Analysis of Mozart Symphony No. 29 (KV 201) - second movement (andante)

AbateFaria wrote:

I will take advantage of the fact that RedScharlach has taken this discussion to ask him or any interested parties for an opinion on Mozart's Symphony No. 29 in A major (K. 201), of which I had analyzed (let's say, attempted to analyze) the first movement.

In your opinion, is the second movement, which in my view is also in sonata form, monothematic? Based on what reasoning?

Thanks in advance

No, it is not monothematic... why do you think it is? Monothematism occurs when the second theme is nothing more than the first recontextualized, or the second theme is the first modified on the surface, therefore always adapted. In this case, the first and second themes are different. You can find monothematic form mainly in Haydn, sometimes in Clementi; I don't believe there are examples in Mozart (perhaps I am wrong).

If instead you mean thematic derivation (i.e., a second theme that derives from the first), that is a constant among all great composers, but we are talking about profound relationships.

Feldman wrote:

Monothematicism occurs when the second theme is nothing more than the first recontextualized, or the second theme is the first modified on the surface, therefore always adapted. In this case, the first and second themes are different. You can find monothematic form mainly in Haydn, sometimes in Clementi; I don't believe there are examples in Mozart (perhaps I am mistaken).

If instead you mean thematic derivation (i.e., a second theme that derives from the first), that is a constant among all great composers, but we are talking about profound relationships.

Ok, I considered it more of a thematic derivation, so if you were to sketch an analysis... how would you divide the exposition... I mean at least up to the first refrain where I hypothesize the development begins?

After the chorus, the development begins, exactly (as always).

So, at bar 5, the modulating bridge starts. At bar 12, it makes a cadence to the dominant. Bar 14: second thematic group. It is not monothematicism in the strict sense precisely because it does not repropose the first theme, but rather constructs a new thematic idea derived from the first theme, not only in depth but also on the surface (see third intervals, French rhythm); for the rest, it introduces elements such as descending chromaticism that wasn't there before, and the melodic construction itself is different. One notices the influence of Haydn, that's all.

Feldman wrote:

After the chorus, the development begins, exactly (always).

So, on the downbeat, the modulating bridge starts. On beat 12, it makes a cadence to the dominant. Beat 14: second thematic group.

Exactly, my own conclusion... but don't you think there is a disproportion between the first and second theme? Also because of this, given the strong adherence of the material, I was thinking of a sort of monothematicism... Then it stays in A major for a few bars to remain in D major until the development where the seventh is played.

In short, a short first theme, an "instantaneous" dominant area... I have a few doubts.

What do you think?

If it is an instantaneous E major... the second group always remains on the dominant (they are two thematic ideas), then tonicizes to the tonic (plagalizing it) and returns to the dominant in the coda (creating a sense of suspended cadence); it is a dramatic effect that does not destabilize the tension area of the second theme. Rather, this is a condition that allows us to understand how different sonata forms are (Rosenblatt's plural), it would be interesting to understand based on which deep structural relationship that choice is made.... most likely, if you investigate, you will find the answer in the first measures of the first theme.

Small aesthetic-musical clarification: this Symphony has much of Haydn, as you will have noticed, both in form and in themes.

Very interesting things are emerging, I would also like to take this symphony movement and give it some thought (you guys are incredibly fast, damn). For now, thanks to everyone...

It is interesting to note how the young Mozart held Haydn as a point of reference for sonata form. It was certainly a period in which he read and analyzed many of the great old man's early Symphonies (moreover, to understand the logic behind certain choices, even Mozartian ones, it wouldn't be bad to start analyzing Haydn!)

I don't have much time, but I took a closer look at the Andante of K 201.

There are some very interesting deep structures; I will try to provide some insights. Observing the first theme, it consists of a four-bar phrase. Observe the intervals (naturally starting from the upbeat before the bar): the sequence is 4 3 2 3 5. What do you notice? First of all, a contrapuntal relationship: the mirror inversion of the intervals at the extremes (4 and 5 are complementary intervals by inversion, the 2nd in the center acts as a pivot, the 3rd is the only part that remains intact).

Bar 5: modulating bridge. It starts from A4, descends to A3 in bar 7, and rises back to A4 in bar 8. How do we get there? Via an A major scale, regularly directed on the upbeat of bar 6, irregularly twisted in the descent of bar 6: this is the same framework as before (the first theme and the modulating bridge have the deep structure A4---A3---A4: the extremes are respectively the first thematic phrase and the last phrase of the bridge (motivic fragmentation three times over)).

Same thing, if you notice, the modulating bridge takes up the "French" thematic idea from the first bars (violin II). In the second phrase of the bridge, it takes up exactly the same idea with which the first phrase ends: another mirror.

The second theme derives from the first, why? Simple: observe the intervals and eliminate the extraneous notes, leaving only those of the chords. We have 3 3 and chromaticism. In the second half-phrase, we have B on the upbeat, C#, D, B, G#, E. Intervals: 2, 2, 3, 3, 3. Chromaticism and 2, 2 = conjunct degree.

To summarize: 3 3 conjunct degree conjunct degree 3 3 3... mirror.

I believe this relationship is reflected in the choice to move to D major at the end of the second theme; I don't have time now to delve deeper into it.

Now... the ball is in your court!

Abatefaria, I had a little intuition: if the second theme is in A major, it "modulates" to D major and immediately returns to A (before passing through D again), we have the following pattern: A, D, A-D

A-D-A is a mirror, as is D-A-D. I believe the matter is more complex; see if you can find a more consistent logical connection, perhaps.

ps. I should preface that I had never analyzed this beautiful Symphony before. I believe I will do so in the coming days. A possible and further relationship (even if a bit distant and perhaps forced) lies in the concept of monotonality applied to analysis. Even though it is A major, we are in D major, and the second theme is in its V degree, okay? Passing through D major, it goes to the I degree and then returns to the V.

