. See also Hanning, ‘Conversation and Musical Style’. For a summary of the differencesbetween critical definitions of dialogue/dialogué and concertant, see Keefe, Mozart’s PianoConcertos, pp. 2–3.

49 Cailhava, ‘Du dialogue’, in De l’art de la comédie (Paris, 1786), 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 181. ‘Lorsqu’unauteur a la liberté de couper son dialogue, ou de ne pas le couper, je l’exhorte à ne point hésiter. Undialogue coupé donne beaucoup plus de mouvement à la scène.’

50 Ibid., p. 186. ‘Pour que le dialogue soit bien coupé, il faut, dit-on, que chaque personage répondrejuste, vîte et en peu de mots, à ce qu’on lui demande.’

51 Ibid., ‘Du dialogue’, p. 189. ‘Le dialogue doit être précis: voilà le mot. L’art de lui donner cette

adopts a similar position. Explaining that ‘the principles of dialogue’ are the samefor comedy as for tragedy, he argues that ‘[o]ne of the greatest perfections ofdialogue is liveliness’.52 Like Denis Diderot, Cailhava and Louis SébastienMercier, Laporte is especially enamoured by dialogue in Pierre Corneille’s plays,describing it as ‘lively and sharp’ (vif et coupé).53 In contrast, these writers findRacine’s dialogues unsatisfactory, the considerable length of each statementrendering them ‘less lively’ (moins vives) in the theatre than on the page (Laporte);unlike Corneille, Mercier explains, Racine does not understand the importance todialogue of ‘liveliness’ (vivacité).54 The idea that dramatic dialogues should be‘natural’ – frequently articulated in theoretical circles – also assumes the dialogicqualities prescribed by French classical writers. The influential Austrian intellec-tual Joseph von Sonnenfels identifies dialogue as a stumbling block for manyeighteenth-century dramatists. Railing against long and meandering successionsof verses that swell with emotion and become incomprehensible, Sonnenfelsexplains that dialogue should be natural, implicitly advocating clarity throughconcision.55

At the heart of insistences on brevity and concision in dramatic dialogue is theconcept of rapidité.56 Laporte demonstrates its relevance to dramatic dialogue inhis comparison of Molière’s dialogue to that of the less illustrious succeedinggeneration of playwrights. Dialogue in comedy ‘must flow naturally. This is one ofthe great merits of Molière. We do not see, in any of his plays, a single example ofan out-of-place reply. His successors multiplied the tirades, the portraits etc.Nothing is more contrary to the rapidité of dialogue.’57 Friedrich Melchior (Baronvon) Grimm, the eminent aesthetician who was Mozart’s landlord during his stayin Paris in 1778, was an especially enthusiastic advocate of rapidité. As he explainsin an article in the monumental Encyclopédie, rapidité is obligatory in an opera,both as ‘a quality inseparable from music and one of the principal causes of itsmarvellous effects’ and as an essential component of a libretto in which ‘long andextraneous dialogues are nowhere more out of place’.58 Having probablydiscussed the concept with Grimm in Paris, Mozart amply demonstrates his own


qualité consiste non seulement à le couper, à propos, à le rendre plus ou moins rapide, selon descirconstances: il consiste encore à ne pas faire parler un personage lorsqu’il n’a rien à dire.’

52 Laporte, ‘Dialogue’, in Dictionnaire Dramatique, vol. 1, pp. 393, 385. ‘Une des plus grandesperfections du Dialogue, c’est la vivacité’.

53 Ibid., p. 390.54 Ibid., p. 390; Mercier, Du théâtre, ou nouvel essai sur l’art dramatique (Amsterdam, 1773), p. 283.55 Sonnenfels, Briefe über die Wienerische Schaubühne (1768), ed. H. Haigler-Pregler (Graz:

Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1988), p. 243.56 The English rendering of rapidité as ‘rapidity’ does not sufficiently capture the notions of brevity

and concision to which the concept is connected, so I leave the term un-translated.57 Laporte, Dictionnaire Dramatique, vol. 1, p. 393. ‘Il doit être celui de la nature même. C’est un des

grands mérites de Molière. On ne voit pas, dans toutes ses Piéces, un seul exemple d’une répliquehors de propos. Ses successeurs ont multiplié les tirades, les portraits &c. Rien n’est plus contraireà la rapidité du Dialogue.’

58 As given in Knepler, Mozart, p. 50.

commitment to the concision characteristic of rapidité in letters to Leopold fromMunich (1780–81) in which he fastidiously details cuts and shortenings inIdomeneo.59 Moreover, Mozart considered rapidité relevant to his orchestralmusic as well as his operas, as illustrated by his plan in September 1778 to shortenhis violin concertos: ‘In Germany we rather like length, but after all it is better tobe short and good.’60

The preference for concision, brevity and liveliness in late eighteenth-centurywritings on theatrical dialogue relates in part to the critical predilection for shortand sharp dialogic confrontations between characters. While late eigh-teenth-century discussions of confrontation in plays are directly relevant to theinteraction of Mozart’s soloist and orchestra in several piano concertos, they areless relevant to the finale of the ‘Jupiter’, where the voluminous fugal and imita-tive dialogues engender a spirit of instrumental equality and where the concerto’sopposition of soloist and orchestra is obviously lacking.61 Nevertheless, musicaldialogue in general, like its dramatic counterpart, benefits from concision, brevityand intensity even if not illustrative of confrontation. Jérôme-Joseph deMomigny acknowledges these dialogic qualities – albeit not specifically forsymphonic dialogue – in comparing a segment of the first movement of Mozart’sString Quartet in D minor, K. 421, to the standard practice of a less experiencedand less talented composer: ‘A student would have put all these imitations of thesame subject [i.e. bars 53–58 in the development section] in the same part. Thenwe would no longer have heard anything but a kind of scale in place of thisdialogue that is so compressed, so pressing, and so admirable.’62

Most important, the demand for dialogic concision in late eighteenth-centurydramatic theory is intrinsically linked to a theoretical sine qua non, namely thedemand for absolute clarity of dramatic procedures and structure. As Laporteexplains, dialogue in a play must fulfil a teleological function:

It is desirable that the arrangement of the subject should be such that in each scenewe set out from one point in order to arrive at another determined point . . . that thedialogue should only serve the development of the action. Each step would be a newstep towards the denouement, a new link in the plot; in a word a means of weavingor developing, of preparing a situation, or of moving to a new situation.63

150 SYMPHONIES

59 Knepler, Mozart, p. 50. For the relevant Mozart letters on Idomeneo, see Anderson, ed. and trans.,Letters, pp. 659–710 (passim).

60 Knepler, Mozart, p. 51; see also Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 615.61 On piano/orchestra confrontation in Mozart’s piano concertos, set in the context of late eigh-

teenth-century theoretical discussion of drama, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, especially pp.32–34, 45–74. In any case (as we shall see), the alternation of the strings/brass and woodwinds inthe development of the ‘Jupiter’ finale (bars 187–207) is suggestive of confrontation.

62 Given in Wye Jamison Allannbrook’s translation in Strunk’s Source Readings in Music History, ed.Leo Treitler (New York: Norton, 1998), p. 831.

63 Laporte, Dictionnaire Dramatique, vol. 1, p. 394. ‘Il seroit à souhaiter que la disposition du sujet fûttelle, qu’à chaque scène on parte d’un point pour arriver à un point déterminé . . . que le Dialoguene dût servir qu’aux progrès de l’action. Chaque réplique seroit un nouveau pas vers le

In a similar vein, Hegel’s ‘dramatic interplay of dialogue’ in Mozart’s symphonies,while not necessarily understanding dialogue in specific technical terms (imita-tion etc.), nonetheless highlights its directional quality. Immediately after thepassage quoted above, Hegel clarifies how Mozart’s symphonic dialogue canenact a goal-orientated process:

In one aspect of this [the dramatic interplay of dialogue in Mozart’s symphonies],the character of one variety of instruments is developed musically to the point whereit anticipates and prepares the way for the character of another; or, approaching itfrom another side, the impression is that one kind of instrument is replying toanother or is introducing something which could not have been adequatelyexpressed by the sound of the preceding instrument; so that what arises out of all ofthis is a truly captivating colloquy, made up of sounds, with beginnings, progres-sions, and completions.64

It is reasonable to suggest that a symphonic movement such as the ‘Jupiter’finale will need to embrace a philosophy analogous in musical terms to the ideasdescribed above if it is to justify a ‘dramatic’ epithet in line with neo-classicalthought. In any case musical dialogue (instrumental alone, and instrumental andtextual combined) in Le nozze di Figaro (1786) and Don Giovanni (1787) demon-strates the close relationship between theoretical positions outlined above andMozart’s dramatic practice, confirming the pursuit of musical-dramatic corre-spondences in Mozart’s symphonic repertory as a legitimate hermeneutic exer-cise. Numbers such as the Act 2 trio, Act 3 sextet, ‘Letter duet’ (‘Che soavezeffiretto’) and aria ‘Deh vieni’ from Figaro, and ‘La cì darem’, ‘Batti, batti’ andthe Act 2 trio from Don Giovanni present succinct, concise and systematicdialogue supporting Mozart’s theoretical subscription to the idea of rapidité.65 Inmany instances, the accumulation of dialogue and resulting teleology across anumber fulfils a function similar to that argued for theatrical dialogue by Laporte.Such musical processes often support a development in the operatic plot –progressively succinct and intricate dialogue among Don Giovanni, Zerlina andthe accompanying orchestra in ‘La cì darem’ represents Don Giovanni’s seduc-tion, and among the Count, Countess and Susanna in the Act 2 trio from Figarothe shared belief by the end that scandal must be avoided – and/or correspond tostandard practices in late eighteenth-century opera buffa, including interlocutorsuniting in the concluding stages of a dialogued duet and progressions fromdialogue to tutti sections in finales.66


dénouement, des chaînons de l’intrigue; en un mot un moyen de nouer ou de développer, depréparer une situation, ou de passer à une situation nouvelle.’

64 Paolucci, ed. and trans., Hegel: On the Arts, p. 133.65 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, Chapter 5, pp. 101–46.66 On ‘La cì darem’ and the Act 2 trio from Figaro, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 116–17.

The dialogued duet is discussed in Elisabeth Cook, Duet and Ensemble in the Early Opéra Comique(London: Garland, 1995), especially pp. 228–45, and its relevance to eighteenth- and earlynineteenth-century technical understandings of dialogue explained in Keefe, Mozart’s Piano

Dramatic dialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finale

The virtues of dialogic conciseness and equality of participation articulated bydramatic theorists and music theorists are more evident in the finale of Mozart’s‘Jupiter’ Symphony than in any of his preceding symphonic movements. This isdue in part at least to Mozart’s reliance on imitative dialogue. In a definition ofdialogue from 1814 that is significant in historical terms for its synthesis of rela-tively informal theoretical understandings of the concept from the eighteenthcentury, Antoine Reicha outlines only four possible manifestations of musicaldialogue: ‘first by executing the full periods alternately; second by distributing thephrases (or members of the periods) among the different voices that are toexecute the melody; third by motives [dessins], that is to say, by little imitations;fourth by starting a phrase with one voice and finishing it with another’.67 SinceReicha’s first, second, and fourth types of dialogue imply less frequent exchangefrom one instrument or voice to another than the third, they would be ostensiblyless likely to reveal the qualities of brevity, concision and vivacity cited bydramatic theorists. More important, Mozart’s imitations in the ‘Jupiter’ finale areterse and brisk – in the exposition, for example, strettos, rapid combinations ofmotifs, imitations at a distance of one bar, and succinct fugal entries. (For a repre-sentation of dialogue in the entire finale, see Fig. 6.1.) Moreover, the active partic-ipation of all instrumental parts in the finale – a laudable stylistic trait in Mozart’smusic as recognized by his contemporaries – is plain for all to see. The initial twodialogues in both the exposition and recapitulation are carried out by the strings,but wind instruments are equally as involved as their string counterparts in subse-quent exchanges.

More remarkable than the characteristics of dialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finale isthe manner in which dialogue is organized in individual sections and across themovement as a whole. The exposition features a rudimentary dialogic ‘balance’,while also revealing a marked increase in dialogic intensity from beginning to end.The midpoint of the exposition – the presentation of the second theme at bars74–86 in a section of 157 bars – is both preceded and followed by an immediatesuccession of one-bar imitations (theme 3) and strettos; in addition, the firstdialogue in the exposition, which involves only strings, is balanced by the finalone, which features only winds. From a teleological perspective, however, Mozartprogresses towards greater dialogic complexity in the second half of the section.After the second theme, the one-bar imitations of theme 3 are combined not withstraightforward repeated quavers (as in bars 56–64) but with sequentially

152 SYMPHONIES

Concertos, pp. 30–32 and Keefe, ‘Reicha’s Dialogue’, pp. 50–52. On dialogues and tutti in operabuffa finales see John Platoff, ‘Musical and Dramatic Structure in the Opera Buffa Finale’, Journalof Musicology, 7 (1989), pp. 213–14.

67 Reicha, Traité de mélodie, p. 89. ‘1o. les périodes entières s’exécutent alternativement; 2o. endistribuant les phrases (ou membres de périodes) entre les différentes voix qui doivent exécuter laMélodie; 3o. on dialogue par dessins, c’est-à-dire par de petites imitations; 4o. on commence unephrase par une voix, et on achève par une autre.’


Figure 6.1: Dialogue in the Finale of K. 551

Procedural correspondences (‘symmetry’ etc.)

Teleological dialogic process; increase in dialogic intensity[ ] Additional observations (harmonic, thematic, tonal etc.)

EXPOSITION

First themeBars 1–35: Statements of 1, continuation of 1, 2. No dialogue

TransitionBars 36–52: Fugal exposition on 1 (1st vln – 2nd vln – vla – cello)[Passage is followed immediately by climactic f statement of 1 inthe full orchestra (bar 53)]

Bars 56–64: Sequential imitation on 3 (1st vln – cello)[Beginning of the modulatory process (bar 56); affirmation of V/G (bar 64)]

Bars 64–73: Stretto on 2 (fl/1st vln/2nd vln – ob/bsn/vla/cello – horn)[Pattern repeated][Affirmation of V/G (bars 64–73)]

Second themeBars 74–86: Exchange of 4, 5, 3, 2 (1st vln [4] – ob [5] – bsn [3] – fl [2])[Pattern repeated][G major]

Bars 86–94: Sequential imitation on 3 (fl – bsn)[V/G pedal (bars 86–94)]

Bars 94–110: Stretto on 4(a) Bars 94–98 (fl/ob1/1st vln – bsn/ob2/cello [semibreves only])(b) Bars 98–110 (1st vln – 2nd vln – cello – vla [sequence, x3])[Cadential reconfirmation of G, following pedal, in bar 94]

Bars 115–26: Imitation on continuation of 1 (1st vln – winds/brass; vla/cello –winds/brass)[Cadential reconfirmation of G (bars 114–15). End of imitation coincides witha iv6 – IV6 chordal progression (bars 127–30) preceding the perfect cadencein G in bars 134–35.]

Bars 135–45: Stretto on 2 and 2 inverted (vla/cello – ob/fl – vlns[sequence, x3])[Cadential reconfirmation of G (bars 134–35). Sequence is followed bya repeated harmonic pattern, affirming G through a repeated cadentialaction (bars 145–51)]

Bars 151–57: Imitation on 2 (ob – bsn)[G pedal in the cellos/basses (bars 151–57)]

154 SYMPHONIES

DEVELOPMENT

Bars 158–72: Alternation of 1 and 2 (including 2 inverted) (vlns/vla – ob/bsn;vlns/vla – fl/bsn)[Tonal progression: G – E (bar 166) – V/a (bar 172)]

Bars 172–86: Stretto on 2 (hn/tr/tmp/cello – 1st vln – vla/fl/ob/bsn – 2nd vln[sequence, x4])[Tonal progression in sequence: a–d–G–C]

Bars 186–207: Alternation of 1 and 2; Stretto on 2 (including inversion)(strings/brass – winds [sequence, x4])[Tonal progression in sequence: c–g–d–V/III]

Bars 210–19: Imitation on 2 (including inversion) (1st vln – vla/cello –vlns/vla/cello)[V/III (bars 210–19)]

Bars 219–24: Imitation of beginning of 2 (bsn1–bsn2–hn–1st vln [leadingdirectly to 1 for recap])[Chromatic descent in cello/bass (B–G, bars 219–23), including a dim7 –bVI#6 – I6/4 – V7 – I progression (bars 221–25) leading into the recapitulation]

RECAPITULATIONFirst themeBars 225–32: 8-bar statement of 1 and continuation of 1. No dialogue.

Secondary Development/TransitionBars 241–52: Stretto on 1 (partially hidden) (1st vln – 2nd vln)[Five-fold sequencing of 1 (bars 233–52)]

Bars 253–62: Sequential imitation on 3 (cello – 1st vln)[Tonicization of IV (bar 254); affirmation of V/C (bar 262)]

Bars 262–71: Stretto on 2 (fl/1st vln/2nd vln – ob/bsn/vla/cellos – hn/tr – tmp)[Pattern repeated][Affirmation of V/C (bars 262–71)]

Second themeBars 272–84: Exchange of 4, 5, 3, 2(1st vln [4] – ob [5] – bsn [3] – fl [2]; on repeat: 1st vln [4] – bsn [5] – ob/fl [3] –bsn [2])

Bars 284–91: Sequential imitation on 3 (ob – fl)[V/C pedal (bars 284–91]

Bars 292–308: Stretto on 4(a) Bars 292–96 (fl/ob1/1st vln – bsn/ob2/cello [minims only])(b) Bars 296–308 (1st vln – 2nd vln – cello – vla [sequence, x3])[Cadential reconfirmation of C, following pedal, in bar 292]

Bars 313–24: Imitation on continuation of 1 (1st vln – winds/brass; cello/bsn– winds/brass)[Cadential reconfirmation of C (bars 312–13). End of imitation coincides withan extension to the corresponding passage from the exposition, including aclimactic melodic ascent to E (flute, 1st vln, bar 332) and a iv6 – bII6/4 – bVI7– I6/4 – V7 – I reconfirmation of C (bars 325–34)]

Bars 334–44: Stretto on 2 and 2 inverted, pre-empted by dotted rhythms inwinds/brass at the end of preceding phrase (bars 332–33) (cello/vla – fl/ob –vlns [sequence, x3])[Cadential reconfirmation of C (bars 333–34). Sequence is followed by a repeatedharmonic pattern, affirming C through a repeated cadential action (bars 344–50)]

Bars 350–56: Imitation on 2 (including 2 inverted) (bsn – fl)[C pedal in the cellos/basses (bars 350–53)]

descending quavers in the violins that derive ultimately from the sequentiallydescending quavers in themes 2 and 4; the stretto in bars 98–110 is a four-entrystretto, taken through two further sequential repeats, as opposed to a three-entrystretto repeated only once (as in bars 64–73); and the stretto on theme 2 in bars135–45 also intensifies the earlier stretto on the same theme by featuring twosequential repeats and by combining both the theme and its inversion.68


68 That the exposition and the development/recapitulation sections are marked for repeat in K.551/iv should not detract from the dramatic import of the movement. Since late eighteenth-century theorists of drama cited above – as well as other influential writers such as Lessing,Diderot and Goethe – extol the virtues of systematic, logical and clear dramatic procedures while

CodaBars 356–59: Imitation/Stretto on 2 and 2 inverted (strings – winds)[Articulation of I7 harmony (bars 356–59)]

Bars 360–71: Stretto on 1 and 1 inverted (vlns – vla/cello/fl)[Ends with iv6 – V7 – I progression (bars 370–72), the end of which coincideswith the beginning of the ensuing dialogue]

Bars 372–402: Double fugue on 1 and 4 (strings, winds); Canonic combinationof 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (strings and winds in 5-part invertible counterpoint). Each stringand wind instrument plays a different motif every four bars (e.g. bars 384–87,388–91, 392–95, 396–99), curtailed to three bars at the end (bars 399–401),creating a tapestry of imitative dialogue in which all five themes are involved.

Bars 402–23: Statements of continuation of 1 and 2. No dialogue.

The five themes from the Finale of K. 551

Like the exposition, the development section demonstrates forward momen-tum in dialogic terms. While two procedures occur separately in the first half ofthe section – themes 1 and 2 are alternated in bars 158–72 and theme 2 heard instretto in bars 172–86 – these two procedures are directly juxtaposed in theensuing passage (bars 186–207). In line with Reicha’s writings on dialogue, theopposition of themes 1 and 2 in bars 158–72 and 186–207 imply the type ofdialogic confrontation between strings and wind protagonists (especially in thelater passage where opposing dynamics, rhythms, note values etc. accentuate thecontrast between alternated material) that is witnessed between the soloist andthe orchestra in the development sections of several of Mozart’s piano concertofirst movements.69 Any remnants of confrontation between the strings (theme 1)and the winds (theme 2) are cancelled out, however, in the concluding bars of thesection (bars 219ff.); the dotted rhythm beginning theme 2 is passed from thebassoons (bars 219–20), to the horn (bar 221) and finally to the first violin (bar222) which states theme 2 in its entirety to merge this theme (at the end of thedevelopment) into the reprise of theme 1 (at the beginning of the recapitulation)and thus to negate the earlier opposition between them.

The crowning glory of dialogic procedures initiated in the ‘Jupiter’ finale’sexposition and development sections comes in the recapitulation, where Mozartintensifies his goal-orientated processes. Alterations and additions to dialoguefrom the exposition provide the means to this end. For example, the first and lastdialogic passages in the section as a whole – the stretto on 1 in the secondarydevelopment (bars 241–52) and the double fugue and five-part invertible coun-terpoint in the coda (bars 372–402) – are both new to the movement and stretchthe extremities of the recapitulation’s teleological process beyond the corre-sponding extremities of the exposition; Mozart now progresses from entries oftheme 1 in the terse secondary development that are concealed by the continuoussemibreve movement in the violins (bars 241–52) to the contrapuntal zenith ofthe coda where each of the five principal motifs is simultaneously dialogued fromone instrumental part to another in four-bar units (in bars 372–91, for example,theme 2 from viola – 2nd violin – 1st violin – bass – cello and theme 1 from thecello – viola – 2nd violin – 1st violin – bass). The interpolation of dotted rhythmsin the flute, oboes, trumpets and timpani (bars 332–33) after the climacticsequential rise of bars 328–32 (itself a re-composed version of the exposition)pre-empts the dotted rhythms prevalent in the ensuing stretto on theme 2, thusintensifying this juncture of the recapitulation in relation to the correspondingpassage in the exposition (bars 130ff.) by creating a direct dialogic link betweenmaterial not linked in the exposition. The re-orchestrated version of the secondtheme in the recapitulation is also of significance to the section’s teleological

156 SYMPHONIES

denigrating stereotypically ‘dramatic’ qualities of surprise and suspense, the repetition of specificdialogic patterns and processes will not in itself challenge their dramatic status.

