PLEASE CONTACT
THE AUTHOR BEFORE USING THE INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE.
Please be sure to properly give
the author credit.
Table of Contents
Born in Salzburg on January 27, 1756, Mozart is one of the greatest composers
of symphonies to have ever lived. In all, Mozart composed forty-one symphonies;
the first at about age eight, and the last in 1788, just three years before
his death.
I will focus on two of his symphonies: the “little” G-minor Symphony
No. 25 (K. 183) and the “great” G-minor Symphony No. 40
(K. 550). Both symphonies are landmark indications of Mozart’s compositional
genius and are considered unique and ahead of their time. In comparing and
contrasting these two symphonies, I aim to show why each is significant in
the history of the symphony itself.
Symphony No. 25 (K. 183) was written in Salzburg in 1773, just after Mozart returned from studying and performing in Vienna. When comparing the symphonies which were written before and after K. 183, this G-minor has a far different temperament. This is primarily due to the key, as K. 183 was the first symphony Mozart had written in a minor mode. The only other orchestra piece in a minor key (besides “the great” Symphony No. 40 which I will discuss later) is the overture to La Betulia liberata. Compared to this overture, Symphony No. 25 portrays a very ominous mood. Even though works in minor keys had seldom been written by Mozart, there were many other composers of the time writing symphonies in minor keys. Haydn wrote Symphony No. 39 (in G-minor), and J.C. Bach wrote a symphony in G-minor (op. 6, no. 6). These symphonies, including Mozart’s G-minor, have been cited as being products of the “Sturm and Drang” movement in German literature.1
“Sturm und Drang” or “Storm and Stress” is a type of “passion” language used in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s by composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and Austrian composer, J.B. Vanhal. Characteristics of the “Sturm und Drang” movement include wide leaps and syncopations, repeated quarter note and/or eighth notes, crashing and percussive chords, dramatic use of silence, and often four rather than the usual two horn parts. Sturm und Drang acquired its name from German literature during this same time. Several works following these patterns in music writing had been composed before the literary works were written, but the “Sturm und Drang” name was given later. Mozart only used this practice once in the mid-1770’s in writing K. 183, but used it more frequently and effectively in his later works while living in Vienna.2
Several sources indicate that there may have been some personal emotional strife or depression in Mozart’s life while composing this G-minor Symphony No. 25, which may have played a role in its unique sound. Scholar Louis Biancolli, in discussing the symphony says that Eric Blom remarks that Mozart’s rare use of a minor key in a symphony is like “the sudden shedding of a repression,” and he says that the first and last movements “express an unhappy restlessness.” He further adds that even the minuet has a “gloomy discontent and agitation”. Biancolli himself states that this symphony was written in a minor key because Mozart, at age seventeen, was experiencing the stresses and strains of adolescence.3
Opinions of scholars and researchers agree and disagree on this theory. Some
historians say that there was nothing of a personal nature behind the fierce
writing of this symphony. Larsen feels that Mozart was influenced or obliged
to write a symphony in a minor key after hearing Haydn’s series of minor
symphonies, most particularly his Symphony No. 39 in G minor dating circa
1768-69. He also says “even if we cannot attribute any deeper psychological
significance [Mozart’s depression] to the work, it remains one of the most
interesting of this period.” To justify this statement he also claims that
“we must be wary, at the very least, of ascribing too much influence or
convention, a far too simple, though superficially conceiving method of accounting
for a work’s genesis, which neglects the fact that a powerful artistic
compulsion will eventually find a suitable means of expression.”4
Mozart wrote “the great” Symphony No. 40 (K. 550) in Vienna and completed it on July 25, 1788. This occurred late in his career, just three years prior to his death. This Symphony No. 40 was completed directly on the heels of No. 39 and just sixteen days prior to the finished product No. 41. At the time of these compositions, Mozart was beset with ill-health, debts, and other financial problems. It is almost a miracle that K. 550 is considered to be one of the most prominent works Mozart ever composed. Many scholars rave at how great this symphony really is. Landon regards K. 550 as one of Mozart’s “most personal revelations”.5 Cuyler states that “few would deny that it stands as one of the supremely great compositions of all time.” He also claims that Mozart used a perfect balance among all compositional elements when writing this piece- a remarkable knowledge of “when” and “how much”.6
This piece is so far ahead of its time that Harris claims the K. 550 is a solid example of “the most concentrated language he [Mozart] was ever to use, a language that looked ahead to the work of Beethoven with its constant thematic repetition...”7 Although it was considered “ancient music” in their time, Romantic composers was amazed at the genius of Mozart’s Symphony No. 40. Berlioz described it as having “grace, delicacy, melodic charm and fineness of workmanship.”8 According to Benjamin Britten, this G-minor Symphony is profoundly original and is considered a keystone in musical history. “The established order of Haydn’s symphonic form is here fused, perhaps for the first time, with the emotional element of Beethoven... Not that this is anything but a Classical symphony of quite perfect proportions, but concealed within its well-defined boundaries is an inner world of turmoil and conflict.”9
