I am fascinated by your discussions but depressed because I didn't understand a damn thing regarding 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
the <pivot> relationship (minor pivot major) or its inverse was also used by Bach (not coincidentally when you read Mozart's biographies they always emphasize Bachian influences. Then one asks "in what?", because Mozart's writing, heterogeneous, is very different from Bachian writing, homogeneous and compact. Well, the relationships lie precisely at the deep level (setting aside the use of progressions and counterpoint).
4 3 2 4 5 are the intervals of the first theme. Take every cell (upbeat-downbeat, upbeat-downbeat, etc.) and you will have this sequence. 4 and 5 are the same interval but inverted, so it is an retrograde inversion applied to the intervallic structure.
4 is smaller than 5 just as 13 is smaller than 14; as you can see, the same ratio presents itself on different formal levels. Are you with me?
L
Ludovica
Member
Reply 22 by Ludovica
Posts
298
Feldman wrote:
the <pivot> relationship (smaller pivot larger) or its inverse was also used by Bach (not coincidentally when you read Mozart's biographies, they always emphasize Bachian influences. Then one asks "in what?", because Mozart's writing, heterogeneous, is very different from Bachian writing, homogeneous and compact. Well, the relationships lie precisely at the deep level (setting aside the use of progressions and counterpoint).
4 3 2 4 5 are the intervals of the first theme. Take every cell (upbeat-downbeat, upbeat-downbeat, etc.) and you will have this sequence. 4 and 5 are the same interval but inverted, so it is an inverse retrograde applied to the intervallic structure.
4 is smaller than 5 just as 13 is smaller than 14; as you can see, the same ratio presents itself on different formal levels. Do you follow?
Are we certain that he used this methodology? Is it possible that, having analyzed so much subsequent repertoire, we are somewhat "misled" in our analysis? There might also be a numerical relationship, but the singability of the fragment seems sought out "by ear". And furthermore, why impact the structure as well?
F
Feldman
Member
Reply 23 by Feldman
Posts
171
Ludovica wrote:
Are we certain that he used this methodology? Is it not possible that, having analyzed so much subsequent repertoire, we are somewhat "misled" in our analysis? There might also be a numerical relationship, but the singability of the fragment seems to be sought "by ear". And furthermore, why impact the structure as well?
Probably the fragment was born "by ear," a simple arpeggio pattern dear to all the composers of Viennese Classicism. But Mozart was not stupid; noticing the intervallic relationship, he thought it wise to apply it to other parameters. Since he studied Haydn, these things were already present in his Symphonies. In the works of great composers, the structure is always determined starting from the theme; there is always a one-to-one proportional relationship between this and the form.
What is composition? It is that practice which, given a theme, leads you to develop it based on its structural logic... that is what Mozart did, and that is what everyone did, right?
It is clear that singability (an instinctive element) has nothing to do with numbers, which serve only to create a lattice of relationships.
Regarding compositional strategy, this Symphony is a “Final-Symphonie”: the first 3 movements invert into the Finale, “allegro con spirito”, and from it acquire complete meaning like in a retrospective review. Not that there is even the slightest analogy of thematic references; rather, one would say that the Finale resolves the reticence accumulated in the first three movements.
Surely, along with the one in G minor (K 183), it is to be known and analyzed in depth... I mean among those of the first peak of Mozartian symphonism (1773-4)
I took a look at the second theme group which is clearly in the area of the fifth degree, so in D major; these strong tendencies towards D major I just don't feel or see. Clearly, even if not harmonized, the connection to measures 37-38 can be considered D major, although we all know how it ends in the development
Many "slow" movements are constructed in a sonata form often reduced to its bare bones (the development, sometimes, consists of only a few measures; indeed, if I recall correctly, there is a case in Mozart of a single chord that turns the form into almost AB AB). My theory teacher used to call it lied-sonata, thus combining the concept of lied (ABA) and sonata form (A=exposition, divided into theme-bridge-theme-codetta, B=development, A=recapitulation). It is a bit like the rondo-lied, almost never codified (again from memory, I believe I only read the term in Azzaroni, Canone infinito) but nonetheless present in the repertoire.
Z
Zazza
Member
Reply 29 by Zazza
Posts
250
Zedef wrote:
It is not uncommon in Mozart to find the lied-sonata.
It's true, but in this case it seems to me that Mozart gives more weight to harmonic opposition than to the "Lieder-style" elaboration of the material... to be clear, the opposition of the 2 harmonic areas (tonic/dominant) prevails over an elaboration of another kind. So perhaps more sonata form... no?
What does Zedef say, what were you referring to in particular?
It's true, but in this case it seems to me that Mozart gives more weight to the harmonic opposition than to the "Lieder-style" elaboration of the material... to be clear, the opposition of the 2 harmonic areas (tonic/dominant) prevails over an elaboration of another kind. So perhaps more sonata form... no?
What does Zedef say, what were you referring to in particular?
I don't understand the meaning of the term "liederistic" referred to the elaboration of the material.
Z
Zazza
Member
Reply 31 by Zazza
Posts
250
I mean that in the Lied, which has moreover become a consolidated genre with Schubert, the framework is not the interplay between 2 keys but the service of harmony to the text. Clearly, in a symphonic movement one cannot speak of text, but it also doesn't seem to me that Mozart moves within the perspective of developing the melody of the andante in any way... in short, there isn't a true motivic development as is more typical of the Lied. Here it seems to me more that we are dealing with panels at the service of the typical (harmonic/formal) paths of sonata form.
However, I fear I haven't fully understood what you mean... I join Abate's request. Thank you.
I think that the Liedform has nothing to do with the Lied; that is why I didn't understand, and perhaps, we don't understand each other.
I do not agree regarding the discussion of motivic development being more congenial to the Lied (which one then, the form or the genre?). The "material" (curious, there is an open discussion precisely on this) can be developed more or less in any form: in the "slow" time, the parameters are a bit different (shorter, usually, at least in terms of the number of measures, with all the usual consequences).
In the case in question, the second theme (m. 14) is then immediately revisited by contaminating it with the rhythm of the first (m. 18), and the entire exposition (and therefore a good part of the recapitulation) is based on the development of the initial rhythm (the only truly different element is in the final coda, with the triplets). I would therefore not speak of panels; on the contrary: I see great stylistic-technical conduct, attentive to the melodic line and the unity of elements (which is perhaps one of the characteristics of the Liedform), but an equally clear Sonata-Form structure that takes its cue precisely from the new rhythmic element (triplets).
In any case, terms are sometimes misleading: Lied or Sonata-Form or Lied-sonata, the important thing is to understand how the piece is constructed.