69 On Reicha’s explanation of confrontational dialogue, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp.32–34.

focus. While the repeated statement of the second theme in the expositionfeatures identical scoring to the initial statement (see bars 74–86), the repeat ofthe second theme in the recapitulation re-scores the wind presentations of themes5, 3 and 2 so as to illustrate the contrapuntal invertibility of the themes (see bars272–84) and thus to foreshadow the invertible counterpoint of the coda.

As well as intensifying the teleological structure of the recapitulation and coda,added dialogue in this section also retains (in re-shaped form) the interactional‘balance’ of the exposition. The first and last dialogues from the recapitulationagain square exclusive string participation (in the former) with exclusive windinvolvement (in the latter). Equilibrium is further reinforced in the thematicdomain by the stretto on theme 1 in original and inverted forms at the beginningof the coda (bars 360–71). The only other sustained passage of theme 1 semibrevewriting in more than one part is the secondary development passage. As a result,there is an even stronger affinity between the beginning and end of the finalsection than between the corresponding junctures of the exposition. Moreover,the presence of a pseudo inversion of theme 1 in the cello in the secondary devel-opment passage (bars 243–50) – the only such occurrence before the coda – fore-shadows the more overt manifestations of the inverted theme 1 in the laterpassage (bars 360–67).

Irrespective of whether we regard the entire recapitulation and coda, or just thecoda by itself, as the denouement of Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ finale, we will acknowledgethe dramatic intensity of the movement’s dialogic procedures. Just as Joseph deLaporte argues that each reply in theatrical dialogue ‘would be a new step towardsthe denouement . . . in a word a means of weaving or developing, of preparing asituation, or of passing to a new situation’, so the nature, organization and struc-ture of Mozart’s dialogues in the exposition and development pave the way for therecapitulation and coda. Moreover, by preparing the listener so thoroughly in theexposition and development sections for the forceful drive, terse structure andintricate technique of the recapitulation and coda, Mozart writes individualdialogues that are, at one and the same time, inherently striking in themselves andpowerfully directed towards even greater fulfilment. Goethe makes this very pointin explaining what a theatrical piece requires in order to be fit for the stage: ‘eachincident must be significant in itself, and lead to another still more important.The Tartuffe of Molière is, in this respect, a great example. Only think what anintroduction is the first scene! From the beginning everything is highly signifi-cant, and leads us to expect something still more important.’70 Indeed, Mozart’sinitial dialogue ‘scenes’ – the fugal exposition, protracted imitation and stretto inquick succession in the transition, for example – are striking as they stand, butquickly precipitate an even more remarkable chain of events – a goal-directeddialogic process in the exposition, an exposition and development that come to a


70 Goethe, Conversations with Eckermann (1823–32), trans. J. Oxenford (San Francisco: North PointPress, 1984), p. 105.

climax in procedural terms in the recapitulation, and a recapitulation that itselfculminates in the glorious dialogue of the coda.

Leading dramatic theorists of the Enlightenment often remark upon theimportance of plays propelling themselves forward from beginning to end in amanner akin to the forward propulsion witnessed in the ‘Jupiter’ finale. DenisDiderot outlines in unambiguous fashion the kind of procedural rigour anddramatic impetus that must be incorporated into a play: ‘It [the incident begin-ning the action] will naturally lead to the second, the second scene to the third,and the act will be filled out. The important point is for the action to gathermomentum and to be very clear.’71 Goethe, in contrasting the role of the principalcharacter in a novel and in a drama, argues a similar point: ‘The novel must goslowly forward; and the sentiments of the hero, by some means or another, mustrestrain the tendency of the whole to unfold itself and to conclude. The drama, onthe other hand, must hasten, and the character of the hero must press forward tothe end.’72 These pronouncements are exemplified by dialogue in Mozart’s ‘Jupi-ter’ finale. What is more, the consistency and clarity of dramatic procedure stipu-lated by late eighteenth-century dramatic theorists is realized at several levels inMozart’s movement. The ‘tone’ of the dialogue – brisk imitation – is consistentthroughout; and the make-up and structure of individual dialogues points relent-lessly forward, as we have seen. Even the interactional balance identified in theseparate sections extends in a general way to the structure of the movement as awhole. Just as Mozart opens his finale in galant style with orchestral tuttis and anabsence of imitation and follows this with a fugal exposition, so he closes hismovement with the reverse – a double fugue and five-part invertible counterpoint(bars 372–402) followed by a galant tutti.73 In addition, the middle section – thedevelopment – adds to the rudimentary sense of symmetry by dividing into twoapproximately equal segments, the first looking back primarily to procedures inthe exposition and the second looking forward above all to the recapitulation andcoda. By including a stretto on theme 2 that is treated sequentially and thatfeatures the entire orchestra, the first half (bars 158–86) invokes bars 64–73 and,in particular, bars 135–45 from the exposition; in contrast, the second half (bars186–224), with both its abrasive sequence (bars 186–206) and its smooth integra-tion of distinct themes (bars 222ff.), foreshadows the harsh sequences of thesecondary development and the fluidic thematic exchange of the codarespectively.

Given that the late eighteenth-century sublime becomes, according to Sisman,‘part of a sequence of events, even the enactment of a plot’, it is theoreticallypossible for a historically-informed listener to hear the coda of the ‘Jupiter’ finaleboth as the climactic moment in an unfolding dramatic process and as a mani-

158 SYMPHONIES

71 As quoted in Michael J. Sidnell, ed. and trans., Sources of Dramatic Theory: 2. Voltaire to Hugo(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 65.

72 Ibid., p. 141.73 See Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, pp. 74–76, 79.

festation of the sublime, with its overwhelming ‘contrapuntal chaos’ and ‘vistas ofcontrapuntal infinity’.74 Ultimately, though, the identification of sublime chaosand contrapuntal infinity in the coda does not adequately account for the partici-pation of one particular group of instruments whose involvement in this famouspassage has often been ignored by commentators – the brass. While every stringand wind part in bars 388–402 presents one of the five principal themes of themovement creating elaborate five-part invertible counterpoint and a rich tapestryof imitative dialogue, the horns and trumpets are conspicuously absent from thisprocess. To be sure, late eighteenth-century horn and trumpet instruments wouldhave been physically incapable of playing the unadulterated versions of themes2–5 offered by the strings and winds, but had he so desired Mozart could certainlyhave made their material more closely related to the melodic and rhythmiccontent of these themes.75 As it stands, the material of the horns and trumpetscould be heard either as pan-motivic or as non-motivic. We could argue that thedotted crotchet – quaver – minim rhythm in bars 3883–892 derives from theopening of theme 2, that the subsequent three minims (3893–90) originate in theopening of theme 4, and that the four minims in bar 391 loosely invert theme 5;but we might maintain with equal justification that the trumpets and horns offerostensibly ‘new’ material, to all intents and purposes unrelated to the principalthematic argument of the movement. Irrespective of how we channel our inter-pretation, it is clear that the horns and trumpets stand apart from the dialogicmelee (although they unambiguously partake in dialogic activity earlier in themovement), and that their straightforward lines – even accounting for the limitednature of late eighteenth-century brass instruments – contrast sharply withmaterial presented by every other orchestral instrument (timpani excluded).76

Due recognition that the brass steer clear of the contrapuntal fray in bars388–402 necessarily entails a re-evaluation of the function of Mozart’s coda. It issignificant that the horns and trumpets perform a straightforward march; themilitary and ceremonial qualities so often associated with this topic, together withthe characteristic participation of the brass, lend it an air of authority.77 Just aseighteenth-century aestheticians regard the march as ‘a primitive specimen from


74 Ibid., pp. 19–20, 79.75 Witness, for example, the statement of theme 1 in the horns earlier in the coda (bars 372–75). The

brass, moreover, play a role in presenting motivic material earlier in the finale. The horns andtrumpets participate in a rigorously motivic fashion throughout the development section, repeat-edly contributing the opening of theme 2 to successions of stretto entries in the strings/winds (bars172–86) and strings (bars 186–202). While the same cannot be said for the entire exposition andrecapitulation sections, the horns and trumpets are frequently involved in motivic work. (SeeFigure 6.1.)

76 Overt contrast between brass and wind/strings involvement is, of course, evident elsewhere in thefinale (e.g. bars 136–45 from the exposition). Such contrasts between material presented by thebrass and the winds/strings are less marked earlier in the movement, however, since the winds’and strings’ counterpoint is less intricate than corresponding counterpoint in the coda.

77 For accounts of typical musical qualities of the march topic, see Wye Jamison Allanbrook,Rhythmic Gesture in Mozart: ‘Le nozze di Figaro’ and ‘Don Giovanni’ (Chicago: University of

which to trace the evolution of comparative artifices like the social dances’,78 soMozart’s ‘primitive’ march in the brass provides a foundation for demarcating thecontrapuntal intricacies of the strings and winds. The triumphant appearance of abrass march in the finale’s climactic passage, moreover, is an entirely appropriateconclusion to a movement highlighting the ceremonial and trumpeting qualitiesof the eighteenth-century Viennese trumpet symphony tradition.79 By offsettingthe spiral of contrapuntal complexity with a simple and comprehensible musicalreference point at the very moment that the counterpoint would have seemedmost likely to run away with itself (namely in bar 388, the first simultaneousparticipation of every string and woodwind instrument in five-part invertiblecounterpoint), Mozart shields his listener from the overwhelming sight of contra-puntal infinity. Instead, he encourages his listener to contemplate the forcefulrigour and intelligibility of his dramatic process, providing a fitting illustration ofthe extraordinary type of instrumental music that will, according to Adam Smithin 1795, ‘occupy, and as it were fill up completely the whole capacity of the mind,so as to leave no part of its attention vacant for thinking of anything else’.80

The stylistic significance of the ‘Jupiter’ finale in Mozart’s oeuvre

The dramatic and stylistic ingenuity of the finale of Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ Symphonymust not obscure the fact that its emphasis on teleological and symmetrical struc-turing of dialogue, on equality of participation in dialogue and on the forcefulrigour of dialogic procedures is foreshadowed in Mozart’s earlier Viennesesymphonies (No. 35 in D, ‘Haffner’, K. 385; No. 36 in C, ‘Linz’, K. 425; No. 38 inD, ‘Prague’, K. 504; No. 39 in Eb, K. 543; and No. 40 in G minor, K. 550). Dialogicrigour in the dramatic domain also characterizes arias and ensembles fromMozart’s earlier Viennese operas, as mentioned above. The fundamental texturaldiscrepancy between the ‘Jupiter’ finale and these operatic numbers, however, aswell as the late eighteenth-century theoretical association of vocal/instrumentalinteraction in opera with instrumental interaction in the concerto (not thesymphony), renders specific dialogic connections between K. 551 and Mozart’s

160 SYMPHONIES

Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 45–48 and V. Kofi Agawu, Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation ofClassic Music (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 38.

78 Allanbrook, Rhythmic Gesture, p. 46.79 For detail on this tradition see A. Peter Brown, ‘The Trumpet Overture and Sinfonia in Vienna

(1715–1822): Rise, Decline and Reformulation’, in Music in Eighteenth-Century Austria, ed. DavidWyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 13–69. Brown argues that Mozartdrew upon the trumpet symphony tradition only in his Viennese works, including the first andlast movements of the ‘Jupiter’. In the finale, the fanfare-like quality of theme 2 represents ‘aneffort to recapture the effect of multi-choired groups of trumpets responding to proclamations’(p. 65).

80 Adam Smith, ‘Of the Nature of that Imitation which takes place in what are called the ImitativeArts’ (1795), in Essays on Philosophical Subjects, ed. W.P.D. Wightman and J.C. Bryce (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 205.

operas less historically significant than dialogic connections between K. 551 andMozart’s earlier Viennese symphonies.81

In the first movement of the ‘Linz’ (1783) the coda fulfils a function similar tothe coda of the ‘Jupiter’ finale, representing the defining moment in a dialogicprocess that stretches across the movement. Towards the end of each of the prin-cipal sections of K. 425/i Mozart highlights dialogue in one- and two-bar imitativeunits (see bars 8–17 [slow introduction], 105–10 [exposition], 158–61 [develop-ment], 251–55 [recapitulation]), taking this procedure further in the coda. Here,Mozart revisits the beginning of the development section (as is not uncommon inhis sonata form codas in general82), featuring strings–wind dialogue similar tothat of bars 131–39, while rendering the dialogue itself more succinct and proce-durally significant. Bars 274–80 alternate one-bar units in the strings and winds:the use of one-bar imitation to bring individual sections to a close now extends toclosing the entire movement. In addition, bars 274–78 combine one-bar alterna-tions with a split-theme dialogue (winds–strings; winds–strings), thus conciselyintegrating at the end of the movement the principle dialogic trait of imitationwith the secondary trait of thematic dialogue split between wind and strings (seeexposition, bars 75–79; recapitulation, bars 221–25).

The finale of the ‘Prague’ Symphony (1786) goes one step further than the firstmovement of the ‘Linz’ by predicting both the concise teleological design andrudimentary symmetrical organization of dialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finale. Forexample, the midpoint of the 151-bar exposition – the presentation of thesecondary theme in bars 66–98 – provides the single most balanced dialogue ofthe section, a repeated theme (66–81; 82–98) whose participation is split betweenthe strings and the winds. In turn, this passage is framed at the beginning and endof the section by alternating presentations of the movement’s principal thematicmaterial in the strings and wind (see bars 1–30, 31–46, 47–63 and 110–20, 120–38,138–51). Interactional symmetry between these framing passages is reinforced,moreover, by the presence of tutti, forte material immediately before and immedi-ately after the secondary theme (bars 47–63, 110–20). Mozart retains his broadsymmetrical arrangement in the recapitulation, but renders his dialogue moreconcise by shortening considerably the initial, pre-secondary-theme exchange. Inaddition to cutting the strings’ opening presentation of the principal thematicmaterial from 30 bars to 8 (bars 216–23), Mozart re-introduces full-orchestralforte minims (tremolo in the violins) into the subsequent wind presentation (seebars 228–31, 236–39) that correspond closely to full-orchestral forte passages


81 On systematic dialogic procedures in numbers such as ‘Martern aller Arten’ and the Act 2 Quartetfrom Entführung, the Act 2 Trio, Act 2 Finale, Act 3 Sextet, ‘Letter Duet’ and ‘Deh vieni’ fromFigaro, and ‘Là ci darem’, ‘Batti, batti’, the Act 1 Finale, Act 2 Trio and Act 2 Finale of DonGiovanni as they compare to corresponding procedures in Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos, seeKeefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 101–46. Correspondences between the organization ofdialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finale and in one concerto movement, K. 491/i, are discussed below.

82 See Esther Cavett-Dunsby, ‘Mozart’s Codas’, Music Analysis, 7/1 (1988), p. 47.

interrupting very similar wind presentations at the beginning of the development(see bars 156ff.). By compressing his initial strings-wind-strings exchange, byconnecting it to a passage from the development section, and by predicting theforte outcry of bar 244 with the interpolation of the preceding forte interruptions,Mozart follows in his recapitulation those late eighteenth-century dramatic theo-rists who advise cutting dialogue at every possible opportunity (‘When the authoris free to cut or not cut his dialogue I exhort him hardly to hesitate’); by accentu-ating the fluid continuity and goal-orientated nature of his dialogic process healso realizes in practical terms the theoretical maxim that a ‘shortened dialoguegives much more movement to the scene’.83

Other Mozart Viennese symphonies foreshadow dialogue in the ‘Jupiter’ finaleless clearly than K. 425/i and K. 504/iv, but often prefigure in a general way K.551/iv’s drive towards the coda by progressively striving for dialogic equalitybetween strings and winds. In K. 550/i, for example, the dialogic balance in thetwo exquisite presentations of the secondary theme (bars 44–57) – the initialstatement is passed from strings to winds to strings and the repeat from winds tostrings to winds – precipitates greater equality in the presentation of the principalthematic material in the remainder of the movement than witnessed hitherto. Theend of the exposition twice features statements of the head motif passed fromwind to strings (bars 73–80, 81–88); the end of the development includesprotracted strings-wind imitation of the head motif (bars 139–52) and a gracefulsegue into the recapitulation as sequentially descending dialogue in the windsfinally embraces the beginning of the 1st violin’s restatement of the main theme(bars 160–66); and the coda highlights a succession of imitative entries on thehead motif in the strings and winds (bars 286–93). During its exposition section,K. 543/iv progressively increases the involvement of the winds in dialogue. Thestrings dominate the presentation of the main theme and quickly intervene whenthe wind attempt a split-theme dialogue from secondary theme material (see bars43–44 and 49–50), but the winds subsequently present the head motif of the maintheme first in imitation between flute and bassoon (bars 55–61) and then amongthe flute, clarinet and bassoon (bars 80–85), whereupon the strings finally takenotice of the winds as it were and continue to dialogue the head motif themselves(bars 86–95). Now confident about asserting their rights as full-fledged interlocu-tors the winds interpolate their own split-theme dialogue into the presentation ofthe main theme at the beginning of the recapitulation (flute – bassoon, bars153–60).

Ultimately, the ‘Jupiter’ finale, though foreshadowed by earlier movements inMozart’s symphonic canon, transcends its predecessors in dialogic intensity andingenuity, thereby revealing itself as a climactic moment in Mozart’s symphonicre-invention process. The ‘Jupiter’ coda is a more powerful and concentrated

162 SYMPHONIES

83 For the quoted material on dramatic dialogue see Cailhava, De l’art de la comédie, vol. 1, p. 181.For a differing interpretation of the dramatic nature of K. 504/iv, focussing on its ‘buffa tone’, seeSisman, ‘Genre, Gesture and Meaning in Mozart’s “Prague” Symphony’, pp. 80–83.

dramatic climax to its finale than the K. 425 coda is to its first movement; and the‘Jupiter’ finale as a whole demonstrates greater teleological thrust than, say, K.504/iv, 550/i and 543/iv. In short, the cumulative dramatic process succinctlydescribed by John Gregory in 1766 as ‘artful construction, in which one part givesstrength to another, and gradually works the Mind up to those sentiments andpassions, which it was the design of the author to produce’84 is nowhere moreevident in Mozart’s symphonic oeuvre than in K. 551/iv.

The work in Mozart’s orchestral repertory to which K. 551/iv is most closelyakin is not a symphony, but a piano concerto, K. 491 in C minor (1786). As we willrecall from Chapter 2, K. 491 initiates a process of stylistic re-invention by virtueof its intensification of the grand, brilliant and intimate qualities – including thedistribution of piano–orchestra dialogue – witnessed in the piano concertos from1784–86.85 Like K. 551/iv, K. 491/i organizes dialogues in a rudimentarilysymmetrical fashion, especially in the solo exposition, where three-way exchangesamong the winds, strings and piano at the beginning and end of the section (bars118–30, 241–55) frame two-way, piano–winds and winds–piano exchanges in themiddle (bars 147–64 and 200–220). Similarly, K. 491/i introduces a forcefuldialogic opposition of interlocutors (piano and orchestra, bars 330–45) into thesecond half of the development section, as does K. 551/iv (strings/brass andwinds, bars 186–207). Above all, the recapitulation of K. 491/i provides a dialogictour de force to rival that of the corresponding section of K. 551/iv: both manipu-late and intensify dialogic procedures and organizations from the exposition(orchestral and solo expositions in the case of K. 491) to effect decisive climaxes tothe interaction in the two movements. Moreover, just as the ‘Jupiter’ finale inten-sifies dialogic procedures from Mozart’s preceding Viennese symphonies, so K.491/i intensifies the standard pattern of dialogic interaction from the first move-ments of Mozart’s earlier Viennese piano concertos (K. 413–488), rendering hisintimate dialogue (exposition) – conflict (development) – intimate dialogue(recapitulation) paradigm more taut and compelling than ever before.

In contrast to K. 491, K. 551 is, of course, Mozart’s final essay in its genre,depriving us of the opportunity to see how his symphonic style would haveevolved after the climactic finale. Predicting what Mozart might have done had helived beyond 1791 is dangerously speculative, but we might very tentativelypropose – given K. 491/i’s status in relation to the three remaining pianoconcertos – that he would have continued his symphonic re-invention process ina manner akin to the continuation of re-invention (after K. 491) in K. 503, 537and 595. The first movements of K. 503, 537 and 595, in addition to the stylisticre-invention documented in Chapters 2 and 3, set aside patterns of dialogue andrelational development from the preceding Viennese piano concertos (K.


84 Gregory, A Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man, with those of the Animal World(London, 1766 [2nd edition]), pp. 116–17.

85 Discussion of K. 491/i in this paragraph is drawn from Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp.75–100.

413–491) in favour of new designs; Mozart presumably felt that he had exhaustedhis relational paradigm from 1782–86 with his almighty effort in K. 491/i.86 Sincedialogic equality and teleology of dialogic design are such pronounced features ofthe ‘Jupiter’ finale, it is difficult to see how Mozart could have continued towardsgreater participatory equality and more intense goal-orientated structure in asubsequent symphony, even had he so desired.

A further connection between K. 551/iv and Mozart’s re-invention processesin his piano concertos and string quartets concerns stylistic self consciousness, adistinctive feature of the manipulation of musical materials and procedures in K.449/i, K. 465/i, K. 590/iv and K. 595/i, as well as in the ‘Jupiter’ finale. It is difficultto deny, as Simon Sechter remarks in his analysis of the symphony in 1843, thatthe ‘five themes that combine contrapuntally in the final section must unques-tionably have been worked together in counterpoint right from the start’; Mozartsurely planned this in advance.87 Indeed, recognition of Mozart’s self-awarenessin K. 551/iv runs through the secondary literature, culminating in Daniel Chua’sprovocative assessment of the coda as ‘the contrapuntal apotheosis that inge-niously intertwines the disparate fragments into a single texture . . . a self-reflexivemove that reveals the chemical make-up of the movement; the music comes intocontrapuntal self-consciousness; it suddenly knows itself as the intellectual forcethat activates the structure of the work’.88 The personal significance of the finale toMozart, possibly reflecting a combination of religious concerns, homage toLeopold, and a desire to escape past oppression,89 could also have contributed aself-conscious streak, as could Mozart’s realization of a stylistic apotheosis. Inaddition, since the late eighteenth-century theatre is ‘by nature a model of humanself-consciousness’,90 and since one of the most ostensibly ‘dramatic’ passages inall of Mozart’s operas, the Act 2 Finale of Don Giovanni, is certainly self-conscious– in particular the extended quotation of ‘Non piu Andrai’ from Figaro to whichLeporello adds ‘Questa poi la conosco purtroppo!’ (‘I know that tune only toowell!’) – this quality might even be seen to enhance the dramatic significance ofthe movement. In any case, the ‘Jupiter’ finale simultaneously represents asupreme model of dramatic endeavour in the late eighteenth-century orchestralrepertory and a movement sui generis in the intricacy and intensity of its dramaticdialogue.