Mozart paired the keys of his last three symphonies (No. 40 in E-flat major, No. 40 in G-minor, and No. 41 in C major) similarly to those of his piano quartets and string quartets.10 Of Mozart’s last three symphonies, his No. 40 in G minor is the most original. Symphony No. 40 is often interpreted as the expression of Mozart’s “private mood.” The over-zealous have sought some personal explanation for these isolated minor works: discontent with Salzburg, disappointment in love... Once again, Larsen disagrees, just as he did with the “little” g minor symphony. He says that Mozart’s goal was “to master all the varieties of expression and not to identify his musical expression with his personal, “private” mood. The editors of this source, Landon and Mitchell, disagree with Larsen; they clarify to the reader that: “The quite exceptional degree of tension generated by this symphony can only have sprung from an inner tension of a a most violent nature.”11 In researching, I found no conclusive information to support the notion of a tragic period in Mozart’s life influencing either symphony’s inception or composition. It seems more likely that Mozart, as a seventeen-year-old composer of K. 183, was very responsive to the music of others and set forth to add music of his own in this style.
There are two versions of No. 40; the first without clarinets, the second with clarinets and modified parts for the oboes. Mozart wanted the mellow tone color of the clarinets in place of the nasal tone color of the oboes. These mellow sounds occur everywhere, except in places of sustained dissonances, where the harsher, more strident tones of the oboes have a more pronounced effect. The oboes are playing throughout the entire trio of the minuet where Mozart tries to keep the “pastoral-like quality.” In places where the oboes are not left out, they have been voiced a bit differently to let the clarinets come through.12
Oddly, Symphony No. 40 is scored without trumpets or percussion. It
is also scored for the usual two horn players. Mozart scored four horns in only
four of his symphonies; one of these being K. 183. Haydn rarely ever used more
than two horns, and Beethoven only used four horns once (in his Ninth Symphony).13
Due to the limited playing range of the Classical orchestra’s valveless
horns, Mozart used two horn parts with one player on each part. Each voicing
is pitched in different keys, one in B flat and one in G. Both of these tonalities
are considered high for the horns of that era. By scoring for the four horns
in K. 183, Mozart was able to double the normal number of notes. This enabled
the horns to contribute to the harmonies in places where they would usually
rest.14 Originally Mozart wanted to use
four horns as he did in K. 183, but according to Landon, Mozart canceled the
scoring for four horns after the first few bars due to “motives of economy;”
it would have cost Mozart more money to pay two extra horn players to play.15
In the first sonata-allegro movement of Symphony No. 25, Mozart presents the main theme in unison, or what can be termed as a “broken unison,” since the rhythms are different. The syncopated violins and violas give the opening a sense of urgency. The diminished seventh interval between measures three and four also aids in creating this mood. (see musical example IV-1) Throughout the opening of this first movement, the “answering” of the viola, celli, bass, and oboe add intensity to the ascending arpeggios in the first violins.16 After an abrupt halt, the oboes play the theme softly with a simple accompaniment. The beginning of the piece is in G-minor, but in measure 29, the relative B-flat major counter theme enters.17 This doesn’t seem unusual, but the key of B-flat major is unexpectedly introduced after a V chord (D-major chord) in the key of G-minor (measures 28-29).18
After the first double bar near the end of the exposition, there is a four measure transition leading into the development. (see musical example IV-2).19 Throughout this movement, the rhythmic tension is the dominating feature. The movement can be divided into three sections: the opening (bars 1-29), the evolving transition (bars 29-58), and the closing section (bars 59-82). Mozart did an excellent job of blending melodies and rhythms into a strong and cohesive movement. The movement’s short coda is borrowed from the form of the Classical concerto, where the opening subject returns at the end of the piece.20
The second movement, Andante, is soft and subtle, yet bright. Since it is in Eb major, it offers “a relief” from the intensity of the first movement. It does, however, fit logically into this G-minor symphony. Mozart made this happen by having the bassoons, violas, celli and basses echo the violins with very low notes, which makes the cadence sound dreary.21
Biancolli describes this echoing as an almost romantic type of affect.22 After the eight measure opening, there is a four-bar section which stands out from the rest of the movement. Larsen describes this short section, which plays only a small role in the movement, as “pure buffa in character.”23 The middle of the movement shades into minor modality, then ends in major.