So: V I V, or rather 5 1 5. Am I wrong, or were the extremes of the deep structure of the first theme 4 and 5? Do you notice the "coincidence"? Mind you, this is a simple intuition.

Feldman wrote:

Now... the ball is in your court!

I'll try

Feldman wrote:

In case it is an instantaneous D major... the second group always remains on the dominant (they are two thematic ideas), then tonicizes to the tonic (plagally) and returns to the dominant in the coda

Feldman wrote:

Abatefaria, I had a small intuition: if the second theme is in A major, it "modulates" to D major and immediately returns to A (before passing back into D again), we have the following pattern: A, D, A

A-D-A is a mirror, same for D-A-D. I believe the matter is more complex; see if you can find a more consistent logical connection, perhaps.

ps. I should preface that I had never analyzed this beautiful Symphony before. I think I will do so in the coming days. A possible and further relationship (even if a bit distant and perhaps forced) lies in the concept of monotonality applied to the analysis. Even though it is A major, we are in D major, and the second theme is in its V degree, okay? Passing through D major, it goes to the I degree and then returns to the V.

So: V I V, or rather 5 1 5. Am I wrong, or were the extremes of the deep structure of the first theme 4 and 5? Do you notice the "coincidence"? Mind you, this is a simple intuition.

At a harmonic level, I hear

- up to measure 10: D+

- from measure 11 to 16: A+ (practically at 11: F V/VI and VI; at 12: V56 IV6 V; at 13: V56 IV6 V; and finally at 14: I)

- from 16 to 38: D major

At this point, it seems Faria is right because there are only 5 measures of A major... but Feldman, you had the intuition, which I haven't placed yet

Feldman wrote:

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

Here you find the discussion on the first movement and a final summary video, found on YouTube

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1134-analisi-mozart-symphony-no29-in-a-major-k201/

Feldman wrote:

Abatefaria, I had a small intuition: if the second theme is in A major, it "modulates" to D major and immediately returns to A (before passing back to D again), we have the following pattern: A, D, A-D

But it plays too much on V/V, A on the beat mi7 on the weak beat, A on the beat mi7 on the weak beat, A on the beat mi7 on the weak beat, etc ... which means only one thing: D major

A 31, for example, I consider the pedal to be a dominant (specifically of D+), what do you think?

AbateFaria wrote:

don't you think there is a disproportion between the first and second theme?

To me, everything seems perfectly proportioned:

- 1-13: Area of the first theme

- 14-24: Area of the second theme

- 25-38: exposition coda

Practically: 13, 11, 14... it couldn't be more proportioned

The development is 14 bars from 39 to 52

From 53 recapitulation, the scheme is almost the same as the exposition (except for the tonal paths)

12 of coda

In short, practically Exposition+development=recapitulation+coda

Marzapane wrote:

Practically: 13, 11, 14... more proportionate than this

do you remember the first theme? 4 3 2 3 5. Now take the proportions you marked: 13 11 14. Is there a relationship? It really seems so...

Sorry, the second thematic group is on the dominant, not in D major. I looked at it more closely: there are two plagal cadences and that's it, first with tonicization and then with a simple oscillation to the IV of la (which is D major). It's always the same logic, the re-la-re-la. It is now clear that Mozart based everything on a structural procedure dear not only to him (to Haydn before him, for example). The difficulty is finding it because Mozart's writing is very heterogeneous, made of changing elements, which does not help. Furthermore, the relationship is hidden because it is applied to always different factors (intervals, phrases, harmony) and I don't think it is easy to reconstruct the compositional path in an organic way precisely because Mozart wrote in juxtaposed blocks.

Della serie "Salve sono Mozart. Quando compongo faccio delle belle figure musicali diverse fra loro ma con elementi simili nella superficie. Solo che, per creare coerenza, costruisco queste figure su una struttura comune che fa da impalcatura sottostante." questo è il processo, per cui credo che per certi versi analizzare Haydn sia un po' più semplice.

Feldman wrote:

do you remember the first theme? 4 3 2 3 5. Now take the proportions you noted: 13 11 14. Is there a relationship? It certainly seems so...

A relationship between the size of the intervals and the number of measures?

RedScharlach wrote:

A relationship between the size of intervals and the number of measures?

exactly, in fact, I wouldn't use the term "measure," given that composers quite often create significant metric irregularities. So I would say < pivot > applied to the half-phrase of the first theme and to the number of sub-phrases that make up the entire exposition (because rhythmically a measure corresponds to a sub-phrase, or if it is not exactly so, the differences are nonetheless minimal), it is certainly not a great discovery: all the greats of the past (and of the present, I think for example of that great genius Ligeti) reproduce the logical conditions of the initial thematic fragment on increasingly vast scalar levels (exactly as the laws of nature reverberate from the world of microorganisms to the universe).

I am convinced that when referring to the "rational" aspect of music (a combination of Art and Science, of Emotion and Mathematics, etc.), its identification in practice corresponds precisely to these compositional processes with an extremely important structural value, indeed I would say fundamental.

Then it is clear, you surely know better than I do that the attempt to make music based solely on these logical ratios is quite futile, given that the "instinct" factor must not be missing (and Mozart had plenty of it, apparently...)

I am fascinated by your discussions but depressed because I didn't understand a damn thing about 4 3 2 3 5 and the hypothetical relationships with 13 11 14.

Could you explain it to me in simple words? What are 4 3 2 3 5, despite the image kindly offered by Feldman ... I didn't understand