164 SYMPHONIES

86 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 94–100.87 Sechter’s statement is quoted in Sisman, ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, p. 24.88 Chua, ‘Haydn as Romantic: A Chemical Experiment with Instrumental Music’, in Haydn Studies,

ed. W. Dean Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 138.89 See Zaslaw, Mozart’s Symphonies, pp. 541–44.90 See Benjamin Bennett, Modern Drama and German Classicism: Renaissance from Lessing to Brecht

(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), p. 94. Bennett refers on numerous occasions to theself-conscious nature of drama; see, for example, Modern Drama, pp. 54–55, 56, 94.

. IV .

CONCLUSIONS

7

Mozart’s Stylistic Re-Invention in Musical Context

IN Chapters 1–6 we have established that stylistic re-invention in Mozart’srpiano concertos, string quartets and symphonies constitutes an on-going,

two-stage process. First, Mozart contemplates his pre-existent stylistic proceduresin a genre, manipulating them to climactic effect. Thus, the confrontation in thedevelopment section of K. 449/i takes to a new stylistic plateau the separation ofpiano and orchestra interlocutors and the characteristics of development–recapitulation transitions from K. 413–415; the manipulation of strikingharmonic procedures from the first five ‘Haydn’ quartets in the slow introductionof K. 465/i produces a rich peroration to the set as a whole and a sense of height-ened contrast (slow introduction–exposition) new to Mozart’s quartets; K. 491’sintensification of the complementary qualities of intimacy and grandeur evidentin the 1784–86 piano concertos results in Mozart’s most dialogically sophisticatedand confrontationally forceful concerto to date; and the voluminous, highly orga-nized dialogue in K. 551/iv goes significantly further than its symphonic predeces-sors in terms of dramatic, teleological thrust. Next, as the second stage in there-invention process, Mozart fundamentally reshapes stylistic features of hispiano concertos and string quartets (but not his symphonies as K. 551 is his finalwork in the genre), reacting in various ways to innovative stylistic qualities of theclimactic works. Thus, the accompanying orchestra’s emphatic presence in K.449/i as an interlocutor capable of confronting the piano and of participating fullyin the musical action, sets the stage for the prominent role of the orchestra in theensuing ‘grand’ concertos, especially the part it plays in balancing complementaryqualities of intimacy, grandeur and brilliance; the stark contrast of Adagio andAllegro sections of K. 465/i leads to the establishment of heightened contrast as aprevailing stylistic quality of the ‘Prussian’ quartets; and the stylistic apotheosis ofK. 491/i stimulates a re-appraisal of how intimate grandeur (dialogue) and solobrilliance (piano virtuosity) are distributed in K. 503/i, 537/i and 595/i.

The stylistic issue providing the primary focus for this chapter and onlypartially addressed in Chapters 1–6, is the extent to which re-invention inMozart’s piano concertos, string quartets and symphonies is supported bymusical procedures in his instrumental works outside these genres. We havealready seen that the stylistic boldness of K. 449 and K. 551 has affinities with K.387 and K. 491 respectively, that the harmonic and tonal audacity of K. 595 strikesa chord with passages from the last symphonies, and that the heightened contrast

of the ‘Prussian’ quartets is best understood in light of musical procedureswitnessed in the string quartet and string quintets written between K. 465 and K.575, 589, 590. But the seemingly self-evident assumption that Mozart would havebeen influenced not only by stylistic procedures from his pre-existent pianoconcertos, say, when sitting down to compose a new concerto, but also by stylisticprocedures from works outside the genre, necessitates a wider contextualizationof stylistic re-invention. By broadening our investigation in this way, we will be ina position to evaluate whether specific stylistic practices associated withre-invention in the piano concertos, string quartets and symphonies – such as thedialogic intensifications of K. 491 and K. 551, the dramatization of the stringquartet in the ‘Prussian’ works, the adaptations to confrontational paradigms inthe final concertos and quartets, and the systematic stylistic experimentations ofK. 537 and 595 – form part of more general stylistic trends in Mozart’s Vienneseinstrumental music.

The works subjected to stylistic investigation in the first part of this chapter areMozart’s chamber works that include the piano, as well as his piano sonatas. It ishere, predictably given the prominent role assigned to the piano in a chambermusic setting, that we encounter the most pronounced confluence of stylisticpractices from Mozart’s piano concertos, symphonies and string quartets. Anexamination of several stylistic features of Mozart’s chamber works with piano asthey compare to established practices in his string quartets and piano concertos(K. 449–503) reveals the hybrid nature of their collective stylistic identity inMozart’s instrumental oeuvre. The transition and post-secondary-theme passagesof their first movements provide particularly instructive points of comparison withMozart’s Viennese string quartets and piano concertos, since the quartets andconcertos differ markedly at these junctures – the ‘Haydn’ and ‘Prussian’ quartetsalways feature dialogic contributions from all four instruments in these passagesand the piano concertos always showcase solo virtuosity with limitedpiano/orchestra dialogue.1 Transition sections from the piano quartets and trios,for example, freely integrate dialogue and piano passagework (albeit usuallywithout the all-voice participation characteristic of the string quartets), thusintegrating the prevalent features of the string quartets and piano concertos.2

168 CONCLUSIONS

1 On Mozart’s stylistic procedures at these junctures of his piano concertos, see Chapter 2. I take thepost-secondary-theme section in Mozart’s chamber works to begin at the moment that thepresentation of secondary theme material ends (usually with a perfect cadence), and to end at theclose of the exposition.

2 The piano quartet K. 478 includes dialogue on the head motif (bars 17–24) and piano figurationcoinciding with dialogue among the strings (bars 30–44), while the piano quartet K. 493 incorpo-rates dialogue among piano, violin and viola (bars 28–32, 42–46) followed by piano figuration(bars 50–58); the piano trios K. 496 and 548 feature dialogue between the violin and piano thatincorporates figurative material (bars 22–35 and 24–28 respectively); and the piano trios K. 502and 542 combine dialogue and passagework (bars 21–24, 25ff. and 34–42, 42–50 respectively).The transition section of K. 564/i is an exception among the first movements of Mozart’s Viennesepiano trios, featuring piano semiquavers and no dialogue with the strings.

Collectively, the post-secondary-theme sections of the piano quartets and pianotrios also align with Mozart’s piano concertos and his string quartets: K. 478 high-lights dialogue (bars 88–99), as do the string quartets, but does not include thecello as an interlocutor; K. 496 combines dialogue with glimpses of brilliantwriting for the piano (bars 58–78); K. 502 combines piano passagework andviolin-cello dialogue (bars 55–60), three-way exchange of brilliant semiquaverscales (bars 60–67) and three-way dialogue of material derived from the maintheme (bars 69–82); K. 542’s thematic dialogue (bars 88–96) is followed by semi-quaver flourishes in the piano (bars 96–100); and K. 548 and K. 564 both featureextended violin–piano dialogue on figurative semiquaver material (bars 38–53and 30–39). Since the piano quartets and piano trios combine elements ofMozart’s piano concerto style and his string quartet style, is it possible that theyalso combine techniques associated with stylistic re-invention in the concertosand string quartets? If so, what does this reveal about re-invention in Mozart’sViennese period as a whole? In an attempt to answer these questions, and to setthe stylistic re-invention procedures from the piano concertos, symphonies andstring quartets in the context of Mozart’s Viennese instrumental output in itsentirety, I shall examine Mozart’s Quintet for Piano and Winds, piano quartets,piano trios and string trio, and piano sonatas and violin sonatas as they pertain tostylistic re-invention, turning subsequently to the ramifications of stylisticre-invention for understanding style and stylistic development in Mozart’sinstrumental oeuvre.

The Quintet for Piano and Winds, K. 452

The Quintet in Eb for Piano and Winds, K. 452, occupies a significant position inregard to stylistic development in Mozart’s Viennese instrumental music. Enteredinto the Verzeichnüss on 30 March 1784 and premiered at the Burgtheater on 1April 1784 alongside K. 450, K. 452 is situated at the nexus of Mozart’s first Vien-nese re-invention in the piano concerto genre, where K. 449 witnesses climacticconfrontation between the piano and the orchestra and K. 450 subsequently initi-ates a new style of ‘grand’ concerto. As far as can be determined, K. 452 is the firstwork scored for piano and wind quintet (certainly by a major composer). ForMozart, its uniqueness – and its climactic position in his oeuvre pre 1784 –extended to the quality of the music: ‘I myself consider it to be the best work I haveever composed’, he wrote to his father on 10 April 1784.3

The original combination of instruments in K. 452 provides ample fodder forscholarly discussion about the genre and style of the work. Twentieth-centurycritics draw attention to the concertante style, often situating K. 452 closer toMozart’s piano concertos than to his string chamber music.4 Many also point to

STYLISTIC RE-INVENTION 169

3 Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 873.4 See Hermann Abert, W.A. Mozart: zweiter Teil, 1783–91 (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1956), p.

152; Georges de Saint-Foix, W.A. Mozart: sa vie musicale et son oeuvre: vol. 4, 1784–88.

its generically hybrid qualities, Hermann Abert locating ‘ingenious’ (geistreich)motivic working associated with Mozart’s chamber music, Georges de Saint-Foixdetecting the sinfonia concertante style, Cuthbert Girdlestone identifying a ‘com-posite style related to the concertos [of] its contemporaries in its piano part and,in its wind writing, to the great serenades of earlier years’, and Jean and BrigitteMassin stating that the styles of Mozart’s chamber music, wind serenades, pianoconcertos and sinfonia concertante are synthesized in this work.5 The high praiseelicited by K. 452 almost always relates to Mozart’s mastery of texture and instru-mentation: Otto Jahn calls it ‘a true triumph of the art of recognising and adaptingthe peculiar euphonious quality of each instrument’; Saint-Foix likens winddialogue in the 2nd movement to ‘the conversation of the Gods’ and ‘heavenlyconversation’; Einstein locates its ‘particular charm . . . in its feeling for the tonalcharacter of each of the four wind instruments, of which none is disproportion-ately prominent’; and Wolfgang Hildesheimer explains that each instrument ‘ispresented in its deepest individuality; each performs like a virtuoso soloist and atthe same time in a cantabile fashion’.6

The significance of K. 452’s textural distribution and instrumental interactionfor understanding Mozart’s stylistic re-invention, however, goes far beyondsimple identification of generic hybridity and admiration of Mozart’s instru-mental technique. For K. 452, especially in the first and second movements,reveals an elaborate system of dialogic organization that ultimately prefiguressimilar organization in the C-minor Piano Concerto, K. 491/i and the ‘Jupiter’Symphony, K. 551/iv. Like its great orchestral successors, K. 452/i shapesinstances of dialogue in the exposition and recapitulation sections in symmetricalfashion (see Fig. 7.1 below). In the exposition, for example, the piano engages indialogue with the wind group in its entirety at key formal junctures, namely thefirst theme (see bars 21–28), the secondary theme (bars 43–50) and the codetta(bars 61–64), but with independent wind interlocutors in the intervening passages(transition, bars 37–41; post secondary theme, bars 56–60); thus, dialoguebetween the piano and the wind band frames dialogue among the piano and inde-pendent wind interlocutors. Moreover, the inclusion of pianistic display at thetwo points expected in a Mozart piano concerto exposition – the transition (bars31–33, 41–42) and post secondary theme sections (bars 50–53) – either side of theexquisitely balanced secondary theme, reinforces procedural symmetry. Dialogue

170 CONCLUSIONS

L’épanouissement: Figaro, Don Giovanni, et les grandes symphonies (Paris: Desclée, 1939), p. 35;Cuthbert Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos (New York: Dover, 1964), p. 238; AlfredEinstein, Mozart: His Character, his Work, trans. Arthur Mendel and Nathan Broder (New York:Oxford University Press, 1945), pp. 265–66.

5 Abert, Mozart: zweiter Teil, p. 153; Saint-Foix, W.A. Mozart, vol. 4, p. 36; Girdlestone, Mozart andhis Piano Concertos, p. 238; Massin and Massin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Paris: Fayard, 1970;first edition, 1959), p. 963.

6 Jahn, Life of Mozart, trans. Pauline D. Townsend (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1970),vol. 2, p. 468; Saint-Foix, W.A. Mozart, vol. 4, p. 468; Einstein, Mozart, pp. 265–66; Hildesheimer,Mozart, trans. Marion Faber (New York: Vintage, 1983), p. 175.

is redistributed at the beginning and the end of the recapitulation, maintainingthe symmetrical structuring of the exposition, albeit in modified form. In the firsttheme section leading into the secondary development, Mozart combinespiano–wind band dialogue with dialogic segments for individual wind instru-ments: the piano statement (bars 82–83) followed by wind statement (bars 86ff.)is retained, but the latter incorporates new independent wind contributions,one-bar imitations passed among the four voices (bars 86–92) that compensatefor the absence of the five-voice split-theme dialogue from the transition (bars37–41). Similarly, the dialogue from the end of the exposition (bars 61–64)features a piano antecedent and a wind consequent in the recapitulation(reversing the pattern of the exposition), but with the wind segments given to theoboe and the clarinet/bassoon, rather than the four voices en masse (see bars115–18). Evidence of Mozart’s systematic distribution of dialogue can be furtheradduced from the slow introduction to K. 452/i, where dialogues between thepiano and the wind band in its entirety (bars 1–7; 12–15; 18–19) again framedialogues among all five instruments (bars 7–12; 15–18). Hermann Abert’s impli-cation that the slow introduction represents a kind of stylistic manifesto forMozart’s chamber music with piano, displaying all of its most important stylisticcomponents (such as concertante technique and motivic play),7 is relevant morespecifically to the section’s relationship with the ensuing Allegro moderato, fore-shadowing the symmetrical distributions of dialogue from the exposition andrecapitulation.

K. 452’s stylistic significance in Mozart’s Viennese instrumental oeuvre residesnot only in its prediction of dialogic organization in two climactic movementsfrom Mozart’s concertos and symphonies, K. 491/i and K. 551/iv, but in its align-ment with, and foreshadowing of other contemporary and subsequent Mozartianstylistic procedures as well. The aforementioned elaborations of first-movementexposition dialogue in the recapitulation go hand in hand with Mozart’s standardmodus operandus in the first movements of his Viennese piano concertos,especially K. 449 and the ‘grand’ works from K. 450 onwards.8 Similarly, the closerelationship between dialogic procedures in the first movement of K. 452 and in asubsequent movement (the second) also brings this work closely into line withMozart’s typical practice in his piano concertos; the increased independence ofindividual wind voices wrought by the dialogic elaborations in the recapitulationof K. 452/i is exploited fully in K. 452/ii, where for the first time the four windinstruments engage in dialogue without dialogic participation from the piano(bars 18–26; 92–99).9 What is more, the extraordinary harmonic progression in


7 Abert, Mozart: zweiter Teil, p. 153.8 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 53–69, 91–94. Other elaborations of dialogue from the

exposition of K. 452/i in the recapitulation include the semiquaver imitations among the clarinet,bassoon and oboe at the end of the restatement of the secondary theme (bar 102) and the thematicexchange from piano to wind in the final three bars (120–22).

9 On the recurrence of dialogic procedures across the three movements of Mozart’s Viennese pianoconcerto cycles, see Ibid., pp. 149–78.

the secondary development of K. 452/ii (bars 106–08, see Ex. 7.1) – comprisingthree bars of diminished harmonies, each bar containing each of the three dimin-ished chords, and underscoring a chromatically rising bass line from G# to F – isvery close in spirit to the harmonically audacious writing witnessed in the latepiano concertos K. 537 and 595, the G-Minor Symphony, K. 550, and the latestring quartet, K. 589 (see Chapters 3 and 5).

The overt originality of K. 452’s instrumentation is complemented, therefore,by a more covert stylistic originality. Reflecting nascent stylistic trends in the

172 CONCLUSIONS

Figure 7.1: Symmetrical distributions of dialogue in the slowintroduction, exposition and recapitulation of K. 452/i

SLOW INTRODUCTION

Bars 1–7: Piano/Wind band

Bars 7–12: Pno/Cl&Hn/Ob&Bsn/Hn/Bsn/Hn/Cl/Ob/PnoBars 12–15: Piano/Wind band

Bars 15–18: Ob/Cl&Hn/Ob&Bsn/Pno

Bars 18–19: Wind band/Pno

EXPOSITION

1st themeBars 21–28: Pno/Wind band

TransitionBars 31–33: Pno displayBars 37–41: Pno/Ob/Hn&Bsn/Pno/Ob&ClBars 41–42: Pno display

2nd themeBars 43–50: Pno/Wind band

Post 2nd themeBars 50–53: Pno displayBars 56–60: Cl/Ob/Pno/Cl/Ob/Pno/Bsn

CodettaBars 61–64: Wind band/Pno

RECAPITULATION

1st theme/Secondary developmentBars 82–92: Pno/Wind band (Ob/Cl/Hn/Bsn)Bars 92–95: Pno display

2nd themeBars 96–103: Pno/Wind band (split into Cl/Bsn/Ob on repeat in bar 102)

Post 2nd themeBars 103–08: Pno displayBars 109–14: Cl/Ob/Pno/Cl/Ob/Hn/Pno/Bsn

CodaBars 115–21: Pno/Wind band (split in bars 116–19)

piano concertos, K. 452 also looks several years into the future, both to thoseworks that lie at the heart of Mozart’s stylistic re-invention in concerto andsymphonic genres (K. 491 and 551), and, in more general terms, to those worksfrom Mozart’s final years that incorporate bold and often disorientatingharmonic progressions. While K. 452/i does not ultimately match the climacticwriting of K. 491/i and K. 551/iv, steering clear of the powerful confrontation ofthe former and the unrelenting, thoroughgoing teleological drive of the latter, itillustrates that Mozart’s stylistic thinking in an ostensibly hybrid genre can have aprofound effect on his thinking in a more established genre. Even if we disagreewith Mozart’s own assessment that K. 452 is his best work through spring 1784, itis difficult to deny that K. 452 occupies a special stylistic position in his Vienneseinstrumental oeuvre.


Ex. 7.1: Mozart, Quintet for Piano and Winds in Eb, K. 452, 2nd movement,bars 104–09

The piano quartets

Like K. 452, Mozart’s piano quartets K. 478 and 493 offer insight into hisprocesses of stylistic re-invention in the piano concertos, string quartets andsymphonies. The general stylistic debt these two works owe to Mozart’s earlierpiano concertos and string chamber music – amalgamating techniques from both– has long been acknowledged,10 lending them a hybrid status similar to that of K.452. However, an appreciation of interactional confrontation and dramaticintensity and contrast, concepts central to the delineation of stylistic re-inventionin the piano concertos, symphonies and string quartets, affords a considerablysharper critical perspective than hitherto on the stylistic position of the pianoquartets.

The first-movement development sections of both K. 478/i and K. 493/i drawon the style of dialogic confrontation exploited in the corresponding section ofthe piano concertos (from K. 449 onwards), modifying it in the process. In K.478/i, the violin, viola and cello dialogue a minim – semiquaver ascent (bars126–32); the piano’s first contribution to this exchange (bar 133) coincides withthe establishment of the dominant in preparation for the recapitulation. Theensuing confrontation in overlapping two-bar units (bars 133–38) – setting thepiano’s ascents against the strings’ statements of the head motif of the main theme– not only assumes a different position in the development section (namely there-transition) to that assumed by the solo/orchestra confrontations in the pianoconcertos (the beginning and middle of the section), but also represents anisolated, self-contained event, unlike the thoroughly integrated events in theconcertos. The piano/orchestra confrontation from K. 449/i (bars 188–204, seeChapter 1), for example, resonates beyond its immediate confines, the orchestracutting off the piano’s chromatic wanderings at the moment of recapitulation(bar 234) and abrasively shunting the music away from the tonic Eb at the piano’scadential trill in the recapitulation (bars 319–20); the orchestra’s hostile asser-tions of modulatory superiority over the piano in bars 86–87 of K. 450/i and bars221–22 of K. 482/i occur in the context of relational unease earlier in their respec-tive movements; and the confrontation from K. 491/i (bars 330–45) responds tothe piano and orchestra’s indifference towards collaborative dialogue in the earlypart of the development, after voluminous instances in the solo exposition, andprovides a grand counterbalance to the intimacy of the solo exposition (seeChapter 2).11 In contrast, the piano/strings confrontation in K. 478 follows aprotracted, non-confrontational dialogue among all four instruments (bars104–25) as well as the piano’s compliant imitation of the minim – semiquaver

174 CONCLUSIONS

10 See, most recently, Küster, Musical Biography, p. 253. See also Massin and Massin, Mozart, p. 1001,Einstein, Mozart, p. 264 and Hans Keller, ‘The Chamber Music’, in The Mozart Companion, ed.Landon and Mitchell, p. 136, who describes K. 478 in particular as ‘a chamber concerto for piano’.

11 On these and other confrontational moments in Mozart’s piano concertos set in the contexts oftheir movements, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos.

figure. Equally, the resolution to the confrontation – whereby the piano takes upthe strings’ head motif (bar 139) and the cello the ascending minim – semiquaverfigure – is quick and decisive: the piano and strings’ assimilation of each other’smaterial demonstrates an immediate re-commitment to the co-operativediscourse and equality of participation characterizing the conversational ethos ofthe string quartet. Thus, in reshaping the solo/orchestra confrontations from thedevelopment sections of his K. 449–491 piano concertos in regard to location,function and style, and in imbuing one of his chamber works with a sense ofdrama, Mozart modestly predicts the adjustments to confrontational paradigmsin the last piano concertos, K. 537 and 595 – even before writing his most intenselyclimactic moment of piano/orchestra confrontation (K. 491/i, bars 330–45) – aswell as the dramatic, contrast-orientated style of his ‘Prussian’ quartets.