The third movement is very strong and is once again in the key of G-minor. It contains a variety of effects: both unison and chordal motives, a wide range of piano and forte dynamics, and a rhythmic foundation which is “suggestive of the Baroque”.24 The trio is different because it is in G-major and is written for an unaccompanied wind section.
The finale of Symphony No. 25 is exciting and forceful. There are many
underlying syncopations and large interval leaps. There is also much unison
playing in the string section. These characteristics in the music reinforce
the “Sturm und Drang” influence in this specific movement.
The first movement opens with a fluid accompaniment, a divided viola section, and a lyric melody in the violins. The motif used in the first movement is based on one from the first movement of the Elvira Madigan Piano Concerto.25 Mozart’s instrumentation had a “special magic” in the entry of the woodwinds in measures 14-20 and the bassoon transition in measures 20-22. Development of this theme takes shape quickly, first in the key of F#-minor. Mozart alternated between very diatonic writing and chromatic writing. For example, we can compare theme 1 (measures 1-5 ) to theme 2 (beginning in measure 44). (see musical example V-1- not included in online report)
In measures 16-20, Mozart added “A rising and falling wind figure [which] leads to a balancing tutti featuring a syncopated sliding effect stressed by prominent horns.” (see musical example V-2) Then there is a restatement of the main theme which modulates and brings on a fierce forte of violin scales and a full orchestra with sforzandi emphasizing beats one and three. Again is the abrupt use of silence in measure 43. Mozart frequently used a general pause, which Cuyler says reminds the listener of “Mozart’s preoccupation with the opera material he uses to round off principal sections of the sonata design.”26
The second theme enters in measure 44 in the relative major (Bb). Here Mozart again implemented his use of chromaticism and of string and woodwind choirs. Mozart infrequently used a heavy “mixture” of instruments. (see measures 14-20, 34-42 and 114-125). This keeps the texture light. The second subject ends once again with the “sliding figure,” but this time with an extended crescendo. Following is a short section of staccato and a descending scale passage in the violins, oboes and bassoons which leads into the codetta. In the codetta, the main subject is passed between the woodwinds and is augmented in the strings. Near the end of the development, the violins and woodwinds echo the motif back and forth while modulating through different keys.27
The Andante is a modified sonata-allegro form with some unique episodes inserted into the exposition. This movement can be divided into two sections: Section I comprises measures 1-19 in E-flat major, then this section is repeated with a few minor changes (inversion, augmentation, and extension). Section II includes measures 20-52 in B-flat major. Mozart used a development with material from Section I and modulates through different keys. B-flat major is then reestablished by the use of a German Augmented sixth chord (Gb, Bb, Db, E natural).28
In the Andante, Dearling describes the entrance of the different instruments as similar to those of Mozart’s early Fifth Symphony. He also adds that Beethoven used this technique in his Andante Cantabile con Moto of his First Symphony.29
It has been said about the descending woodwind melodies (bars 29-32 and 100-103) that Mozart rewrote these lines for the strings because they were very difficult to play. This may have been because woodwind players in Germany were rumored to not have been as proficient as Viennese players. The woodwinds were then given longer notes to play.30
The Minuet is one of Mozart’s finest. It stresses the two-measure syncopation which is a prominent feature of a true minuet. K. 183 does not feature this type of syncopation.31 (see musical example V-3) This movement shows Mozart’s strong use of chromaticism. Harris says that it is like the first minuet of the Haffner Symphony (No. 35), with its chromaticism in the strings and use of counterpoint between the winds and strings. In the trio, Mozart experiments with the “feel” of the meter, and shifts the emphasis of the downbeat from beat to beat.32
The trio is in G-major and again shows Mozart’s use of the instrument choirs. He passes the melody from the string section to woodwinds, and vice versa. There are not too many instances in this section where everyone plays tutti.
The finale employs the sonata-allegro form with rondo-like themes.33
The finale has a fairly light texture, but sounds tonally weighted. Mozart again
uses a wide range of dynamics in this movement to emphasize a dramatic mood.