The development section of K. 493/i again shows Mozart transforming thetechnique of confrontation from his piano concertos. In bars 106–17 (Ex. 7.2),two-bar units of transition material heard in unison in the viola and cello contrastforcefully with the two-bar units of flamboyant semiquavers in the piano, evokingin particular the two-bar unison/semiquaver opposition from K. 449/i, and moregenerally the alternation of contrasting musical segments in K. 466/i and K. 491/i.The sense of confrontation between the piano and the strings is tempered,however, by the first violin’s performance of the transition material simulta-neously with the piano semiquavers (i.e. bars 108–09, 112–13, 116–17). In otherwords, the piano is pit against only part of the string group, not the group in itsentirety as in the sharpest confrontations in the piano concertos. That said, bars106–17 and its surrounding material demonstrate intensity and changeability inrelations between the string and piano participants, a dramatic dimension charac-teristic of Mozart’s piano concertos according to the late eighteenth-centurytheorist Heinrich Christoph Koch.12 Initially in the development section thepiano contradicts the major mode of the strings (see bars 96–99) – an indicationof dramatic opposition for Antoine Reicha13 – subsequently proceeding to thepartial confrontation of bars 106–17. After concluding its ostentatious semi-quaver passagework in bar 123, the piano along with the cello initiate furtherdialogue with the transition material, beginning, as at the start of the developmentsection, with a modal contradiction (see D-d, bars 124–27); dialogue continuesamong the strings alongside more submissive semiquaver writing in the piano(bars 128–39) than that witnessed in bars 106–17. A return to demonstrativepiano virtuosity at the end of the development section (bars 140–47), as is typicalin the first movements of Mozart’s piano concertos, leads directly to the recapitu-lation (bars 148ff.).

The dramatization of interaction between the piano and strings in the develop-ment section of K. 493/i sheds light on the position of this work vis-à-vis Mozart’s


12 Koch’s commentary is discussed in Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 9–23.13 Reicha, Traité de mélodie, p. 91.

176 CONCLUSIONS

Ex. 7.2: Mozart, Piano Quartet in Eb, K. 493, 1st movement, bars 106–17

re-invention procedures. Following hot on the heels of the climactic confronta-tion from K. 491, and no less intense dialogic oppositions in Le nozze di Figaro, K.492 (see Chapter 1), K. 493 is informed by but also informs Mozart’s stylistic tech-niques in the string quartet and concerto. It is perhaps not surprising that Mozartincorporates confrontation into K. 493, given the intensity of oppositionalmoments in the immediately preceding works, but downplays it somewhat as wellin order not directly to counter the ostensibly co-operative spirit of lateeighteenth-century chamber music. There is no doubt that this work demon-strates strong affinities with Mozart’s piano concertos of 1784–86; pianopassagework, for example, in addition to featuring in the development’sinteractional drama, also appears in the transition, a section in which it is everpresent in the 1784–86 concertos (see bars 24–26, 51–53). Indeed, K. 493’sconcerto-like intonations might have been what encouraged Mozart’s contempo-raries to perform it, according to a writer for the Journal des Luxus und den Moden(1788), ‘at grand and noisy concerts’ rather than in the ideal chamber musicsetting of ‘a quiet room where the suspension of every note cannot escape thelistening ear’.14 From time to time, K. 493/i also adheres closely to stylistic prac-tices from Mozart’s ‘Haydn’ quartets. The transition includes dialogue amongparticipants (albeit not all participants, as is the case in the ‘Haydn’ first move-ments, as the cello is not involved). Between the completion of the secondarytheme and the end of the solo exposition (i.e. the cadential trill) in the pianoconcertos, Mozart always includes piano passagework; in K. 493 (bars 79–95),though, as in the ‘Haydn’ quartets, virtuosity is avoided.

K. 493’s hybrid stylistic status extends to its impact on techniques associatedwith re-invention in both the piano concertos and the string quartets. The modi-fication to confrontation in the development, whereby Mozart makes reference tohis earlier paradigm while altering it at the same time, prefigures a similarre-working in the K. 537/i recapitulation (bars 395–400), one carrying importantimplications for the systematic and complementary nature of experimentation inthe last two piano concertos (see Chapter 3). Equally, the introduction ofdramatic interaction in K. 493 (and in K. 478) helps pave the way for the dramaticcontrasts of the ‘Prussian’ quartets. Feeding off their status as stylistic hybrids, K.478 and K. 493 represent meeting places – crossroads perhaps – for re-inventiontechniques from Mozart’s string quartet and piano concerto repertories.

The piano trios, ‘Kegelstatt’ trio and string trio

In similar fashion to the piano quartets that precede them, the piano trios K. 496,502, 542, 548 and 564, the ‘Kegelstatt’ trio, K. 498, and the string trio, K. 563provide stylistic precursors to the contrast-orientated re-invention of the‘Prussian’ quartets as well as the systematic re-appraisal of the final two pianoconcertos. Just like the development section of K. 493/i, for example, the


14 Deutsch, Documentary Biography, p. 318. Deutsch concedes that the writer might be referring toK. 478, but deems it more likely that K. 493 is the work in question.

development of K. 496/i brings together techniques associated with re-inventionin both genres. The opening unison scale (bars 79–80, see Ex. 7.3) offers anemphatic sectional demarcation contrasting sharply in dynamics, texture andtonality to the end of the exposition (melody and accompaniment, piano, in Dmajor to a forte unison outline of B major unprecedented in the movement thusfar); it also foreshadows similarly forceful demarcations in the ‘Prussian’ quartets(K. 575/iii, bar 31, K. 589/iii, bar 60, K. 590/iv, bar 134). Equally, the tonal pecu-liarity at the beginning of the section prefigures the corresponding passage in thepiano concerto K. 595/i. Although the B-major scale in bars 79–80 functions asthe dominant of E minor, it could easily have been bypassed in favour of the Eminor (vi) of bar 81; in fact, III is an exceptional starting point for a Mozartfirst-movement development section (especially since Mozart jumps directly toit, rather than arriving at it through a modulatory process), appearing neither inthe ‘Haydn’ quartets nor in the Viennese piano concertos.15 In association withthe strident unison texture and ff dynamic, this initial gesture comes across less asa harmonic preparation for bar 81 than as a forceful, self-contained delineation ofthe beginning of the development section; bar 81 might appear to be the ‘proper’start to the section, closer to the tonal world of the exposition than bars 79–80 andmarking a return to the solo piano texture from the beginning of the work. Thedistant key initiating the section (B major), the impression of a re-start in bar 81and the assertion of C major in bar 85 without due consideration for measuredmodulatory process, collectively strike a chord with the opening of the K. 595/idevelopment section, which begins in B minor and ‘re-starts’ in C major afterintervening diminished harmony that neither progresses from B minor norresolves to C in a harmonically coherent fashion.

Several other movements from Mozart’s piano trios and string trio (K. 563)either foreshadow or complement characteristics of re-invention from the pianoconcertos and string quartets. The beginning of the development of K. 548/ii (seeEx. 7.4) features as pronounced a sectional demarcation as the correspondingpassage in K. 496/i, again prefiguring the heightened contrast of the ‘Prussian’quartets. Nothing in the exposition prepares us for the textural, dynamic andtonal shock of the first two bars of the section (33–34); a forte dynamic, unisontexture and abrupt harmonic shift all appear for the first time in the movement.The gesture draws further attention to itself, moreover, by concluding on D majorharmony, immediately prior to a continuation in Bb (bar 35). Even more thanbars 79–80 of K. 496/i, this two-bar gesture is carefully self contained; had Mozartomitted it and begun the development with the bar 35 material in Bb the resultwould have been a much smoother transition between sections. We can concludetherefore that Mozart’s principal purpose in bars 33–34 is to demarcate the begin-ning of the new section by forcefully contrasting it with the end of the exposition.

178 CONCLUSIONS

15 The minor mediant (iii) appears at the beginning of three of Mozart’s piano concerto first-movement development sections (K. 459, 467, 503), but always following a steady modulatoryprocess in the preceding ritornello rather than an abrupt tonal leap.

A related (but expanded) example of this procedure occurs at the beginning of thedevelopment section of the string trio K. 563/i. The quick modulation from Bb

(end of the exposition, bar 73) to C#7 (bars 78–79) in a dialogic context comesfrom the same stable as the precipitous modulations in late concerto andsymphonic movements (K. 595/i, K. 537/iii and K. 550/i; see Chapter 3).16 Simi-larly, the prompt re-establishment of the dominant, Bb, following the interruptedcadence in bars 83–84, provides a more tonally ‘logical’ starting point for thedevelopment section than the excursion to C#7, thus paralleling ‘re-starts’ to thedevelopment sections of K. 496/i, 548/ii and 595/i in E minor, Bb major and Cmajor respectively. Mozart’s departure from Bb at the beginning of the sectionand his return to the key a few bars later suggests that the intervening harmonic


16 The transition from the development to the recapitulation of K. 563/i is no less striking in itsmodulatory process. Mozart moves from D major (VII) – the key also implied in bars 80–83 – toEb in the space of 4 bars (107–11), invoking the move from a unison B (implying V/III) to C in just6 bars at the corresponding stage of the finale of the ‘Jupiter’ Symphony, K. 551 (bars 219–25).

Ex. 7.3: Mozart, Piano Trio in G, K. 496, 1st movement, bars 77–88

excursion is a self-consciously emphatic demarcation of the beginning of the newsection, similar to the striking sectional delineations witnessed in the contrast-orientated ‘Prussian’ quartets in particular.

The trio from the second movement of the ‘Kegelstatt’ (K. 498) also fore-shadows stylistic practices from the ‘Prussian’ quartets, especially the remarkableB section of the K. 589 trio. (There is a motivic resemblance too – both feature asuccession of distinctive, chromaticized neighbour notes.) The trio sections of thetwo movements couple structural expansion with eclectic combinations oftextures and unusual harmonic procedures: K. 589’s trio is almost twice thelength of the minuet (65 bars as opposed to 37) and features radical harmonic andtextural disjunction in the middle section (see Chapter 5); K. 498’s trio is alsosignificantly longer than its minuet (61 bars against 41) and sets bare presenta-tions of the principal motif (clarinet, bar 42) against concertante triplet figurationsto produce discontinuous rather than smooth musical succession. In addition,the audacious harmonic manipulations in the K. 589 trio find a parallel in theunusual manipulations in the K. 498 trio reprise (see bars 77–81, Ex. 7.5), whereone-bar imitations prolong the dominant harmony of bar 76 but also obscure itthrough false relations and chromatic neighbour notes. By taking a straight-forward, formulaic procedure – one-bar imitation in all four voices (clarinet,viola, piano right hand and piano left hand) in the context of prolonged dominant

180 CONCLUSIONS

Ex. 7.4: Mozart, Piano Trio in C, K. 548, 2nd movement, bars 31–37

harmony – and wilfully obfuscating it, Mozart also foreshadows the self-conscious complication of straightforward stylistic procedures in the ‘Prussian’Quartets (such as the circle of fifths in the K. 590/iv development; see Chapter 5).

Mozart’s adaptation of outright confrontation from the 1784–86 pianoconcertos in the piano quartets K. 478 and 493 and, later, in K. 537 is also exploredin the piano trios. The raw material for confrontation is in place in the develop-ment sections of K. 542/i and K. 564/i, but not ultimately exploited for confronta-tional purposes. The former, with its spiralling sequence in four-bar units(A–g#–f#, bars 124–35, Example 7.6) and its semiquaver arpeggiated passage-work, invokes the confrontation-related material from K. 449/i and 491/i – bars126–27 and 130–31 are especially similar to 190–91, 194–95 and 198–99 of K.449/i – but purges it of confrontational associations by highlighting only pianovirtuosity rather than piano virtuosity set in opposition with the rest of theensemble. Moreover, the abruptness with which this passage is initiated in bar 124and with which it ends in bar 135 (providing only minimal harmonic preparationfor the recapitulation in bar 136 and eliciting textural disjunction) sets anotherprecedent for the ‘Prussian’ quartets’ style of heightened harmonic and texturalcontrast. In the development section of K. 564/i, too, the combination of arpeggi-ated semiquavers and on-going sequences (d–a–G, bars 49–53, see Example 7.7;C–a–G–D, bars 68–74) provides material for a fully fledged confrontation. Again,Mozart sidesteps it, choosing to alternate piano and strings as in his pianoconcerto confrontations, but to give them the same, not contrasting, material.The development section of K. 564/i features co-operative dialogue throughout(bars 42–49, 57–60, 61–68), so it is no surprise that Mozart downplays confronta-tion in bars 49–54 and 68–74. His adaptation of his dramatic confrontational styleto a non-confrontational end, however, does point to the kind of dramatization ofchamber music that is especially prominent in the ‘Prussian’ quartets.


Ex. 7.5: Mozart, ‘Kegelstatt’ Trio in Eb, K. 498, 2nd movement, bars 77–82

The piano sonatas and violin sonatas

Mozart’s Viennese piano sonatas and violin sonatas offer insight into his tech-niques of re-invention in the piano concertos above all. Late eighteenth-centurywriters on the sonata and concerto genres have similar aesthetic expectations andconcerns, most notably that composers steer clear of excessive solo virtuosity anddemonstrate genuine expressive substance. The analogies between dialogue andinteraction among instruments (or among individual voices of a single instru-ment) are essential, since dialogue provides both coherent expression and mean-ingful engagement (in which one instrument or voice does not simply dominateproceedings). Inevitably, the aesthetic success of both sonatas and concertosdepends upon a composer maintaining a balance of virtuosity and substantiveexpression (described for the concerto in Chapter 2).17

182 CONCLUSIONS

Ex. 7.6: Mozart, Piano Trio in E, K. 542, 1st movement, bars 124–37

17 On correspondences between the aesthetics of the late eighteenth-century sonata and the lateeighteenth-century concerto, see Simon P. Keefe, ‘Mozart’s Late Piano Sonatas (K. 457, 533, 545,

In terms of stylistic re-invention in Mozart’s Viennese piano sonata repertory,K. 457 in C minor fulfils a role similar to that of the piano concerto in Eb, K. 449,while K. 533 in F, K. 545 in C, K. 570 in Bb and K. 576 in D function in an analogousway to K. 537 and 595.18 Just as K. 449/i introduces piano/orchestra confrontationinto Mozart’s concertos, stimulating stylistic change in the subsequent ‘grand’concertos, so K. 457 embraces a conflict – albeit a conflict of styles rather than ofinterlocutors – that has important stylistic resonance in his subsequent pianosonatas. For the styles of monologue and dialogue that co-exist comfortably inMozart’s earlier piano sonatas K. 279–284, 309–311 and 330–333, rest uneasily inK. 457/i; every time dialogue is heard before the coda, it is either shortenedabruptly or rendered oblique by immediate re-assertions of monologue (see thebeginnings of dialogue in bars 19–22, 70–72, 83–86, 118–20 promptly succumb-ing to monologue in 23, 73, 87, and 121 respectively). The eventual extendeddialogic exchange witnessed in the Coda (bars 168–73, Ex. 7.8) growls its assertionof tonic and diminished 7th harmonies, encapsulating the uncomfortable co-habitation of monologue and dialogue in the movement as a whole.

Mozart’s re-appraisal of his piano concerto style in K. 537 and 595 finds a


570, 576): Aesthetic and Stylistic Parallels with his Piano Concertos’, in Words About Mozart:Essays in Honour of Stanley Sadie, ed. Dorothea Link and Judith Nagley (Woodbridge and Roch-ester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2005), pp. 59–75, especially 61–65.

18 This paragraph and the next summarize discussion in Keefe, ‘Mozart’s Late Piano Sonatas’.

Ex. 7.7: Mozart, Piano Trio in G, K. 564, 1st movement, bars 49–53

parallel in his final piano sonatas, K. 533, 545, 570 and 576. Just as the climactic‘grand’ concerto from 1784–86, K. 491, leads to a re-configuration of his concertostyle, after taking grandeur and intimacy to extremes, so the precarious balance ofmonologue and dialogue in K. 457/i leads to a re-thinking of the distribution ofthese textures in his last sonatas. Much as the stylistic experimentation of the soloexposition and recapitulation of K. 537/i is complemented by the experimenta-tion of the development of K. 595/i, so the increase in dialogue in the expositionand recapitulation sections of K. 533/i and 576/i (in comparison to his earlierpiano sonatas) as well as the increase in virtuosic writing for the piano, is comple-mented by the stylistic experimentation of the development section of K. 570/i,which features an eclectic combination of almost no figuration, extensivedialogue in the second half, and a two-part texture with an unusual harmonictwist. Similarities between striking experimental passages in Mozart’s last pianoconcertos and last piano sonatas further reinforce the stylistic bond between thesegroups of works: the lush sequential excursion following the secondary theme ofK. 537/i finds a close parallel in the corresponding passage of the recapitulation ofK. 533/i (bars 211–18), both passages holding at bay the piano passageworkexpected at this juncture; and the disjunctive harmonic progression in a dialogiccontext at the beginning of the K. 595/i development section meets its match incorrespondingly disjunctive progressions (again incorporating dialogue) fromthe development sections of K. 570/i (bars 101–08), K. 533/ii (bars 60–70) and K.576/iii (bars 95–108).19 In short, the specific stylistic connections between the late

184 CONCLUSIONS

19 The Rondo for solo piano in A minor K. 511 (11 March 1787) foreshadows the technique in thesepiano sonatas of linking harmonic audacity with extended sequence. The establishment of V/aprior to the rondo returns in bars 81 and 129 is preceded by colourful harmonic progressions thatderive from sequential extension of chromatically descending lines (see bars 71–73 and 116–21).The second passage is also initiated by one of the bold tonal jumps (D–C#, bars 115–16) character-istic of Mozart’s late instrumental works.

Ex. 7.8: Mozart, Piano Sonata in C minor, K. 457, 1st movement, bars 168–76

piano concertos and late piano sonatas underscore Mozart’s similar motivationstowards stylistic re-invention in these two genres.

But one independent piece for solo piano, the Adagio in B minor, K. 540 (19March 1788), demonstrates a stronger affinity with the contrast-orientated ‘Prus-sian’ quartets than with the late piano concertos. Contrast occurs right at theoutset, in alternating sf – p and f – p material (bars 1–4), and is taken further in theensuing full-fledged sonata movement. This is especially true of the three heavyforte chords that serve on five occasions as ostentatious delimiters of key formaljunctures (echoing and foreshadowing similarly potent gestures at the beginningof the development sections of the piano trios K. 496/i and K. 548/ii). The chordsare self-contained musical gestures, separated from the preceding and succeedingmaterial by quaver rests. Irrespective of whether they effect a structurally signifi-cant modulation (the lead back to the beginning of the exposition for the repeat ofthe section, the lead-in to the development, the lead-back to the start of the devel-opment for the repeat of the development-recapitulation) or affirm an alreadyestablished key (immediately prior to the secondary theme in the exposition andrecapitulation) the chords stand apart from the surrounding musical action. Theymake no attempt at integration; indeed, as in the ‘Prussian’ quartets and pianotrios, their raison d’être is to create contrast. What is more, firm structural articu-lation (from the three chords) at the outset of the development section combineswith audacious harmonic progressions and fluent sectional continuation at theend to create the same kind of marked procedural contrast as is evident in K.590/iv. The initial G-major statement, slipping from D7 to B7 and C#7 in bars25–26 subsequently reappears in F# minor, now altered to conclude on D7, theexact harmonic point at which the development section began. The ensuingtwo-bar sequence from G minor (bars 31–32) to A minor (33–34), simply movesup to B minor to initiate the recapitulation; whereas Mozart signals the onset ofother formal sections with his demonstrative forte chords, the recapitulationemerges unnoticed.20

Although Mozart’s Viennese violin sonatas do not underscore as marked aprocess of stylistic re-invention as his Viennese piano sonatas, they manifeststylistic change in ways that complement the piano sonatas and piano concertos.On the whole, the first movements of the violin sonatas K. 454 in Bb and K. 526 inA, for example, contain more dialogue – and dialogue of greater intricacy – thanthe corresponding movements of K. 296 and 376–80, published collectively asMozart’s Opus 2 in Vienna in 1781; the earlier set are praised in 1783, in any case,for possessing a ‘violin . . . so ingeniously combined with the clavier part that bothinstruments are constantly kept in equal prominence’.21 Again, the work from1784, K. 454, is particularly significant in this respect, coming as close as it does to


20 W. Dean Sutcliffe hears the beginning of the recapitulation as a ‘disorientating effect, since it bothcontinues the pattern and represents a fresh start’. See Sutcliffe, ‘The Keyboard Music’, in TheCambridge Companion to Mozart, ed. Keefe, p. 73.

21 Deutsch, Mozart: A Documentary Biography, p. 214.

points of stylistic re-invention in the piano concerto and piano sonata repertories(K. 449 and K. 457). In the Largo slow introduction to the first movement Mozartreveals a close level of dialogic collaboration between the piano and the violin torival that between the piano and the orchestra in his 1784–86 piano concertos:part of the initial antecedent in the piano is dialogued by the violin (bars 1–2,3–4); the passing of melodic material from violin (bars 5–7) to piano (7–9) ismatched by the exchange of accompanimental semiquavers in the same bars; andthe one-bar, violin-piano exchange (bars 9–11), featuring an elaborated responsein the piano, complements both the preceding elaboration in the piano (bars 7–9)and the elaboration to the violin’s half-bar figure from bar 11 in both the pianoand the violin (bars 11–12). This collaboration sets the stage for the remainder ofthe movement, especially the exposition and recapitulation, where similardialogue continues carefully to equalize the roles of the piano and the violin. Inthe exposition, the piano-violin imitation in bars 18–20 is complemented by theviolin-piano imitation on the same figure in bars 26–28, the continuation of thesecondary theme in the violin (bars 33–37) by the restatement’s continuation inthe piano (bars 41ff.) and the violin’s elaboration of the piano in bars 62–63 by thepiano’s subsequent elaboration of the violin (bars 63–64), skilfully integrating thesemiquaver thirds from the beginning of this exchange (see bar 64, beats 1–2 incomparison to bars 58 and 60). In the recapitulation, several new dialogues serveto emphasize the equal roles of the violin and piano interlocutors: the violinmoves freely from doubling the piano left hand and entering into dialogue withthe right to doubling the right and entering into dialogue with the left in thesecondary development (see bars 98–109); the secondary theme is dialogued in itsentirety from the piano to the violin (bars 115–22; 123ff.); and the violin followsthe piano at a distance of a quaver in the coda (bars 151–53).

With intricate, assiduously selected dialogue illustrating the piano’s andviolin’s sensitivity to each other’s material and dialogic interpolations in the reca-pitulation adding to the collaborative spirit of the exposition, K. 454/i is morerefined than its immediate predecessors (the violin sonatas K. 296, 376–380) interms of violin–piano interaction, and parallels stylistic developments in thepiano concertos K. 449, 450, 451 and 453 as well.22 To be sure, the recapitulationsections of K. 377/i, K. 378/i and K. 380/i from Mozart’s previous set of sonatasadd to dialogue from the exposition23 but not in as pronounced a fashion as K.454/i. Nor do the first movements of these six works come close to K. 454/i inusing dialogue to illustrate an important feature of the relationship between the

186 CONCLUSIONS

22 The general concerto-like qualities of K. 454 have been remarked upon in the secondary literature.See, for example, Abert, W.A. Mozart, vol. 2, p. 161.

23 See the extension to the dialogue from bars 54–56 of K. 380/i in bars 158–63; the imitation of thepiano right hand and left hand in the presentation of the main theme at the beginning of the K.377/i recapitulation (see bars 83–87) replacing the full-theme piano-violin exchange from theexposition (bars 1–16); and the split-theme piano-violin dialogue at the beginning of the K. 378/irecapitulation (see bars 114–21) replacing the full-theme exchange from the exposition (bars1–16).

violin and the piano (namely, in K. 454/i, the equal role played by the two partici-pants). In both of these respects, K. 454/i draws on nascent stylistic techniquesfrom the piano concertos. Interpolations to solo exposition dialogue in the reca-pitulation are standard fare in the first movements of Mozart’s Viennese pianoconcertos from K. 449 onwards (and even surface in rudimentary fashion in K.413/i and 414/i), most commonly as the means by which intimate piano-orchestra relations established in the solo exposition are rendered more intimatestill in the recapitulation, but also as the means for underscoring resolution toconfrontation from earlier in the movement.24 As a result of both the close chro-nological proximity of the violin sonata to K. 449, 450, 451, 453 and, perhaps, ofMozart’s explicit intention to perform it in a public concert alongside K. 453rather than in a chamber music forum, the close relationship between the twoinstrumental protagonists in K. 454 manifests the type of elaborate, carefullydesigned dialogue that characterizes the contemporary piano concertos.25

The first movement of Mozart’s next violin sonata, K. 481 in Eb (1785), alignsitself stylistically with K. 454/i, strengthening further the bond between Mozart’ssonatas and piano concertos of the mid 1780s. Like K. 454/i and the contemporarypiano concertos, K. 481/i elaborates exposition dialogue in the recapitulation in away that complements and develops interaction from earlier in the movement.Whereas in the exposition, the secondary theme and the codetta material bothwitness dialogue in the form of thematic exchange (bars 37–52 and 69–84) andthe main theme contains only brief imitations (bars 6–8), in the recapitulation allthree presentations contain thematic exchange with a four-bar extension to themain theme added in the violin (bars 156–59). To be sure, this extension fulfils aharmonic and formal role,26 but it also has an important bearing on violin-pianorelations, stressing the equal role of the protagonists in presenting the main themeas well as later thematic material. The violin’s new statements of the ascendingsemiquaver figures at the end of the recapitulation (bars 245–48), echoing thepiano writing from a few bars earlier (219–24), also reinforce the sense of partici-patory equality across the movement as a whole.

In contrast to K. 481/i, which supports the stylistic development witnessed inK. 454/i, the first movement of K. 526 in A (1787) occupies similar ground to thepiano sonata K. 533 and the piano concerto K. 537, with Mozart modifying his


24 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, Chapters 3 and 4, pp. 45–100.25 K. 454 (dated 21 April 1784 in the Verzeichnüss) was first performed by Mozart and the work’s

dedicatee, the virtuoso violinist Regina Strinasacchi, at the Kärntnertor Theater in Vienna on 29April 1784. One important characteristic of the first-movement dialogue between violin andpiano outlined above – the elaboration of material in the context of a dialogic response – alsofeatures prominently in K. 453/i, the piano concerto performed alongside K. 454 at theKärntnertor-Theater concert. On K. 453, see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 80.

26 The accompanying modulation to Ab major and subsequent initiation of the secondary develop-ment in F minor parallels the move from Eb major to C minor that starts the transition (bar 25)and allows Mozart to replicate the I–V modulation of the transition in the IV–I modulation of thesecondary development.

standard patterns of interaction. The piano and violin in K. 454/i and K. 481/iavoid dialogue for the most part in their development sections and add to exposi-tion dialogue in their recapitulations sections – as do the piano and orchestra inmost 1784–86 concertos in both respects – but they engage in profuse dialogue inthe development section of K. 526/i (bars 101–39) and make no adjustments toexposition dialogue in the recapitulation. The exposition itself resonates withboth of the piano sonatas K. 533/i and 576/i, especially the passage after thesecondary theme, in which extended dialogue on virtuosic semiquaver scalarwriting (bars 75–89) – a more protracted combination of dialogue and virtuositythan at the corresponding juncture of any of Mozart’s previous violin sonata firstmovements – complements extended passagework in the final stages of the expo-sition of K. 533/i and the repeated integration of dialogue and passagework in theK. 576 exposition.27 As in the piano concertos K. 537 and 595 and the pianosonatas K. 533 and 576, Mozart experiments with his stylistic modus operandi inK. 526 in pursuit of new stylistic horizons.

Conclusion: the process of re-invention

A study of how stylistic characteristics of Mozart’s Quintet for Piano and Winds,piano quartets and trios, and piano sonatas and violin sonatas intersect withre-invention techniques and procedures in his piano concertos, string quartetsand symphonies has ramifications far beyond contextualization of the techniquesand procedures themselves. For the appearance of specific stylistic attributes(such as modifications to confrontational paradigms and dramatizations ofchamber music) at specific times across a broad spectrum of Mozart’s instru-mental works ultimately encourages us to re-appraise how we conceptualize stylein Mozart’s Viennese instrumental oeuvre as a whole.

It has emerged over the course of this study that clusters of works from two ofMozart’s Viennese years – 1784 and 1786 – have particularly pronounced impli-cations for understanding stylistic re-invention. The Piano Concerto K. 449, withits climactic confrontations and liberated orchestra, the first ‘grand’ concertos K.450, 451 and 453, establishing a new paradigm of stylistic balance, the Quintet forPiano and Winds K. 452, foreshadowing the intricate dialogic practices of K. 491and K. 551, and the violin sonata K. 454, moving beyond its predecessors indialogic sophistication and aligning itself with the instrumental interaction of thenascent ‘grand’ concertos, all date from spring 1784; in addition, the Piano SonataK. 457, mirroring the stylistic significance of K. 449 in terms of confrontation, wascompleted just a few months later (October 1784). Similarly, the climactic inter-action of the piano concerto K. 491 and first signs of stylistic experimentation inK. 503, the foreshadowing of heightened contrast in the ‘Hoffmeister’ stringquartet K. 499, the systematic symmetrical arrangement of dialogue in the

188 CONCLUSIONS

27 On the expositions of K. 533/i and K. 576/i see Keefe, ‘Mozart’s Late Piano Sonatas’.

‘Prague’ symphony K. 504, and the appearance of re-invention procedures in thepiano trio K. 496 and the ‘Kegelstatt’ trio K. 498 later aired more fully in the finalstring quartets and concertos, all occur in 1786. Circumstantial evidence suggeststhat 1784 and 1786 were pivotal years for Mozart’s instrumental music. He heldhis first series of subscription concerts in spring 1784, at the private hall of theTrattnerhof, thus beginning a new, high profile phase of his career as aperformer-composer, one that ended (to all intents and purposes) in 1786. Thecompletion of Figaro in 1786 also represents a watershed; thereafter, Mozartdevotes more of his time – relatively speaking – to operatic endeavours (DonGiovanni, Così fan tutte, Die Zauberflöte and La clemenza di Tito) and less toinstrumental ventures.

If we regard 1784 and 1786 as important years for re-invention in Mozart’sinstrumental music we must guard against assigning Mozart’s works from 1784 to1786 the status of a stylistic ‘period’ in its own right. For stylistic re-inventionpoints, above all, to a dynamic process of change – through Mozart’s manipulationof pre-existent procedures to climactic and innovative effect and subsequentstylistic re-appraisals in light of these climactic and innovative events – one thatcounteracts the division of his oeuvre into neatly defined periods. The commonnineteenth-century predilection for dividing Mozart’s oeuvre into two stylisticphases, pre 1784 and 1784 onwards, operating in tandem with twentieth-centurytheories about ‘classical style’ in Mozart’s music,28 is misleading for the samereason. To be sure, there will always be stylistic characteristics in Mozart’s worksmore prevalent at one time than another; and it is essential to be able to deter-mine, as we have in the present study, which characteristics are most prominent atwhich stage. But if we divide Mozart’s Viennese oeuvre into periods we ultimatelydownplay the vital and vigorous nature of stylistic change in his music. Ulti-mately, the product of these changes must not deflect attention from the processthat makes them happen. Mozart’s approach to stylistic re-invention is consistentthroughout his Viennese years, along the manipulation – apotheosis – modifica-tion line; as a result, those symphonies, piano concertos and string quartets mostintimately connected to the re-invention process are fundamentally similar, inspite of the widely contrasting stylistic characteristics they manifest.

The co-existence of product and process in explanations of stylisticre-invention in Mozart’s instrumental music has particularly important ramifica-tions for understanding the significance of his late works. As we have seen inChapters 3 and 5, the final piano concertos, K. 537 and K. 595, and ‘Prussian’


28 Cliff Eisen and Stanley Sadie, ‘(Johann Chrysostom) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’, The New GroveDictionary of Music and Musicians, Revised Edition, ed. Sadie (London: Macmillian, 2001), vol. 17,p. 301. The most protracted critique of the concept of ‘classical style’ set in historiographicalcontext is Webster, Haydn’s ‘Farewell’ Symphony, pp. 335–73. For a recent attempt to re-centreclassicism in London with Clementi’s music at its core, see Anselm Gerhard, London und derKlassizismus in der Musik. Die Idee der ‘absoluten Musik’ und Clementis Klavierwerk (Stuttgart andWeimar: Metzler, 2002).

string quartets, K. 575, K. 589 and K. 590, have long been misrepresented in thecritical literature: K. 537 is supposedly of poor quality; K. 595 is a nostalgic,resigned, reticent and introspective work; and the ‘Prussian’ quartets are stylisti-cally inconsistent and not up to the high standard of their ‘Haydn’ predecessors.Collectively, the late chamber works discussed in this chapter have also received arocky ride on grounds of quality; and those that are admired are often said topossess similar late-style characteristics to those espoused by, for example, K. 595.On the one hand, the piano trios K. 548 and K. 564 are disparaged: Jahn and Abertconsider them inferior to K. 496, K. 502, K. 542 and K. 563; Hocquard finds K. 548lacking the freshness of the piano sonata K. 545 and the violin sonata K. 547;Massin and Massin see K. 564 falling well short of the inspiration of K. 563;Einstein regards K. 548 and 564 as ‘unfortunately not on [the] level’ of K. 502 andK. 542; and Rosen deems them (and K. 496) ‘thinner in style and less interestingthan the best dozen or sixteen of Haydn’s’.29 On the other hand, K. 542 in partic-ular – pace Girdlestone30 – has all the hallmarks of Mozart’s revered late style. ForMassin and Massin it is like ‘being present at a dream, with that impression ofstrangeness that the tonality gives it . . . the iridescent and unhindered flexibility,its cool fervour and its surprises; passing from energy to tenderness, then effusionto élan in the two subjects of the first movement; endeavouring to retain an idyllicdream in the Andante’.31 Similarly, Hocquard sees its nervousness quicklysubmerged by a calm, lilting energy; it is like the Symphony in Eb, K. 543 in theway that it caresses the energy out of the work and like the other ‘little works’ ofthis time in its transparency and lack of nervousness.32 And more recently, DerekCarew locates K. 542 (and K. 502) ‘at the apex of the piano trios’, finding it ‘curi-ously restrained’ with a ‘seamless first subject . . . more clothed harmony thanMozartian melody’.33 The piano quartets, too, are assigned qualities characteristicof a putative late style: Hildesheimer sees both K. 478 and K. 493 as ‘the outcomeof his newly won, almost serene introversion’; and Girdlestone identifies thesecond movement of K. 478 as ‘elegiac melancholy’.34

Like the final piano concertos and string quartets, the late piano chambermusic is better understood in relation to Mozart’s stylistic re-invention proce-dures than with recourse either to qualitative comparisons with supposedly‘superior’ works or to purportedly ethereal, melancholic and reticent character-

190 CONCLUSIONS

29 See Jahn, Life of Mozart, vol. 2, p. 464; Abert, W.A. Mozart, vol. 2, p. 503; Hocquard, Pensée deMozart, p. 172; Massin and Massin, Mozart, p. 1088; Einstein, Mozart, p. 263; Rosen, ClassicalStyle, p. 351.

30 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 352.31 Massin and Massin, Mozart, p. 1075. ‘On croirait un peu assister à un réveil, avec cette impression

d’étrangeté que donne la tonalité . . ., sa souplesse chatoyante et délié, son ardeur fraîche et sesétonnements; passant de l’energie à la tendresse, puis de l’effusion à l’élan, dans les deux sujets dupremier morceau; s’efforçant de retenir un rêve idyllique, dans l’andante.’

32 Hocquard, Pensée de Mozart, p. 171.33 Carew, ‘Piano and Strings’, in The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart’s Life and Music, ed.

H.C. Robbins Landon (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p. 291.34 Hildesheimer, Mozart, p. 190; Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 417.

istics. Critics find diverse reasons to account for Mozart’s ‘lapses’ in quality:Massin and Massin claim that Mozart’s only intention in K. 548 was ‘to give ahalf-hour of pleasure to Michael Puchberg for his chamber music sessions’ andthat Mozart wrote K. 564 without enthusiasm, as Puchberg had been less thangenerous towards him; and Girdlestone explains away ‘trifles’ such as K. 542, K.548 and K. 564 in terms of Mozart’s ‘need . . . for recapturing his public’.35

Unfavourable comparisons with the contemporary symphonies K. 543, K. 550and K. 551 lie behind most expressions of bafflement about, and justifications forthe deficiencies of K. 548 and K. 564. Girdlestone finds Mozart’s composition ofthe final piano trios concurrently with his final symphonies ‘hard to understand’given the gulf in quality; Einstein ‘has almost the impression that Mozart wassaving all his powers in the key of C for the “Jupiter” Symphony’ in the ‘preten-tious’ K. 548; Hocquard considers the lightness of K. 548 puzzling given that it iscontemporary with K. 550 and K. 551; and Massin and Massin imagine that thebest of Mozart’s creative faculties were preoccupied with the three last sympho-nies in the summer of 1788, rather than with K. 548.36

The overt stylistic contrasts between the final three piano trios and final threesymphonies must be explained not by comparisons of quality but by the differentpositions these works occupy in Mozart’s re-invention processes. While the finaleof the ‘Jupiter’ Symphony exploits the technique of dramatic dialogue witnessedin Mozart’s preceding Viennese symphonies to climactic effect, K. 542, 548 and564 collectively contribute to the modifications to confrontation and the estab-lishment of heightened contrast that are characteristic of stylistic re-invention inMozart’s late piano concertos and late string quartets. In short, Mozart juxtaposesdifferent stylistic re-invention procedures in 1788, which is understandable whenwe consider that he writes climactic works in his piano concerto, string quartetand symphony sequences at different times (K. 449 in 1784; K. 465 in 1785; K. 491in 1786; K. 551 in 1788). Re-invention procedures either overlap (final piano triosand final symphonies), or intersect (piano chamber music), or operate in tandemwith each other (piano concertos and piano sonatas); while Mozart’s approach tostylistic re-invention is consistent throughout his decade in Vienna, re-inventionacross his Viennese oeuvre as a whole does not adhere to a neat, clearly delineatedtimeframe.

Ultimately, the overlaps, confluences and parallels in stylistic re-inventionprocedures force a reappraisal of Mozart’s ‘late style’ as often applied to his instru-mental music. His late style cannot simply comprise a collection of prevalentstylistic qualities in isolation, since such a definition would not account for theprocess by which Mozart arrives at these qualities as important features of hismusic. Nor is it appropriate to pinpoint works in a single genre as decisive


35 Massin and Massin, Mozart, p. 1088 (‘fournir une demi-heure de plaisir à Michaël Puchberg pourses séances de musique de chambre’); Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 352.

36 Girdlestone, Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p. 352; Einstein, Mozart, p. 263; Hocquard, Pensée deMozart, p. 172; Massin and Massin, Mozart, p. 1077.

harbingers of a Mozart late style,37 since distinctive (and equally important)processes of stylistic change are at play across the generic spectrum. A late stylecannot be said reliably to comprise a series of related affective qualities (some orall extrapolated from stylistic qualities) that collectively suggest a presentiment ofdeath on Mozart’s part. As William Stafford explains, standard biographicaltropes on Mozart’s late style usually feed into unconvincing ‘theodicies’ or‘quasi-theodicies’ whereby consoling stories of Mozart’s premature demise arelinked to the putatively spare, simple, pure, transfigurative, radiant, andautumnal qualities of his final works.38 Equally, a putative instrumental late stylecould not be categorized only as a search for new stylistic directions, certainly notif it is to incorporate the symphonies of 1788 and the ‘Prussian’ quartets of1789–90: the ‘Jupiter’ finale is a climactic moment in Mozart’s Viennesesymphonic oeuvre; and the ‘Prussian’ quartets do not simply blaze a trail ofheightened contrast but also exploit stylistic qualities introduced in chamberworks from the previous years (the string quartet K. 499, the string quintets K. 515and K. 516, the piano trios K. 542, 548 and 564 and the piano quartets K. 478 and493). As explained in Chapter 3, there is little evidence of a change in Mozart’s‘worldview’ in his final years that could support the onset of a late style. In addi-tion, the apparent aesthetic shift in the ‘Prussian’ quartets away from an ethos ofthe string quartet as conversation towards a more dramatic conception of thegenre is not matched by an aesthetic shift in the final symphonies and concertos.There seems little reason to doubt, for example, that Mozart’s famous statementabout his piano concertos K. 413–415 comprising ‘a happy medium betweenwhat is too easy and too difficult . . . very brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural,without being vapid’39 – a statement at the heart of the stylistic balance of hisconcertos – is any less applicable to his final Viennese concertos than to his first.Indeed, a writer for the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in 1802 finds qualities inthe Clarinet Concerto, K. 622 that are very similar to those Mozart himself locatesin K. 413–415: just as the Clarinet Concerto is ‘difficult, and even very difficult’,but will ‘secure the finest reward for an artist as artist, namely, to delight andenrapture . . . [the performer] and all around him by the omnipotence of true art’,so the ‘happy medium’ and brilliance of K. 413–415 eschew vapidity and embracesubstantive musical content; and just as the ‘emotional man’ will acknowledge the‘deepest feeling’ of the Clarinet Concerto Adagio and the less knowledgeablelistener ‘the wit and humour’ of the rondo, so both Kenner and Liebhaber will‘derive satisfaction’ from certain passages of K. 413–415.40

192 CONCLUSIONS

37 This is the approach favoured by Isabelle Emerson in ‘Of Microcosms and Macrocosms: TheString Quartet as Crucible for Mozart’s Late Style’, in Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991, pp. 664–70.

38 See Stafford, The Mozart Myths: A Critical Re-Assessment (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1991), pp. 207–20.

39 Anderson, ed. and trans., Letters, p. 833.40 For the quoted material on the Clarinet Concerto, see William McColl’s translation in Colin

Lawson, Mozart: Clarinet Concerto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 79–80.

Thus, the concept of a late style is inherently problematic in the context ofMozart’s late instrumental music.41 Since the consistency of Mozart’s approach tostylistic change is as apparent in his late Viennese instrumental music as it is in hisearlier Viennese music, it is difficult to describe certain works as representative ofa late style and others not. If K. 551/iv is a manifestation of Mozart’s late style,then why not also K. 491/i (1786) or K. 452/i (1784), works that prefigure itssophisticated dialogic organization? If the final piano concertos begin to shift thestylistic goalposts established by the 1784–86 concertos just as the first ‘grand’concertos do the same for the preceding a quatro works, can K. 450, 451 and 453form part of Mozart’s late style, like K. 537 and 595? Perhaps the only reasonableconclusion – to paraphrase James Webster on the maturity of Haydn’s instru-mental works42 – is that, in principle, all of Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos,string quartets and symphonies are late-style works.

The difficulties of assigning certain Mozart instrumental works to anend-orientated late style and the problems inherent in dividing his Vienneseinstrumental output into separate periods should not obscure one importanttrend in the late works, especially the string quartets and symphonies – namely theincrease in dramatic concentration. The ‘Jupiter’ finale takes the structuring andexecution of dramatic dialogue from Mozart’s earlier Viennese symphonies to anunparalleled level (Chapter 6); equally, the ‘Prussian’ quartets depart conclusivelyfrom the conversational ethos of the late eighteenth-century quartet in favour ofthe dramatic interaction of musical sections and blocks (Chapter 5). Dramaticqualities pervade Mozart’s Viennese piano concerto repertory in its entirety. As Ihave shown elsewhere, Mozart’s Viennese piano concertos from 1782–86 engagein their own productive ‘dialogue’ with his operas from 1781–87: informed bytechniques and patterns of dialogue from Idomeneo and Die Entführung aus demSerail, the piano concertos K. 413–491, in turn, establish dialogic practicesexploited in Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni.43 While the final three pianoconcertos eschew the type of powerful dramatic confrontation that reaches itszenith in K. 491/i, they do re-work confrontational characteristics in the contextof stylistic re-invention and place as much emphasis on consistency of dialogicprocess – a crucial ingredient of drama, according to late eighteenth-centurytheorists – as their predecessors.44 Thus, the final concertos cannot be explainedas quantitatively more or less dramatic than K. 413–491.


41 Needless to say, the situation is different (albeit no less straightforward) for other composers,especially Beethoven; Carl Dahlhaus reminds us that the ‘concept of composers’ “late works”derived essentially from the oeuvres of Bach, Beethoven, and Liszt’ (Ludwig van Beethoven:Approaches to his Music, trans. Mary Whittall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 219). For arecent, virtuosic exploration of issues pertaining to Beethoven’s late style, see Michael Spitzer,Music as Philosophy: Adorno and Beethoven’s Late Style (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana UniversityPress, 2006).

42 Webster, Haydn’s ‘Farewell’ Symphony, p. 366.43 See Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 101–46.44 On process-orientated late eighteenth-century dramatic theory as applicable to Mozart’s piano

concertos see Keefe, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, pp. 72–74, 178–85.