By far, the most interesting section of this movement is the development. As
previously stated, this piece was very ahead of its time. The first eight measures
of the development further prove this statement. Mozart was “futuristic”
in his compositional techniques at the beginning of the development where he
introduced a “tonal disintegration” by using all twelve notes of the
scale set forth with interval leaps, triplets and accents.34
Larsen adds, “The peculiarly disruptive nature of this symphony’s
inspiration manifests itself in a very remarkable passage, in the first eight
bars of the finale’s development [measures 126-132], (see musical example
V-4) for example, whose explosive unison gesture is symptomatic of the pressure
of inspiration; the peculiar violence of that inspiration, indeed is responsible
for the passage’s primarily disintegrative character - one so disintegrative,
in fact, that Mozart was compelled to adopt a new principle of organization...
... The phenomenal tension of K. 550 far transcends a “personal” mood,
but it represents a vital aspect of Mozart’s artistic personality. K. 550
expresses it at its most extreme.”35
Glenn Gould has also described this as “Mozart reaching out his hand to
touch the spirit of the twentieth century.36
Throughout the development, Mozart stresses the first motif into the listener’s
ear by repeating it over and over in a variety of keys. Dearling describes this
section as “the most notoriously disruptive passage in all the symphonies
- perhaps in the whole of Mozart’s music.” After this long section,
there is a bar and a half of silence at measure 206, which sets the stage for
the beginning of the recapitulation.37
After listening to, researching, and analyzing these two symphonies, there is much to be said as to how they are similar and how they differ. In age, the symphonies are only fifteen years apart. Taking this into consideration, it may seem as if they should be musically comparable, but when one considers that Mozart lived to be only thirty-five and wrote is many different stages, fifteen years, compositionally, is a considerable amount of time.
According to scholars Wyzewa and St.-Foix, the K. 183 symphony was a stylistic prototype of the later K. 550.38 At first, K. 183 was not given much acclaim. After K. 550 was written, more attention was given to No. 25 in comparing symmetry between the two, predominantly because they were written in the same key.39
See the diagram below which makes side-by-side comparisons of movement, length,
and instrumentation.
To briefly compare the first movements of both G-minor symphonies, it should
be noted that K. 183 begins predominantly with furiously loud full orchestra
while K. 550 opens with a mysterious, yet calm string section. Throughout
K. 183, the woodwinds are used primarily for harmonic support. Conversely,
in K. 550, several melodies are passed between the woodwind sections, although
they are still used as strong support. Each sonata-allegro employs a second
theme in a major key; Bb-major in K. 183 and G-major in K. 550. The recurring
thematic motif in the development of Symphony No. 25 alternates back
and forth as follows: (see musical example VI-1). While the development
of Symphony No. 40 is written around this motif: (see musical example
VI-2).
Comparatively, both first movements move chromatically through six measures
into the recapitulation. The recapitulation of K. 183 is strictly in the tonic
of G-minor, while K. 550 starts in G-minor but quickly shifts away. Each is
built on a constant rhythm; K. 183 being syncopated and K. 550 having a steady
and driving rhythm. (see musical examples VI-3 and VI-4) Both movements
end with a 14-measure coda.
The first and most obvious difference in the second movements of each symphony
is length; the first section of movement two in Symphony No. 40 is
thirty measures longer than that of Symphony No. 25, and as a whole
movement, is almost twice as long. Both movements are in the key of Eb-major;
however, K. 183 is 2/4 time signature while K. 550 is 3/4.
In comparing the third movements of K. 183 to K. 550, I found that the trios are very similar. They are both in the parallel major (key of G-major) and are very waltz-like. The instrumentation of these sections is also similar. In each trio, Mozart omits some of the instruments. K. 183 uses all woodwinds, while K. 550 alternates the melody between the strings and woodwinds. Rarely do they play together in these trio sections.40
Concluding with the fourth movements, both show a return of the rhythms used in each first movement of the symphonies respectively. (Again, see musical examples VI-3 and VI-4) The oboes in K. 183 are the only woodwinds in the movement to have melodic material while in K. 550, the melody is passed between the oboes, clarinets, and flutes. Symphony No. 25 uses a solo violinist in approaching the development and also the recapitulation, where Symphony No. 40, in these same transitions, uses the power of silence. The development section of K. 183 employs none of the themes introduced at the start of the movement and is very short in length. The opening theme one of K. 550 is developed in a rather long movement and modulates through many keys. K. 183 ends with a brief eight-measure coda, while the coda of K. 550 is again longer and more excited.