The creative interplay between Mozart’s operatic and instrumental styles in thepiano concertos of 1782–86 and operas of 1781–87 also emerges in comparingre-invention characteristics from the ‘Prussian’ quartets with passages from Cosìfan tutte (K. 588, 1790) the opera to which the ‘Prussian’ quartets are chronologi-cally closest.45 The heightened, self-conscious contrasts and audacious harmonicmoves from K. 575, 589 and 590 find parallels in Così, adding weight to thedramatic pretensions of Mozart’s final string quartets. To be sure, musicalcontrasts of all shapes and sizes and at local and structural levels are the lifebloodof Mozart’s operas – and much other opera besides – in support of plot-relatedintrigues. But several such contrasts in Così align closely with procedures from thecontemporary string quartets. Reflecting on Dorabella’s ‘betrayal’ in his aria‘Tradito, schernito’ from Act 2, Ferrando expresses divergent feelings of angertowards, and persistent love for Dorabella in clearly delineated, alternatingsegments. Mozart maximizes the contrast between the initial statements – settinga C-minor, stop-start passage with agitated semiquavers, a combination of pianoand forte dynamics and a crescendo climaxing on an Augmented 6th – V/Cprogression (‘Tradito’, bars 1–7) against a fluent, calm and diatonic Eb majorpassage with unbroken dialogue among the voice, strings and winds (‘io sento’,bars 8–28) – in a manner akin to the blocked contrasts of K. 589/i, 590/i, 589/iiiand 590/iii. He also combines apparently contradictory procedures in the second‘Tradito’ segment (bars 29–37, see Ex. 7.9) that invoke seemingly contradictoryprocedures in one of the ‘Prussian’ quartets. Just as K. 590/i brings together sharpformal delineation and smooth sectional segue, so the second ‘Tradito’ segmentof Ferrando’s aria combines greater contrast and greater integration with the ‘iosento’ segments. The additional forte/piano alternations and interpolated chro-matic harmonies at the beginning (see the Db and diminished triads in bars 29, 30,32) offer sharper contrast with the ‘io sento’ passages, whereas the C major ratherthan C minor harmonies (bars 29–30), the resolution of the concluding V/C to Cmajor (bars 37–38) rather than the side-step to Eb, and the embryonic dialoguebetween the violins and the voice (bars 29–32) point to greater musicalintegration.

Other passages from Così also reveal parallels with re-invention proceduresfrom the ‘Prussian’ quartets. Così does not feature distant modulations that are asabrasive as those in K. 589/iii, 595/i, 550/i and 550/iv, but does combine suddenalterations in harmonic direction with textural disjunction. The passage following

194 CONCLUSIONS

45 K. 589 and K. 590 were the first works to be completed after Così (first performed at theBurgtheater on 26 January 1790), in May and June of 1790. The stylistic relationship between Cosìand Mozart’s earlier operas does not fall within the remit of this study. It should be noted,however, that, unlike the late instrumental music, Così does not eschew the kind of climacticdialogic confrontation witnessed in Figaro, Don Giovanni and several of the piano concertos from1784 to 1786. In the final section of the Act 1 Finale, for example, at the moment at whichFerrando’s plea for a kiss elicits an angry response from Dorabella and Fiordiligi, Mozart writescontrasting, two-bar, equal-length segments (bars 558–66) that denote interactional confronta-tion in the musical domain.


Ex. 7.9: Mozart, ‘Tradito, schernito’ from Così fan tutte, K. 588, bars 29–43

the ‘Bella vita militar’ music in the Act 2 Finale, whereupon Fiordiligi andDorabella are thrown into a tail spin upon realizing that Ferrando and Guglielmoare returning from war, is a good case in point; the music shunts up a semitonefrom D to Eb via a sf Bb7 harmony – a type of ‘distant-key’ move not uncommonfrom one movement of a late eighteenth-century operatic finale to the next46 – tocoincide with Don Alfonso’s revelation that Ferrando and Guglielmo arereturning (bars 308–10), moves straight from V/d to F as the couples expressuncertainty as to their next course of action (bars 333–34), and progresses quicklyfrom F minor to V/g as the ladies express their torment (bars 355–60). In eachcase, tonal shifts are accentuated by marked changes in texture (bars 310, 334), bydynamic adjustments (bars 310, 334) or by general pauses (bars 333, 355, 357).Thus, the resulting block opposition equates with the opposition in the B sectionof the K. 589/iii trio, both sets of blocks underscoring pronounced harmoniccontrast and textural disjunction. In addition, the air of stylistic self-consciousness pervading the abrupt modulations, blocked contrasts and maskingof straightforward procedures in the late piano concertos and string quartets alsosurfaces in Così. In the third segment of the Act 1 Finale a sequence from V/c toV/g (bars 219–30) appears to have ended on G minor (bars 232–36), only tore-start in the first violin (bars 236ff.). The subsequent passage, moving from V/fto V/Ab to V/Bb (bars 238–48) is self-consciously stilted (perhaps supportingDorabella and Fiordiligi’s uncertainty about what to do with the poisoned Alba-nians); the modulations are initiated by uncertain quaver figures in the 2ndviolin, bassoon/viola and cello/bassoon (bars 241, 245, 249 respectively) thateither obscure the prevailing harmonic progression (the first two quavers in bar241 obfuscate the V–vi motion in F minor) or feature awkward chromatic writing(bars 245, 249).

The fruitful relationship between Mozart’s dramatic music and characteristicsof stylistic re-invention in his late instrumental music is further demonstrated bythe concert aria ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te’, K. 505 (1786), uniquely (for Mozart)scored for solo piano, solo soprano and orchestra.47 Like the piano trios and pianoquartets before and after it, K. 505 integrates stylistic features of Mozart’s earlierpiano concertos and also introduces stylistic features that are used in re-inventioncontexts in the concertos ahead. At the beginnings of the Andante and Allegrettoof this Rondò (a form comprising a slower followed by faster section withthematic returns in both), Mozart extends to the piano, voice and orchestra hisprocedure from the first movements of his piano concertos of immediately inte-grating the soloist into the orchestral fabric through dialogue.48 In addition, the

196 CONCLUSIONS

46 See John Platoff, ‘Tonal Organization in “Buffo” Finales and the Act II Finale of “Le nozze diFigaro” ’, Music & Letters, 72 (1991), pp. 387–403.

47 Mozart originally set this text earlier in 1786 as an aria inserted into Idomeneo (‘Non più, tuttoascoltai . . . Non temer, amato bene’, K. 490), scoring it for solo soprano, solo violin and orchestra.K. 505 was written for the singer Nancy Storace and probably performed (with Mozart on thepiano) at a farewell concert for her on 23 February 1787 at the Kärntnertor Theater.

48 See the full- and split-theme exchange in the piano and voice and dialogic segues in the strings and

thematic dialogue and imitative voice exchange between the solo singer and thepiano in the run-up to the reprise of the main theme from the Andante (see bars50–55) is reminiscent of piano/orchestra dialogue at the corresponding develop-ment-to-recapitulation juncture of the first movements of piano concertos suchas K. 450 and K. 456. In certain stylistic respects, though, ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te’points forwards, rather than reflecting Mozart’s pre-existent concerto proce-dures. After the reprise of the Andante theme in bars 56–65, for example, Mozartincludes confrontationally orientated dialogue between the voice and the piano(bars 65–70, Ex. 7.10). Its sharply contrasting, equal-length (1-bar) units andsequential extensions invoke the great dialogic confrontations from precedingpiano concerto movements such as K. 449/i and K. 491/i, but the location of theconfrontation in a reprise section rather than a middle/development sectionbrings to mind the re-positioning of adapted confrontation in the recapitulationof K. 537/i (bars 395–400). Thus, this passage stands midway between the directconfrontation of K. 491/i and the adapted confrontation of K. 537/i, more similarin style to K. 491/i than to K. 537/i, but placed in a location analogous to the K.537/i passage rather than the K. 491/i passage. In the Allegretto, too, a segment ofmaterial intersects with Mozart’s earlier and later types of concerto confronta-tion. Following the first reprise of the Allegretto’s main theme (bars 103–10), theorchestra shunts the music to the relative minor (bars 110–11). The orchestra’sgesture, forcing an abrupt shift to vi via a one-bar forte exclamation, parallels theorchestra’s ‘angry’ response to the solipsistic piano after the presentation of themain theme of K. 450/i in the solo exposition (bars 86–87); the subsequent arpeg-giated semiquaver patterns in the piano (bars 111ff.), allied with contrasting ideasin the orchestra and voice, also provides raw material for a K. 491-type confronta-tion. But, by presenting the contrasting piano and voice/orchestra material simul-taneously rather than successively, Mozart eschews outright confrontation in amanner akin to bars 395–400 of K. 537/i.49

*

Writing of Mozart’s death as ‘a real loss to music’ in July 1792, Johann FriedrichSchink’s Hamburgische Zeitung summarizes the composer’s achievement andpotential:


piano in bars 1–21 of the Andante of ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te’, and full-theme piano/voice exchangeand accompanimental material passed between piano and strings in bars 74–89 of the Allegretto.For details on Mozart’s procedure of integrating the piano into his piano concertos throughdialogue at the beginning of the first-movement solo expositions, see Keefe, Mozart’s PianoConcertos, p. 77.

49 Another of Mozart’s late concert arias, ‘Ah se in ciel, benigne Stelle’ K. 538 (4 March 1788),exhibits a harmonic feature characteristic of re-invention in the last piano concertos and ‘Prus-sian’ quartets. In the introduction, Mozart incorporates wilfully disruptive writing with nowarning: between confirmations of the tonic F (bars 15 and 22), unison Gs and Bns (bars 17, 19)draw attention above all to their own harmonic obstinacy and thus parallel moments in Mozart’slate instrumental works.

198 CONCLUSIONS

Ex. 7.10: Mozart, Concert Aria for Soprano, Piano and Orchestra, ‘Ch’io miscordi di te’, K. 505, bars 65–70

How much was he already, and what more might he yet have become, because hewas beginning to compose not merely at the dictate of his genius, but also at that ofhis mind; – that is, he was beginning to subject his imagination to his intellect.50

Just a few months earlier, in January 1792, the obituary from the MusikalischeKorrespondenz der teutschen Filarmonischen Gesellschaft (possibly by HeinrichPhilipp Bossler) remarks in similar fashion: ‘He furnished Germany, France andEngland with numerous instrumental works which audibly testify to his solidunderstanding, the fire of his imagination, and the fecundity and inventiveness ofhis great genius.’51 Even though it is now almost universally agreed in scholarlycircles that imagination and intellect co-exist as dynamic forces in Mozart’scompositional creativity – the myth of the un-thoughtful, unknowing genius haslong since been debunked – it is more difficult to show how exactly this is the case.Stylistic re-invention puts the interaction of these elements of Mozart’s musicalpersonality centre stage, accounting for both intellectual processes of reflectionand re-appraisal and imaginative conceptual leaps whereby pre-existent stylistictechniques are taken to new, climactic points and, in turn, stimulatereconfigurations of stylistic paradigms. Indeed, Mozart’s works at the heart of hisre-invention practices represent the most intense and complex manifestations ofthe imagination-intellect dynamic. 1784, 1786 and 1788 may not delineate thestarts and ends of stylistic periods in Mozart’s oeuvre, but instrumental workswritten in these years do contain especially significant illustrations of Mozart’ssimultaneously cerebral and creative stylistic mindset. As one critic reports inNovember 1791, two works from 1786 (K. 493 and 499) are excellent illustrationsof ‘that fire of the imagination and that correctness, which long since won forHerr M. the reputation of one of the best composers in Germany’.52

For some, Mozart’s motivation for initiating stylistic changes at specific pointsin his Viennese instrumental oeuvre will remain a mystery on account of the lackof hard evidence emanating from Mozart’s pen on each and every point. But toparaphrase an old adage, an absence of documentary evidence of such motivation– where it is lacking – is not evidence of its absence. Ultimately, Mozart’s Viennesepiano concertos, string quartets and symphonies, informing and being informedby contemporary aesthetic and theoretical trends as well as influencing and beinginfluenced by preceding and succeeding works, appear to manifest stylisticre-invention for a combination of practical and aesthetic reasons. It is surely notcoincidental that K. 449 represents an ‘entirely new and special manner’ and hasan interrupted genesis at the precise intersection of the a quattro and ‘grand’


50 Deutsch, Mozart: Documentary Biography, p. 464. This is not the first occasion that a Schink publi-cation praises Mozart in these terms. In the Dramatische Monate (Hamburg, 1789), Mozart islauded for ‘the richest and yet the most restrained imagination. He is the true virtuoso who neverlets his imagination run away with intelligence. Reason guides his enthusiasm and calm judgmenthis presentation’ (Deutsch, Mozart: Documentary Biography, p. 355).

51 Eisen, New Mozart Documents, p. 74.52 Deutsch, Mozart: Documentary Biography, p. 414.

concerto styles, or that the last two piano concertos depart stylistically from the1782–86 sequence of works when chronologically removed from them. From anaesthetic perspective, too, it is understandable that the new ‘grand’ concertosfrom K. 450 onwards exhibit the theoretically prevalent qualities of balance whenMozart reveals support for this balance, and that Mozart dramatizes his stringquartet style in the ‘Prussian’ quartets on the back of increased dramatic intensityin the ‘Jupiter’ finale. The relationships among Mozart’s Viennese instrumentalworks – demonstrated by techniques associated with re-invention appearingoutside his symphonic, piano concerto and string quartet genres – further attestto the practical and aesthetic orientations of stylistic re-invention. The appear-ance of re-invention characteristics in the piano trios and the piano quartets, forexample, reflects their broad, generic connections to Mozart’s piano concertosand string quartets, but also contributes to aesthetic and stylistic re-appraisalssuch as the dramatization of Mozart’s string quartet style and the re-configuration of interactional confrontation in the piano concertos. Above all, bydemonstrating a fundamentally coherent attitude towards stylistic change – atboth inter and intra-generic levels – Mozart emphasizes in the strongest terms therational, inspirational, systematic and imaginative integrity of his Vienneseinstrumental music.

200 CONCLUSIONS

Bibliography

Abert, Hermann. W. A. Mozart. Neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Ausgabe von Otto Jahns‘Mozart’. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1919–21

Agawu, V. Kofi. Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1991

———. ‘Mozart’s Art of Variation: Remarks on the First Movement of K. 503’. InMozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, edited by Neal Zaslaw, pp.303–13. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996

Allanbrook, Wye Jamison. ‘Comic Issues in Mozart’s Piano Concertos’. In Mozart’s PianoConcertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, edited by Neal Zaslaw, pp. 75–105. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1996

———. ‘ “To Serve the Private Pleasure”: Expression and Form in the String Quartets’. InWolfgang Amadè Mozart: Essays on his Life and Music, edited by Stanley Sadie, pp.132–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996

———. Rhythmic Gesture in Mozart: ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ and ‘Don Giovanni’. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1983

Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, edited by Friedrich Rochlitz et al. Leipzig: Breitkopf &Härtel, 1798–1848

Anderson, Emily, ed. and trans. The Letters of Mozart and His Family. 3rd edition. NewYork: Norton, 1985

Badura-Skoda, Paul. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Klavierkonzert C Moll KV 491. Munich:Wilhelm Fink, 1972

Baker, James M. ‘Chromaticism in Classical Music’. In Music Theory and the Exploration ofthe Past, edited by Christopher Hatch and David W. Bernstein, pp. 233–307. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1993

Baker, Nancy Kovaleff and Thomas Christensen, eds. Aesthetics and the Art of MusicalComposition in the German Enlightenment: Selected Writings of Johann Georg Sulzer andHeinrich Christoph Koch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995

Bauer, Wilhelm, Otto Erich Deutsch and Joseph Eibl, eds. Mozart: Briefe und Auf-zeichnungen, Gesamtausgabe, 7 vols. Kassel, Bärenreiter, 1962–75

Bauman, Thomas. ‘Becoming Original: Haydn and the Cult of Genius’. The MusicalQuarterly, 87 (2005), pp. 333–57

Berger, Karol. ‘Toward a History of Hearing: The Classic Concerto, A Sample Case’. InConvention in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Music: Essays in Honor of LeonardRatner, edited by Wye Jamison Allanbrook, Janet M. Levy and William P. Mahrt, pp.405–29. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon, 1992

———. ‘The First-movement Punctuation Form in Mozart’s Piano Concertos’. InMozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, edited by Neal Zaslaw, pp.239–59. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996

———. ‘The Second-Movement Punctuation Form in Mozart’s Piano Concertos: TheAndantino of K. 449’. Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991, pp. 168–72

Bey, Henning. Haydns und Mozarts Symphonik nach 1782: Konzeptionelle Perspektiven.Neuried: Ars Una, 2005

Bonds, Mark Evan. ‘The Symphony as Pindaric Ode’. In Haydn and His World, edited byElaine Sisman, pp. 131–53. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997

———. ‘The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets and the Question ofInfluence’. Studi musicali, 22 (1993), pp. 365–409

———. Wordless Rhethoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991

Braunbehrens, Volkmar. Mozart in Vienna, 1781–91, translated by Timothy Bell. NewYork: Grove, 1989

Brown, A. Peter. ‘The Trumpet Overture and Sinfonia in Vienna (1715–1822): Rise,Decline and Reformulation’. In Music in Eighteenth-Century Austria, edited by DavidWyn Jones, pp. 13–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996

Brown, Marshall. ‘Mozart and After: The Revolution in Musical Consciousness’. CriticalInquiry, 7 (1980–81), pp. 689–706

Burney, Charles. A General History of Music: From the Earliest Ages to the Present Period(1789). 2 vols. New York: Harcourt, 1935

Busby, Thomas. A Complete Dictionary of Music. London, 1801Cavett-Dunsby, Esther. ‘Mozart’s Codas’. Music Analysis, 7 (1988), pp. 31–51Chua, Daniel. ‘Haydn as Romantic: a Chemical Experiment with Instrumental Music’. In

Haydn Studies, edited by W. Dean Sutcliffe, pp. 120–51. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998

Churgin, Bathia. ‘Francesco Galeazzi’s Description (1796) of Sonata Form’. Journal of theAmerican Musicological Society, 21 (1968), pp. 131–99

Cramer, Carl Friedrich, ed. Magazin der Musik. 2 vols and musical supplement. Hamburg,1783–1786. Reprint, Hildesheim: George Olms, 1971–74

Danckwardt, Marianne. Die langsame Einleitung: Ihre Herkunft und Ihr Bau bei Haydn undMozart. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1977

David, Johann Nepomuk. Die Jupiter-Symphonie: Eine Studie über die thematisch-melodischen Zusammenhängen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953

Dearling, Robert. The Music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: The Symphonies. East Bruns-wick, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982

DeFotis, William. ‘Rehearings: Mozart, Quartet in C, K. 465’. 19th Century Music, 6(1982–83), pp. 31–8

Derr, Ellwood. ‘Some Thoughts on the Design of Mozart’s Opus 4, the “SubscriptionConcertos” (K. 414, 413, 415)’. In Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpreta-tion, edited by Neal Zaslaw, pp. 187–210. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1996

———. ‘A Deeper Examination of Mozart’s 1–2-4–3 Theme and Its Strategic Deploy-ment’. In Theory Only, 8 (1985), pp. 5–45

Deutsch, Otto Erich. Mozart: A Documentary Biography. Translated by Eric Blom, PeterBranscombe, and Jeremy Noble. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965

Diderot, Denis. ‘De la Poésie dramatique’ (1768). In Diderot’s Writings on the Theatre,edited by F.C. Green. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Reprint, NewYork: AMS Press, 1978

202 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Diderot, Denis and Jean d’Alembert, eds. Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné dessciences, des Arts et des Métiers, par une société de gens de lettres. Paris, 1751–72

Dreyfus, Laurence. Bach and the Patterns of Invention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-sity Press, 1996

Einstein, Alfred. Mozart: His Character, His Work. Translated by Nathan Broder andArthur Mendel. London: Cassell, 1945

Eisen, Cliff. New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch’s Documentary Biog-raphy. London: Macmillan, 1991

———, ed. Mozart Studies 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997———, ed. Mozart Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991———, and Wolf-Dieter Seiffert, eds. Mozarts Streichquintette: Beiträge zum musikal-

ischen Satz, zum Gattungskontext und zu Quellenfragen. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994Eisley, Irving R. ‘Mozart’s Concertato Orchestra’. Mozart-Jahrbuch 1976/7, pp. 9–20Emerson, Isabelle. ‘Of Microcosms and Macrocosms: The String Quartet as Crucible for

Mozart’s Late Style’. In Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991, pp. 664–70Finscher, Ludwig. Studien zur Geschichte des Streichquartetts 1: Die Entstehung des

klassichen Streichquartetts: von den Vorformen zur Grundlegung durch Joseph Haydns.Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1974

Fischer, Kurt von. ‘Das Dramatische in Mozarts Klavierkonzerten 1784 mit besondererBerücksichtigung des ersten Satzes von KV 453’. Mozart-Jahrbuch 1986, pp. 71–4

Flothuis, Marius. ‘Bühne und Konzert’. Mozart-Jahrbuch 1986, pp. 45–58Forkel, Johann Nikolaus. Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1788–1801Forman, Denis. Mozart’s Concerto Form: The First Movements of the Piano Concertos. New

York: Praeger, 1971Forster, Robert. Die Kopfsätze der Klavierkonzerte Mozarts und Beethovens: Gesamtaufbau,

Solokadenz und Schlussbildung. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1992Framery, N.E., and P.L. Ginguené. Encyclopédie Méthodique, Musique. Vol. 1. Paris:

Panckoucke, 1791. Reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1971Framery, N.E., P.L. Ginguené, and J.J. de Momigny. Encyclopédie Méthodique, Musique.

Vol. 2. Paris: Agasse, 1818. Reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1971Fubini, Enrico and Bonnie Blackburn, eds. Music and Culture in Eighteenth-Century

Europe: A Source Book. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler. Leipzig, 1790–92———. Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler. Leipzig, 1812–14Gerhard, Anselm. London und der Klassizismus in der Musik. Die Idee der ‘absoluten Musik’

und Clementis Klavierwerk. Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler, 2002Gerstoffer, Wolfgang. ‘Thema und harmonischer Prozess: Analytische Uberlegungen zum

Kopfsatz des “Hoffmeister”-Quartetts KV 499’. Mozart Studien, 3 (1993), pp. 191–207Girdlestone, Cuthbert. Mozart’s Piano Concertos. London, 1948. Reprinted as Mozart and

His Piano Concertos. New York: Dover, 1964. First published as Mozart et ses concertospour piano. Paris, 1939

Goertzen, Clifford. ‘Compromises in Orchestration in Mozart’s Coronation Concerto’.Musical Quarterly, 75 (1991), pp. 148–73

Grassineau, James. A Musical Dictionary. London, 1740. Reprint, New York: BroudeBrothers, 1966

Grave, Floyd K. ‘Concerto Style in Haydn’s String Quartets’. The Journal of Musicology,18/1 (2001), pp. 76–97

BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

Grayson, David. Mozart’s Piano Concertos Nos. 20 and 21. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1998

Gregory, John. A Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man, with those of theAnimal World. 2nd edition. London: J. Dodsley, 1766

Gruber, Gernot. Mozart Verstehen: ein Versuch. Salzburg: Residenz Verlag, 1990———. Mozart and Posterity, trans. R. S. Furness. London: Quartet Books, 1991Gülke, Peter. ‘Triumph der neuen Tonkunst’: Mozarts späte Sinfonien und ihr Umfeld.