When comparing the “little” G-minor to “great” G-minor
Symphony, Dearling says “the anger and frustration of [K. 183] is sublimated
and absorbed, to emerge in a uniquely moving expression of grief that, for
all its hidden skill and subtlety, speaks directly to the emotions.”
The “little” G-minor symphony is only little when compared to K.
550. When compared with other symphonies of the time, it is truly great in
many ways.41
Sorry, these are not included in the online version of this paper.
Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183
Davis - London Symphony Orchestra
(29; 32) Philips SAL 3502; International; Philips 835262 AY; US: Philips 900133
Hogwood/Schroder - Academy of Ancient Music
(28-30; K196; KE213A; Serenade KE189B)
L’Oiseau-Lyre Florilegium D 170 D 3 (3, nas)
Klemperer-Philharmonica Orchestra
(29; 31-37; 39-41) HMV SLS 5048 (6, nas)
(Serenade No. 13) Columbia SAX 5252
Davis and Klemperer, while avoiding the pitfalls into which many performances
fall (over-deliberate finale; misread appoggiature in the first movement)
and accentuating the weightier aspects of the music, nevertheless overlook the
bassoons other than where specified in the score (in the Andante and Trio).
Hogwood, lighter and leaner, allows the bassoons into the continuo line along
with harpsichord, and the result is better balanced than any other version.
Both passion and pathos are stressed, and the authentic timbres or oboes and
horns in particular make this a moving utterance. All repeats are observed.42
Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550 (original version)
Barenboim-English Chamber Orchestra
(39) HMV ASD 2424
(Piano Concerto K467) US: Angel S 36814
Furtwangler-Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra
(Serenade, K525) HMV XLP 30104 (M)
Marriner-Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields
(35; March KE385A) US and UK Philips 6500162
Furtwangler’s is the only performance to take the initial molto
allegro indication seriously and the result is breathtaking (though Barenboim
is fairly close to Furtwangler’s high speed). In the Minuet, Furtwangler’s
absolutely firm tempo throughout is revelatory. Marriner is lighter in touch
and more literal - a faithful representation with slightly more character than
the good Barenboim alternative. 43
Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550 (revised edition, with clarinets)
Guschlbauer-Bamberg Symphony Orchestra
(41) Erato STU 70738
Keilberth-Bamberg Symphony Orchestra
(38; 39; 41) Telefunken DT 6 48109 (2, nas)
Mackerras-London Philharmonic Orchestra
(41) Classics for Pleasure CFP 40253
Strauss-Berlin State Opera Orchestra
(41) DG 642010 (M)
Britten (not recommended) is the only recorded conductor to include every
repeat. Mackerras balances the instrumental sections well, observes both Finale
repeats, and phrases stylishly. Guschlbauer adopts similar tempi and is warmer
but less clear. Richard Strauss (recorded 1927) shapes the phrases like an operatic
singer. Mozart might hardly have recognized his own music but the performance
is tremendously revealing. Keilberth is heir to the performance: solid and noble
but without the mannerisms of tempo which make Strauss controversial. 44
Biancolli, Louis. The Mozart Handbook: A Guide to the Man and His Music.
New York: The World Publishing Company, 1954.
Cuyler, Louise. The Symphony. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.,
1973.
Dearling, Robert. The Music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: The Symphonies.
London: Associated University Presses, 1982.
Downes, Edward. Guide to Symphonic Music. New York: Walker and Company,
1981.
Harris, Robert. What to Listen for in Mozart. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1991.
Landon, H.C. Robbins. “The Symphony” from The Mozart Essays.
New York: Thames and Hudson,1995.
Larsen, Jens Peter. “The Symphonies” from The Mozart Companion.
Edited by H.C. Robbins Landon and Donald Mitchell. London: Faber and Faber,
1965.
Lowinsky, Edward E. The Creative World of Mozart. Edited by Paul Henry
Lang. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1963.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Later Symphonies. Full orchestral score of
Symphonies 35-41. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1974.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Symphonies Nos. 22-26. Full orchestral study
score. New York: Edwin F. Kalmus, 1900.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Symphonies 25, 29, 38, & 40. English Chamber
Orchestra conducted by Benjamin Britten. London: Decca Record Company Limited,
1972. Compact disc.
Sadie, Stanley, editor. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,
Volume 12. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980.
Tovey, Donald Francis. Essays in Musical Analysis: Symphonies and
other Orchestral Works. London: Oxford University Press, 1966.
END NOTES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS PAPER TO REDUCE PLAGIARISM.