Kassel and Stuttgart: Bärenreiter-Metzler, 1998Gutman, Robert W. Mozart: A Cultural Biography. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999Hanning, Barbara R. ‘Conversation and Musical Style in the Late Eighteenth-Century

Parisian Salon’. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 22 (1988/89), pp. 512–28Heartz, Daniel. Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School, 1740–1780. New York: Norton,

1995Hildesheimer, Wolfgang. Mozart, translated by Marion Faber. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,

1977; English edition, New York: Vintage, 1983Hiller, Johann Adam. ‘Abhandlung von der Nachahmung der Natur in der Musik’. In

Historisch-Kritische Beiträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, edited by Friedrich WilhelmMarpurg. Berlin, 1754. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970

Hocquard, Jean-Victor. La pensée de Mozart. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1958Holmes, Edward. The Life of Mozart, including his Correspondence. London: Chapman and

Hall, 1845Hosler, Bellamy. Changing Aesthetic Views of Instrumental Music in 18th-Century

Germany. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981Hoyle, John. Dictionarium Musica. London, 1770———. A Complete Dictionary of Music. London, 1791Hunter, Mary. The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999Hunter, Mary and James Webster, eds. Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1997Hutchings, Arthur. A Companion to Mozart’s Concertos. 7th edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1989Irving, John. Mozart’s Piano Sonatas: Contexts, Sources, Style. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1997———. Mozart’s Piano Concertos. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003Jackson, William. Observations on the Present State of Music in London. London, 1791Jacob, Heinrich Eduard. Mozart, oder Geist, Musik und Schicksal. Frankfurt: Verlag

Heinrich Scheffler, 1955Jahn, Otto. Life of Mozart, translated by Pauline D. Townsend. New York: Cooper Square

Publishers, 1970Jones, William. A Treatise on the Art of Music in which the Elements of Harmony and Air are

practically considered. Colchester, 1784Keefe, Simon P. ‘The Aesthetics of Wind Writing in Mozart’s “Paris” Symphony in D, K.

297’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 2006, forthcoming———. ‘Mozart’s Late Piano Sonatas (K. 457, 533, 545, 570, 576): Aesthetic and Stylistic

Parallels with his Piano Concertos’. In Words About Mozart: Essays in Honour of StanleySadie, edited by Dorothea Link and Judith Nagley, pp. 59–75. Woodbridge andRochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2005

204 BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. ‘The Concerto from Mozart to Beethoven: Aesthetic and Stylistic Perspectives’. InThe Cambridge Companion to the Concerto, ed. Keefe, pp. 70–92. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2005

———. Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Dramatic Dialogue in the Age of Enlightenment. Wood-bridge and Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2001

———, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Mozart. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003

———, and Cliff Eisen, eds. The Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006

Keller, Hans. ‘K. 503: The Unity of Contrasting Themes and Movements’. Music Review,17 (1956), pp. 48–58, 120–29

Kerman, Joseph. ‘Mozart’s Piano Concertos and Their Audience’. In On Mozart, edited byJames M. Morris, pp. 151–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994

———. Concerto Conversations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999Kinderman, William. ‘Dramatic Development and Narrative Design in Mozart’s C minor

Concerto, K. 491’. In Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, edited byNeal Zaslaw, pp. 285–301. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996

Kirkendale, Warren. ‘Ciceronians versus Aristotelians on the Ricercar as Exordium, fromBembo to Bach’. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 32 (1979), pp. 1–44

Klenz, William. ‘ “Per Aspera ad Astra” or The Stairway to Jupiter’. Music Review, 30(1969), pp. 169–210

Klinkhammer, Rudolf. Die langsame Einleitung in der Instrumentalmusik der Klassik undRomantik. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1971

Knepler, Georg. Wolfgang Amadé Mozart, translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994

Knigge, Baron von. Über den Umgang mit Menschen, translated by P. Will as PracticalPhilosophy of Social Life or the Art of Conversing with Men. London, 1799

Koch, Heinrich Christoph. Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition. 3 vols. Rudolstadtand Leipzig, 1782–93. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969. Translated by NancyKovaleff Baker as Introductory Essay on Composition. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1983

———. Musikalisches Lexikon. Frankfurt, 1802. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964Kollmann, Augustus Frederick Christopher. An Essay on Practical Musical Composition.

London, 1799. Reprint, New York: Da Capo, 1973Komlós, Katalin. Fortepianos and their Music: Germany, Austria and England, 1760–1800.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995Kunze, Stefan. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Sinfonie in C-Dur, KV 551, Jupiter-Sinfonie.

Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1988Küster, Konrad. Mozart: A Musical Biography, translated by Mary Whittall. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1996———. Formale Aspekte des ersten Allegros in Mozarts Konzerten. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1991Lacépède, Bernard Germain, Comte de. La Poëtique de la Musique. 2 vols. Paris, 1785Landon, H.C. Robbins. ‘The Concertos: (2) Their Musical Origin and Development’. In

The Mozart Companion, edited by Landon and Donald Mitchell, pp. 234–82. NewYork: Norton, 1956

Laporte, Joseph de. Dictionnaire Dramatique, contenant l’Histoire des Théâtres, les Régles dugenre Dramatique, les Observations des Maîtres les plus célebres et des Réflexions nouvellessur les Spectacles, sur le génie et la conduite de tous les genres, avec les Notices des meilleures

BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

Piéces, le Catalogue de tous les Drames, et celui des Auteurs Dramatique. 3 vols. Paris,1776

Lawson, Colin. Mozart: Clarinet Concerto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996Le Huray, Peter, and James Day, eds. Music and Aesthetics in the Eighteenth and Early-

Nineteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981Lessing, Gotthold E. Hamburgische Dramaturgie (1769). Edited by Otto Mann. Stuttgart:

Alfred Kröner, 1958. Translated by Helen Zimmern, as Hamburg Dramaturgy. NewYork: Dover, 1962

Levy, Janet Muriel. ‘The “Quatuor Concertant” in Paris in the Latter Half of the Eight-eenth Century’. Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1971

Massin, Jean and Brigitte. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Paris: Fayard, 1970 (first published1959)

McClary, Susan. ‘A Musical Dialectic from the Enlightenment: Mozart’s Piano Concerto inG Major, K. 453, Movement 2’. Cultural Critique, 5 (1986), pp. 129–69

Mercier, Louis Sébastien. Du Théâtre, ou nouvel Essai sur l’Art Dramatique. Amsterdam,1773

Meude-Monpas, J.J.O. de. Dictionnaire de Musique. Paris, 1787. Reprint, Geneva:Minkoff, 1981

Meyer, Leonard B. Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 1989

Morrow, Mary Sue. Concert Life in Haydn’s Vienna: Aspects of a Developing Musical andSocial Institution. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon, 1989

———. German Music Criticism in the Late 18th Century: Aesthetic Issues in InstrumentalMusic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997

Niemetschek, Franz Xaver. The Life of Mozart (1798), translated by Helen Mautner.London: Leonard Hyman, 1956

Oulibicheff, Alexandre. Nouvelle Biographie de Mozart, suivie d’un apercu sur l’histoiregénérale de la musique et de l’analyse des principales oeuvres de Mozart. 3 vols. Moscow:Semen, 1843

Pfann, Walter. ‘ “Ein bescheidener Platz in der Sonatenform . . .” Zur formalen Gestaltungdes Menuetts in den “Haydn-Quartetten” Mozarts’. Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 52(1995), pp. 316–36

Platoff, John. ‘Musical and Dramatic Structure in the Opera Buffa Finale’. Journal of Musi-cology, 7/2 (1989), pp. 191–230

———. ‘Tonal Organization in “Buffo” Finales and the Act II Finale of Le nozze di Figaro’.Music & Letters, 72/3 (1991), pp. 387–403

Ratner, Leonard G. Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style. New York: Schirmer, 1980Reicha, Antoine. Traité de mélodie. Paris: Richault, 1814———. L’art du compositeur, ou Cours complet de composition vocale. Paris, 1833Reimer, Erich. ‘Die Polemik gegen Virtuosenkonzert im 18. Jahrhundert. Zur Vor-

geschichte einer Gattung der Trivialmusik’. Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 30 (1973),pp. 235–44

Reynolds, R.G. ‘K. 537: Regression or Progression?’ Music Review, 34 (1974), pp. 142–48Richards, Annette. The Free Fantasia and the Musical Picturesque. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2001Rogers, John E. ‘Pitch-Class Sets in Fourteen Measures of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony’.

Perspectives of New Music, 9–10 (1971), pp. 209–31Rosen, Charles. The Classical Style: Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart. New York: Norton, 1971

206 BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Sonata Forms. New York: Norton, 1980Rosen, David. ‘The Composer’s “Standard Operating Procedure” as Evidence of Inten-

tion: The Case of a Formal Quirk in Mozart’s K. 595’. Journal of Musicology, 5 (1987),pp. 79–90

———. ‘ “Unexpectedness” and “Inevitability” in Mozart’s Piano Concertos’. In Mozart’sPiano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, edited by Neal Zaslaw, pp. 261–84. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Dictionnaire de Musique. Paris: Duchesne, 1768. Reprint,Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969

Ruile-Dronke, Jutta. Ritornell und Solo in Mozarts Klavierkonzerten. Tutzing: Schneider,1978

Rumph, Stephen. ‘Mozart’s Archaic Endings: A Linguistic Critique’. Journal of the RoyalMusical Association, 130 (2005), pp. 159–96

Rushton, Julian. Mozart (‘The Master Musicians’). Oxford and New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 2006

Saint-Foix, Georges de, and Théodore de Wyzewa. W.-A. Mozart: sa vie musicale et sonoeuvre, 5 vols. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1912–46

Schroeder, David. Haydn and the Enlightenment: the Late Symphonies and their Audience.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990

Schmid, Manfred Hermann. Orchester und Soloist in den Konzerten von W.A. Mozart.Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1999

Schmid, Thomas Christian. ‘ “Vom Streichquintett zum Streichquartett”? Zur Satz-technik in Mozarts später Kammermusik für Streicher’. In Mozart-Jahrbuch 1996, pp.1–22

Schwindt-Gross, Nicole. Drama und Diskurs: Zur Beziehung zwischen Satztechnik undmotivischem Prozess am Beispiel der durchbrochenen Arbeit in der StreichquartettenMozarts und Haydns. Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989

Sechter, Simon. Das Finale von W.A. Mozarts Jupiter-Symphonie (1843). Edited byFriedrich Eckstein. Vienna, 1923

Seidel, Wilhelm. ‘Sechs musikalische Charaktere: Zu den Joseph Haydn gewidmetenStreichquartetten von Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’. In Mozart-Jahrbuch 1984/85, pp.125–29

Seiffert, Wolf-Dieter. ‘Vom Streichquartett zum Streichquintett: Satztechnische Bezügezwischen kammermusikalischen Früh- und Spätwerk bei Mozart’. In Mozart-Jahrbuch1991, pp. 671–77

Shaftesbury, Third Earl of. Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. London,1711. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1978

Sidnell, Michael J., ed. Sources of Dramatic Theory: 2. Voltaire to Hugo. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994

Sievers, Gerd. ‘Analyse des Finale aus Mozarts Jupiter-Symphonie’. Die Musikforschung, 3(1954), pp. 318–31

Sisman, Elaine R. ‘Observations on the First Phase of Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets’. InWords About Mozart: Essays in Honour of Stanley Sadie, edited by Dorothea Link andJudy Nagley, pp. 33–58. Woodbridge and Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2005

———. ‘Genre, Gesture, and Meaning in Mozart’s ‘Prague’ Symphony’. In Mozart Studies2, ed. Cliff Eisen, pp. 27–84. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997

———. Haydn and the Classical Variation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1993

BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

———. Mozart: The ‘Jupiter’ Symphony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993———. ‘Haydn’s Theater Symphonies’. Journal of the American Musicological Society 43

(1990), pp. 292–352———, ed. Haydn and His World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997Solomon, Maynard. Mozart: A Life. New York: HarperCollins, 1995———. Beethoven. New York: Schirmer, 1977Spohr, Wilhelm. Mozart: Leben und Werk. Berlin: Verlag der Nation, 1951Stafford, William. The Mozart Myths: A Critical Re-Assessment. Stanford: Stanford Univer-

sity Press, 1991Steinbeck, Wolfram. ‘Mozart’s “Scherzi”: Zur Beziehung zwischen Haydns Streich-

quartetten op. 33 and Mozarts Haydn-Quartetten’. Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 41(1984), pp. 208–31

Stock, Jonathan P.J. ‘Orchestration as Structural Determinant: Mozart’s Deployment ofWoodwind Timbre in the Slow Movement of the C Minor Piano Concerto K. 491’.Music & Letters, 78 (1997), pp. 210–19

Subotnik, Rose Rosengard. ‘Evidence of a Critical Worldview in Mozart’s Last ThreeSymphonies’. In Developing Variations: Style and Ideology in Western Music, pp.98–111. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991

Sulzer, Johann Georg. Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1771–74.Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969

Tovey, Donald. Essays in Musical Analysis: Vol. 3, Concertos. 7th edition. London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1981

Treitler, Leo, ed. Strunk’s Source Readings in Music History. New York: Norton, 1998Triest, Johann Karl Friedrich. ‘Remarks on the Development of the Art of Music in

Germany in the Eighteenth Century’, trans. Susan Gillespie. In Haydn and His World,edited by Elaine Sisman, pp. 321–94. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997

Tyson, Alan. ‘The Mozart Fragments in the Mozarteum, Salzburg: A Preliminary Study ofTheir Chronology and Their Significance’. Journal of the American MusicologicalSociety, 34 (1981), pp. 471–510

———. Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1987

———. ‘Mozart’s Piano Concerto Fragments’. In Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context,Interpretation, edited by Neal Zaslaw, pp. 67–72. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 1996

Vertrees, Julie Ann. ‘Mozart’s String Quartet K. 465: The History of a Controversy’.Current Musicology, 17 (1974), pp. 96–114

Waldoff, Jessica and James Webster. ‘Operatic Plotting in Le nozze di Figaro’. In WolfgangAmadè Mozart: Essays on his Life and Music, ed. Stanley Sadie, pp. 250–95. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1996

Webster, James. Haydn’s ‘Farewell’ Symphony and the Idea of Classical Style: Through-Composition and Cyclic Integration in His Instrumental Music. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991

———. ‘Are Mozart’s Concertos “Dramatic”? Concerto Ritornellos versus Aria Introduc-tions in the 1780s’. In Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, edited byNeal Zaslaw, pp. 107–37. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996

Wheelock, Gretchen A. Haydn’s Ingenious Jesting with Art: Contexts of Musical Wit andHumor. New York: Schirmer, 1992

208 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Will, Richard. The Characteristic Symphony in the Age of Haydn and Beethoven.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002

———. ‘When God Met the Sinner, and Other Dramatic Confrontations in Eighteenth-Century Instrumental Music’. Music & Letters, 78 (1997), pp. 175–209

Wolff, Christoph. ‘Mozart 1784: Biographische und stilgeschichtliche Überlegungen’.Mozart-Jahrbuch 1986, pp. 1–10

———. ‘Creative Exuberance vs. Critical Choice: Thoughts on Mozart’s Quartet Frag-ments’. In The String Quartets of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven: Studies of the Auto-graph Manuscripts (Isham Library Papers, III), edited by Christoph Wolff and RobertRiggs, pp. 191–210. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980

Würtz, Roland. Dialogué: Vorrevolutionäre Kammermusik in Mannheim und Paris.Wilhelmshaven: Nötzel, 1990

Zaslaw, Neal. Mozart’s Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1989

———, ed. Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press, 1996

———, and John Spitzer. The Birth of the Orchestra: History of an Institution, 1650–1815.Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004

BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

Index of Mozart’s Works by Köchel Number

K. 183 Symphony No. 25 in G minor, 138K. 246 Piano Concerto in C, 75K. 271 Piano Concerto in Eb (‘Jenamy’), 75K. 296 Sonata for violin and piano in C, 97,

185, 186K. 297 Symphony No. 31 in D (‘Paris’), 6–7K. 320 Serenade in D (‘Posthorn’), 138K. 366 Idomeneo, 37, 38, 150, 193K. 376 Sonata for violin and piano in F, 97,

185, 186K. 377 Sonata for violin and piano in F, 97,

185, 186K. 378 Sonata for violin and piano in Bb, 97,

185, 186K. 379 Sonata for violin and piano in G, 97,

185, 186K. 380 Sonata for violin and piano in Eb, 97,

185, 186K. 384 Die Entführung aus dem Serail, 5, 37–8,

64, 96, 193K. 385 Symphony No. 35 in D (‘Haffner’),

160K. 387 String Quartet in G, 40–2, 64, 89, 95–6,

99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 118, 167K. 413 Piano Concerto in F, 7, 10, 11, 20, 24,

25–34, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54, 67–8n, 72, 74, 96,167, 187, 192

K. 414 Piano Concerto in A, 7, 10, 11, 20, 24,25–34, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54, 69, 72, 96, 167, 187,192

K. 415 Piano Concerto in C, 7, 10, 11, 20, 24,25–34, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54, 67–8n, 72, 96, 167,192

K. 421 String Quartet in D minor, 64, 89, 93,95–6, 97, 98, 99–100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 117,118, 150

K. 425 Symphony No. 36 in C (‘Linz’), 160,161, 162, 163

K. 428 String Quartet in Eb, 64, 89, 95–6, 97–8,99, 100, 102, 103, 113, 118

K. 449 Piano Concerto in Eb, 7, 10, 11–12, 13,14, 19–42, 43–4, 47, 49, 53–5, 62, 65, 70, 72,76, 104, 122, 132, 138, 164, 167, 169, 174,175, 181, 183, 186, 187, 188, 191, 197,199–200

K. 450 Piano Concerto in Bb, 7, 10, 11, 12,19–34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 49–55, 59n, 61, 68, 69,72, 74, 122, 169, 174, 186, 187, 188, 193, 197,200

K. 451 Piano Concerto in D, 10, 11, 19–34, 35,39, 43, 49–55, 58, 59n, 61, 72, 74, 132, 186,187, 188, 193

K. 452 Quintet for Piano and Winds in Eb, 14,19, 24n, 169–73, 174, 188, 193

K. 453 Piano Concerto in G, 10, 11, 19–34, 39,43, 49–55, 61, 72, 186, 187, 188, 193

K. 454 Sonata for violin and piano in Bb,185–87, 188

K. 456 Piano Concerto in Bb, 24n, 30, 49–55,61, 69n, 72, 74, 197

K. 457 Piano Sonata in C minor, 183, 184, 186,188

K. 458 String Quartet in Bb (‘Hunt’), 37, 64, 89,95–6, 98–9, 100, 102, 103, 113, 118

K. 459 Piano Concerto in F, 49–55, 61, 69, 72,74

K. 464 String Quartet in A, 89, 95–6, 98, 99,100, 102, 103, 113, 116–17, 118

K. 465 String Quartet in C (‘Dissonance’), 10,12–13, 14, 64, 89–104, 107, 111, 116, 118,121–22, 127, 138, 164, 167, 168, 191

K. 466 Piano Concerto in D minor, 29, 35–6,49–55, 61, 66, 72, 76, 132, 141, 175

K. 467 Piano Concerto in C, 49–55, 59n, 61, 69,72, 74

K. 478 Piano Quartet in G minor, 7, 168n, 169,174–75, 177, 181, 190, 192

K. 481 Sonata for violin and piano in Eb,187–88

K. 482 Piano Concerto in Eb, 49–55, 58, 59n,61, 69, 72, 74, 174

K. 488 Piano Concerto in A, 25, 49–55, 58, 61,72, 74

K. 491 Piano Concerto in C minor, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 23, 36, 42, 49–58, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68,69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 81–3, 84, 104, 122, 132,138, 163–64, 167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175,181, 184, 188, 191, 193, 197

K. 492 Le nozze di Figaro, 35, 36–7, 64, 132,151, 164, 177, 189, 193

K. 493 Piano Quartet in Eb, 7, 168n, 174,175–77, 181, 190, 192, 199

K. 496 Piano Trio in G, 168n, 169, 177, 178,179, 185, 188, 190

K. 498 Trio for piano, clarinet and viola in Eb

(‘Kegelstatt’), 177, 180–81, 188K. 499 String Quartet in D (‘Hoffmeister’), 106,

118, 123–25, 126, 127, 188, 192, 199K. 502 Piano Trio in Bb, 168n, 169, 177, 190K. 503 Piano Concerto in C, 12, 14, 25, 49–55,

58–63, 64, 68, 69, 72, 74, 81–2, 104, 122, 163,167, 188

K. 504 Symphony No. 38 in D (‘Prague’), 13,103, 137, 160, 161–62, 163, 189

K. 505 ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te’ (soprano, piano,orchestra), 196–98

K. 515 String Quintet in C, 107, 123, 125–27,131, 133, 192

K. 516 String Quintet in G minor, 107, 123,125–27, 133, 192

K. 526 Sonata for violin and piano in A, 185,187–88

K. 527 Don Giovanni, 36–7, 132, 151, 164, 189,193

K. 533 Piano Sonata in F, 183, 184, 187, 188K. 537 Piano Concerto in D (‘Coronation’),

10–11, 12, 14, 43, 62, 63, 64–85, 104, 107,118, 122, 129, 130, 163, 167, 172, 175, 177,179, 181, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189–90, 193,197, 200

K. 538, ‘Ah se in ciel’ (soprano, orchestra),197n

K. 540 Adagio for piano in B minor, 185K. 542 Piano Trio in E, 168n, 169, 177, 181,

182, 190, 191, 192K. 543 Symphony No. 39 in Eb, 77, 81, 107,

160, 162, 163, 190, 191K. 545 Piano Sonata in C, 183, 184, 190

K. 547 Sonata for violin and piano in F, 190K. 548 Piano Trio in C, 168n, 169, 177, 178,

179, 180, 185, 190, 191, 192K. 550 Symphony No. 40 in G minor, 13, 77–9,

81, 107, 130, 137, 160, 162, 163, 172, 179,191, 194

K. 551 Symphony No. 41 in C (‘Jupiter’), 10,13, 14, 58, 77, 81, 106, 107, 137–64, 167, 168,170, 173, 188, 191, 192, 193, 200

K. 563 Divertimento for string trio in Eb, 177,178, 179–80, 190

K. 564 Piano Trio in G, 168n, 169, 177, 181,190, 191, 192

K. 570 Piano Sonata in Bb, 183, 184K. 575 String Quartet in D (‘Prussian’), 10, 13,

14, 64, 104, 105–107, 113–15, 116–17, 118,121, 122, 127, 128–30, 131, 132, 168, 178,190, 194

K. 576 Piano Sonata in D, 183, 184, 188K. 588 Così fan tutte, 189, 194–96K. 589 String Quartet in Bb (‘Prussian’), 10, 13,

14, 64, 104, 105–107, 110, 113–14, 116–17,118, 121, 122, 127, 128–30, 131, 132, 168,172, 178, 180, 190, 194, 196

K. 590 String Quartet in F (‘Prussian’), 10, 13,14, 104, 105–107, 109, 110–12, 113–18,119–20, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128–30,131, 132, 164, 168, 178, 181, 190, 194

K. 593 String Quintet in D, 107, 130–32K. 595 Piano Concerto in Bb, 10–11, 12, 14, 25,

62, 63, 64–85, 104, 107, 113, 118, 122, 129,130, 131, 163, 164, 167, 172, 175, 178, 179,183, 184, 188, 189–90, 193, 194, 200

K. 614 String Quintet in Eb, 107, 131, 132K. 620 Die Zauberflöte, 189K. 621 La clemenza di Tito, 189K. 622 Clarinet Concerto in A, 49, 192K. 626 Requiem in D minor, 67

212 INDEX OF MOZART’S WORKS BY KÖCHEL NUMBER

Index of Mozart’s Works by Genre

MassesK. 626 Requiem in D minor, 67

OperasK. 366 Idomeneo, 37, 38, 150, 193K. 384 Die Entführung aus dem Serail, 5, 37–8,

64, 96, 193K. 492 Le nozze di Figaro, 35, 36–7, 64, 132,

151, 164, 177, 189, 193K. 527 Don Giovanni, 36–7, 132, 151, 164, 189,

193K. 588 Così fan tutte, 189, 194–96K. 620 Die Zauberflöte, 189K. 621 La clemenza di Tito, 189

AriasK. 505 ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te’ (soprano, piano,

orchestra), 196–98K. 538, ‘Ah se in ciel’ (soprano, orchestra),

197n

SymphoniesK. 183 Symphony No. 25 in G minor, 138K. 297 Symphony No. 31 in D (‘Paris’), 6–7K. 385 Symphony No. 35 in D (‘Haffner’), 160K. 425 Symphony No. 36 in C (‘Linz’), 160,

161, 162, 163K. 504 Symphony No. 38 in D (‘Prague’), 13,

103, 137, 160, 161–62, 163, 189K. 543 Symphony No. 39 in Eb, 77, 81, 107,

160, 162, 163, 190, 191K. 550 Symphony No. 40 in G minor, 13, 77–9,

81, 107, 130, 137, 160, 162, 163, 172, 179,191, 194

K. 551 Symphony No. 41 in C (‘Jupiter’), 10,13, 14, 58, 77, 81, 106, 107, 137–64, 167, 168,170, 173, 188, 191, 192, 193, 200

SerenadesK. 320 Serenade in D (‘Posthorn’), 138

ConcertosK. 246 Piano Concerto in C, 75K. 271 Piano Concerto in Eb (‘Jenamy’), 75K. 413 Piano Concerto in F, 7, 10, 11, 20, 24,

25–34, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54, 67–8n, 72, 74, 96,167, 187, 192

K. 414 Piano Concerto in A, 7, 10, 11, 20, 24,25–34, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54, 69, 72, 96, 167, 187,192

K. 415 Piano Concerto in C, 7, 10, 11, 20, 24,25–34, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54, 67–8n, 72, 96, 167,192

K. 449 Piano Concerto in Eb, 7, 10, 11–12, 13,14, 19–42, 43–4, 47, 49, 53–5, 62, 65, 70, 72,76, 104, 122, 132, 138, 164, 167, 169, 174,175, 181, 183, 186, 187, 188, 191, 197,199–200

K. 450 Piano Concerto in Bb, 7, 10, 11, 12,19–34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 49–55, 59n, 61, 68, 69,72, 74, 122, 169, 174, 186, 187, 188, 193, 197,200

K. 451 Piano Concerto in D, 10, 11, 19–34, 35,39, 43, 49–55, 58, 59n, 61, 72, 74, 132, 186,187, 188, 193

K. 453 Piano Concerto in G, 10, 11, 19–34, 39,43, 49–55, 61, 72, 186, 187, 188, 193

K. 456 Piano Concerto in Bb, 24n, 30, 49–55,61, 69n, 72, 74, 197

K. 459 Piano Concerto in F, 49–55, 61, 69, 72,74

K. 466 Piano Concerto in D minor, 29, 35–6,49–55, 61, 66, 72, 76, 132, 141, 175

K. 467 Piano Concerto in C, 49–55, 59n, 61, 69,72, 74

K. 482 Piano Concerto in Eb, 49–55, 58, 59n,61, 69, 72, 74, 174

K. 488 Piano Concerto in A, 25, 49–55, 58, 61,72, 74

K. 491 Piano Concerto in C minor, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 23, 36, 42, 49–58, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68,69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 81–3, 84, 104, 122, 132,138, 163–64, 167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175,181, 184, 188, 191, 193, 197

K. 503 Piano Concerto in C, 12, 14, 25, 49–55,58–63, 64, 68, 69, 72, 74, 81–2, 104, 122, 163,167, 188

K. 537 Piano Concerto in D (‘Coronation’),10–11, 12, 14, 43, 62, 63, 64–85, 104, 107,118, 122, 129, 130, 163, 167, 172, 175, 177,

K. 537 (cont.)179, 181, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189–90, 193,197, 200

K. 595 Piano Concerto in Bb, 10–11, 12, 14, 25,62, 63, 64–85, 104, 107, 113, 118, 122, 129,130, 131, 163, 164, 167, 172, 175, 178, 179,183, 184, 188, 189–90, 193, 194, 200

K. 622 Clarinet Concerto in A, 49, 192

Quintets, quartets and trios with pianoK. 452 Quintet for Piano and Winds in Eb, 14,

19, 24n, 169–73, 174, 188, 193K. 478 Piano Quartet in G minor, 7, 168n, 169,

174–75, 177, 181, 190, 192K. 493 Piano Quartet in Eb, 7, 168n, 174,

175–77, 181, 190, 192, 199K. 496 Piano Trio in G, 168n, 169, 177, 178,

179, 185, 188, 190K. 498 Trio for piano, clarinet and viola in Eb

(‘Kegelstatt’), 177, 180–81, 188K. 502 Piano Trio in Bb, 168n, 169, 177, 190K. 542 Piano Trio in E, 168n, 169, 177, 181,

182, 190, 191, 192K. 548 Piano Trio in C, 168n, 169, 177, 178,

179, 180, 185, 190, 191, 192K. 564 Piano Trio in G, 168n, 169, 177, 181,

190, 191, 192

String quintetsK. 515 String Quintet in C, 107, 123, 125–27,

131, 133, 192K. 516 String Quintet in G minor, 107, 123,

125–27, 133, 192K. 593 String Quintet in D, 107, 130–32K. 614 String Quintet in Eb, 107, 131, 132

String quartetsK. 387 String Quartet in G, 40–2, 64, 89, 95–6,

99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 118, 167K. 421 String Quartet in D minor, 64, 89, 93,

95–6, 97, 98, 99–100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 117,118, 150

K. 428 String Quartet in Eb, 64, 89, 95–6, 97–8,99, 100, 102, 103, 113, 118

K. 458 String Quartet in Bb (‘Hunt’), 37, 64, 89,95–6, 98–9, 100, 102, 103, 113, 118

K. 464 String Quartet in A, 89, 95–6, 98, 99,100, 102, 103, 113, 116–17, 118

K. 465 String Quartet in C (‘Dissonance’), 10,12–13, 14, 64, 89–104, 107, 111, 116, 118,121–22, 127, 138, 164, 167, 168, 191

K. 499 String Quartet in D (‘Hoffmeister’), 106,118, 123–25, 126, 127, 188, 192, 199

K. 575 String Quartet in D (‘Prussian’), 10, 13,14, 64, 104, 105–107, 113–15, 116–17, 118,121, 122, 127, 128–30, 131, 132, 168, 178,190, 194

K. 589 String Quartet in Bb (‘Prussian’), 10, 13,14, 64, 104, 105–107, 110, 113–14, 116–17,118, 121, 122, 127, 128–30, 131, 132, 168,172, 178, 180, 190, 194, 196

K. 590 String Quartet in F (‘Prussian’), 10, 13,14, 104, 105–107, 109, 110–12, 113–18,119–20, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128–30,131, 132, 164, 168, 178, 181, 190, 194

String trioK. 563 Divertimento for string trio in Eb, 177,

178, 179–80, 190

Sonatas for violin and pianoK. 296 Sonata for violin and piano in C, 97,



185, 186K. 378 Sonata for violin and piano in Bb, 97,

185, 186K. 379 Sonata for violin and piano in G, 97,

185, 186K. 380 Sonata for violin and piano in Eb, 97,

185, 186K. 454 Sonata for violin and piano in Bb,

185–87, 188K. 481 Sonata for violin and piano in Eb,

187–88K. 526 Sonata for violin and piano in A, 185,

187–88K. 547 Sonata for violin and piano in F, 190

Sonatas and other solo works for pianoK. 457 Piano Sonata in C minor, 183, 184, 186,

188K. 533 Piano Sonata in F, 183, 184, 187, 188K. 540 Adagio in B minor, 185K. 545 Piano Sonata in C, 183, 184, 190K. 570 Piano Sonata in Bb, 183, 184K. 576 Piano Sonata in D, 183, 184, 188

214 INDEX OF MOZART’S WORKS BY GENRE

General Index

Abert, Hermann, 3, 66, 84, 91, 170, 171, 190Agawu, V. Kofi, 125d’Alembert, Jean, 128Allanbrook, Wye Jamison, 35, 97n, 103, 128Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 20, 21, 47, 48,

49, 90, 146, 192Aristotle, 8, 103Artaria, 89, 105, 106Attwood, Thomas, 90Avison, Charles, 48

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel, 4, 44, 109Bach, Johann Christian, 65Baumgarten, Alexander, 122Beck, Franz Ignaz, 144Beethoven, Ludwig van, 81–2Berger, Karol, 34n, 72nBlom, Eric, 23, 65, 85, 91, 106, 140Bonds, Mark Evan, 93Bossler, Heinrich Philipp, 199Boswell, James, 127brilliance, 11–12, 42, 43–63Brown, A. Peter, 160nBrown, Marshall, 91–2Busby, Thomas, 108, 109

Cailhava, Jean-François, 148, 149Carew, Derek, 190Chastellux, Jean François de, 145Chua, Daniel, 164Cicero, 102confrontation, 11, 13, 181, 191, 197:

in Mozart’s operas, 37–8in Mozart’s piano concertos, 28–40, 50–1,

53–7, 193in Mozart’s piano quartets and piano

concertos, 174–77in Mozart’s piano trios and piano concertos,

181in Mozart’s string quintet K. 614 and piano

concertos, 132in Mozart’s symphonies, 150, 156

contrast, 107–33, 191, 192, 193:explanations of c. 1800, 13, 108–109in Mozart’s Adagio for piano K. 540, 185

in Mozart’s ‘Hoffmeister’ quartet, 123–25in Mozart’s piano trios and string trio,

177–81in Mozart’s ‘Prussian’ quartets, 104, 109–22in Mozart’s string quintets, 125–27, 131–32

Cooper, Anthony Ashley (3rd Earl ofShaftesbury), 128, 130

Corelli, Arcangelo, 45Corneille, Pierre, 149Cramer, Carl Friedrich, 5n, 89, 108–109Cramer, Johann Baptist, 82

Dahlhaus, Carl, 193nDearling, Robert, 140–41Derr, Ellwood, 96dialogue:

and the quartet as conversation analogy,127–29

as intimate grandeur in Mozart’s pianoconcertos, 46–7, 48, 49–53, 55–63

in Mozart’s aria ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te’,196–97

in Mozart’s piano concertos, 74–5in Mozart’s piano concertos and operas, 193in Mozart’s piano quartets and piano trios,

168–69in Mozart’s piano sonatas and violin sonatas,

183–88in Mozart’s Quintet for Piano and Winds K.

452, 170–72in Mozart’s symphonies, 13, 138–39, 144–64,

191Diderot, Denis, 129, 149, 155–56n, 158Ditters von Dittersdorf, Carl, 5n, 30, 89

Einstein, Alfred, 3, 23, 39, 42, 67, 82n, 84–5,170, 190, 191

Eisen, Cliff, xi, 90nEisley, Irving R., 21–2, 58nEncyclopédie méthodique: musique, 2, 45

Ferrari, Giacomo Gotifredo, 90Fétis, François-Joseph, 90Fischer, Johann Ignaz Ludwig, 19Forkel, Johann Nikolaus, 147–48

Forman, Denis, 23, 65, 66, 85

Galeazzi, Francesco, 93n, 146Gerard, Alexander, 5, 9Gerber, Ernst Ludwig, 48Ginguené, Pierre-Louis, 45–6, 48Girdlestone, Cuthbert, 22–3, 33, 39, 42, 65, 66,

82n, 84, 170, 190, 191Gluck, Christoph Willibald, 30Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 155–56n, 157, 158Goertzen, Chris, 65Gossec, François-Joseph, 145grandeur, 11–12, 42, 43–63Grayson, David, 29–30nGregory, John, 163Griesinger, Georg August, 9, 12Grimm, Friedrich Melchior, Baron von, 149–50Gruber, Gernot, 4Gutman, Robert, 141

Hamann, Johann Georg, 4Haydn, Franz Joseph, 4, 9, 12, 40–1, 59, 64, 89,

93, 103, 104, 106, 108, 122, 143, 146, 193string quartets Op. 20, 40string quartets Op. 33, 40, 93

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 147, 151Herder, Johann Gottfried, 4, 9Hertz, Neal, 142Hildesheimer, Wolfgang, 67, 85, 170, 190Hocquard, Jean-Victor, 65, 66, 84, 141, 190,

191Hoffmann, Ernst Theodor Amadeus, 144Hoffmeister, Franz Anton, 7Hoyle, John, 2, 46Hutchings, Arthur, 22, 23, 33, 34–5, 65, 84

intimacy, 11–12, 42, 43–63

Jackson, William, 108Jacob, Heinrich Eduard, 141Jahn, Otto, 3, 105–106, 170, 190Johnson, Samuel, 127Junker, Karl Ludwig, 113

Kant, Immanuel, 5, 9, 142Keefe, Madeleine, xiKeller, Hans, 97n, 106Kirkendale, Warren, 102Kittel, Johannes Christian, 138Knepler, Georg, 96Koch, Heinrich Christoph, 2–3, 7, 21n, 46–7,

48, 53, 89, 90, 103, 108n, 142–43, 175Kollmann, August Frederick Christopher, 21n,

44, 46, 56Knigge, Baron von, 127–28

Küster, Konrad, 3–4, 69n, 74n, 84n

Lacépède, Bernard Germain, Comte de,144–45, 146, 147

Landon, H. C. Robbins, 66, 85Laporte, Joseph de, 129, 148–49, 150, 151, 157Leeson, Daniel N., 24nLessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 155–56nLocatelli, Pietro, 45

Marmontel, Jean, 129Marsh, John, 90Massin, Jean and Brigitte, 65, 66, 170, 190, 191Mercier, Louis Sébastien, 129, 149Meude-Monpas, J. J. O. de, 2, 145–46Meyer, Leonard B., 10Molière (Jean Baptiste Poquelin), 149, 157Momigny, Jérôme-Joseph de, 2, 150Mozart, Constanze, 90Mozart, Leopold, 7, 19, 40n, 89, 164Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, see Index of

Mozart’s Works by Köchel Number,Index of Mozart’s Works by Genre

Niemetschek, Franz Xaver, 89, 146

Ottoway, Hugh, 141Oulibicheff, Alexandre, 90

Quintilian, 8, 102

Paul, Jean, 144Platoff, John, 36–7nPuchberg, Michael, 191

Racine, Jean, 149Radcliffe, Philip, 23, 65Ratner, Leonard G., 21, 131Reicha, Antoine, 30, 37, 148, 152, 156, 175

Traité de mélodie, 30, 37Reichardt, Johann Friedrich, 108Reynolds, R.G., 66rhetoric:

elocutio, 8invention (inventio, Erfindung), 8–9peroration, 12, 13, 102–103

Richter, Georg Friedrich, 19Rochlitz, Friedrich, 82, 143Rosen, Charles, 21, 23, 32–3, 35, 65–6, 71, 85,

107, 141, 143n, 190Rosen, David, 75nRousseau, Jean-Jacques, 108nRuile-Dronke, Jutta, 66n

Sadie, Stanley, 58n, 141

216 GENERAL INDEX

Saint-Foix, Georges de, 3, 4, 65, 67, 84, 106,109, 140, 170

Sarti, Giuseppe, 90Schachter, Carl, 34nSchenker, Heinrich, 90–1Schink, Johann Friedrich, 197, 199nSchönberg, Arnold, 90–1Schubart, Christian Friedrich Daniel, 48Schulz, Johann Abraham Peter, 141–42Sechter, Simon, 164Shaftesbury, Earl of, see Cooper, Anthony

AshleySieber, Jean-Georges, 94–5nSisman, Elaine R., 7n, 64n, 142–43, 158–59Smith, Adam, 160Solomon, Maynard, 92Sonnenfels, Joseph von, 149Spohr, Wilhelm, 141Staël-Holstein, Anne Louise Germain (Mme de

Staël), 128Stafford, William, 192Stamitz, Carl, 45Steibelt, Daniel, 49Sterkel, Johann Franz Xavier, 144Storace, Nancy, 196nStrinasachi, Regina, 187nstyle:

and originality in eighteenth-centurycontext, 4–5, 9

eighteenth-century discussion of, 2–3, 7, 48,89–90

Mozart’s self-awareness in matters of, 6–7,20, 47–8

Mozart’s late, 191–93twentieth-century discussions of in Mozart,

3–4, 21–4, 65–7, 84–5, 90–2, 140–42,169–70, 190–91

See also brilliance, confrontation, contrast,dialogue, grandeur, intimacy, rhetoric

Subotnik, Rose Rosengard, 80–1Sulzer, Johann Georg, 5, 6n, 9, 46, 141–42, 145

Tartini, Giuseppe, 45Tieck, Ludwig, 144Torelli, Giuseppe, 45Tovey, Donald Francis, 82nTriest, Johann Karl Friedrich, 44, 77n, 129, 146Türk, Daniel Gottlieb, 2Tyson, Alan, 25, 67, 76, 77

Vivaldi, Antonio, 45Vogler, Georg Joseph, 148

Waldoff, Jessica, 38nWeber, Berhard Anselm, 5Weber, Carl Maria von, 143Weber, Gottfried, 90Webster, James, 12n, 34n, 38n, 143, 193Whitwell, David, 24nWinckelmann, Johann Joachim, 5Wyzewa, Théodore de, 3, 4

Young, Edward, 4, 9

Zaslaw, Neal, 20n

GENERAL INDEX 217

spine 22.7 A: 080607

The stylistic evolution of Mozart’s Viennese instrumental repertory as a whole (1781-1791), closely tied to historical and contextual lines of enquiry, has yet to receive systematic attention. This book fi lls the gap through a study of stylistic re-invention, a practically- and empirically-based theory that explains how innovative, putatively inspired, ideas take shape in Mozart’s works and lead to stylistic re-formulation.

Re-invention comprises a two-stage process: Mozart manipulates pre-existent stylistic features of his music to climactic effect, in so doing introducing a demonstrably ‘new’ stylistic dimension with broad aesthetic resonance; he subsequently re-appraises his style in response to the dimension in question.

From close examination of a variety of Mozart’s works (piano concertos, string quartets and symphonies in particular), supported by study of Mozart’s other chamber and dramatic works, the author shows that stylistic re-invention is a consistent and coherent manifestation of stylistic development. Ultimately re-invention puts centre stage the interaction of intellectual and imaginative elements of Mozart’s musical personality, accounting both for processes of refl ection and re-appraisal and for striking conceptual leaps.

SIMON P. KEEFE is Professor and Head of Music at City University London. He is the author of Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Dramatic Dialogue in the Age of Enlightenment, and editor of three other books on Mozart and a book on the concerto genre.

Jacket illustration: Carl Schutz, ‘The Michaeler-platz in Vienna’ (Austrian National Library, Vienna, Pk 2640, 4).

Also by Simon Keefe

Mozart’s Piano Concertos: DramaticDialogue in the Age of Enlightenment

This masterly study will expand every reader’s appreciation of Mozart’s most original This masterly study will expand every reader’s appreciation of Mozart’s most original Tgenre. Andrew Willis, NOTES

This closely written and thoroughly researched study adds much to our appreciation of the concept of dramatic dialogue in Mozart’s mature piano concertos... What Keefe offer[s] us is fascinating... his book is of value in that the higher meaning of these subtle works is often obscure... he does much to make it clearer. INTERNATIONAL PIANO

The interactive relationship between the piano and the orchestra in Mozart’s concertos is an issue central to the appreciation of these great works, explored in this study in the context of the historical implications and hermeneutic potential of dramatic dialogue. Simon Keefe shows that invocations of dramatic dialogue are deeply ingrained in late-eighteenth-century writings on instrumental music, and he develops this theme into an original and highly positive view of solo/orchestra relations in Mozart’s concertos. He analyses behavioural patterns in the concertos and links them to theoretical discussion of late-eighteenth-century drama and to analogous relational development in Mozart’s operas Idomeneo, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni. Mozart’s piano concertos emerge afresh from this new approach as an extraordinary medium of Enlightenment, as signifi cant in their way as the greatest late-eighteenth-century operatic and theatrical works. 9780851158341

www.boydell.co.ukwww.boydellandbrewer.com

BOYDELL & BREWER LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge IP12 3DF (GB) and668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620-2731 (US)US)US

MOZART’SVIENNESE

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

A Study of Stylistic Re-InventionA Study of Stylistic Re-InventionA Study of Stylistic

SIMON P. KEEFE

SIMON P.KEEFE

BOYDELL

MO

ZA

RT

’S VIE

NN

ESE

INST

RU

ME

NT

AL M

USIC

Mozart's Viennese.indd 1 25/06/2007 16:54:45

Mozart’s

Documents

mozarts concertos

study of mozarts

mozarts mature piano

variety of mozarts

mozarts operas idomeneo

stylistic reformulation

dramatic works

international piano