Analysis of Mozart Symphony No.29 In A Major, K.201

AbateFaria wrote:

Leaving aside the thematic beginning La La, in my opinion the first theme is anacrusic and is proposed to the first violins 3 times in a row, so an a la la la | g la la la g la la la | b b

Exactly, the two B's seem to me to be precisely the closing of the first theme, so I wouldn't know how to consider the first two A's

The theme begins with the octave jump of the two A's, instead, so the two B's are the beginning of the repetition one tone higher, and it will be the same for the C# and for the D; especially since after the little connecting play in piano, the forte begins precisely with the octave jump (which is structural for the entire first beat) and which is a recognizable element (something fundamental at that time) and characterizing.

Rationally I agree, but hearing only the first theme, therefore without the final B, it seems truncated to me ... what is it, an "open" theme?

Very interesting topic, it doesn't happen to me every day to watch a symphony.

I would like to understand where, in your opinion, the modulating bridge truly begins. I remember it was discussed that, even if it is called modulating, it doesn't necessarily have to modulate.

Here a modulation occurs, precisely at 28, where with a V/V it moves to the V of mi+ where the second theme will be presented (at 32). Modulation confirmed also by the winds which obviously sustain a B pedal.

Now I say, in the context of the exposition:

- First theme 8

- Transition 4

- First theme 8 + 2 (?)

- From 23, a dominant pedal begins (relative to the home key) which resolves at 28.

And is it from 29 (let's say halfway through 28) that the modulating bridge truly begins?

At 28, can't we also consider Idi as the IV of mi and then #IV?

Isn't what you label as a theme at 32 further development?

Arzigovolato3 wrote:

Isn't what you label as the second theme at measure 32 a further development?

The modulation to E+ and the presentation of new material (see arpeggio and type of accompaniment) serve to characterize it as a second theme

Arzigovolato3 wrote:

Can't a 28 also be considered Idi la=IV of mi and then #IV?

One can see whatever they want, the harmony is not developed. Reasoning by minims, one could easily hypothesize a tonicization... of what? One would have to ask Mozart

Marzapane wrote:

Is it from 29 (let's say half of 28) that the modulating bridge truly begins?

The texture changes between what you define as a dominant pedal and a modulating bridge. I see a single arc that starts from the development of the first theme (see tremolos) which indeed fades out at 32.

AbateFaria wrote:

Rationally I agree, but hearing only the first theme, therefore without the final B natural, it seems truncated to me ... what is it, an "open" theme?

Be careful not to confuse "the region of the first theme" with the fragments that compose it. In sonata form, the two things mix and they do not necessarily coincide. The first theme consists of the first 8 measures, and those are not closed. The thematic fragment from which the entire exposition originates is composed of those two measures, which are genius. But think, for example, of Beethoven's Fifth: the "first theme" is four notes (because fa-fa-fa-re is already a repetition), but in reality, the cadence arrives at the barline of measure 21.

I would like to say a few words about the first theme of this symphony K 201; it will be my modest contribution to the analysis you will perform. I have written two "genius" measures and I would like to say why I find them genius. In those two measures, several elements coexist that make them, precisely, perfect (and thus the first section, of eight measures, results in being perfect).

There is the vertical element (the octave jump), which is affirmative, but there is also the horizontal element (the repeated notes that carry the musical discourse forward); there is the ironic element (the repetitions), but there is also the galant element (the lower semitone appoggiatura: if you have doubts about how pertinent that choice is, replace that semitone with a descending fourth jump, for example; the harmony will not change, but... well, you will notice).

In all of this, by joining the fragments as WAM does, the vertical element also becomes a horizontal element (if you "remove" the horizontal part materially and leave only the jumps, you will have the two elements matching: la (la) si (si) do# (do#) re (re) etc; extraordinary).

Like many themes of the Classical period, this one can also be "synthesized" into a scale, nothing more and nothing less: the first eight measures are the first four degrees of the A major scale, going and returning, and it is precisely from there that one understands—to return to Abate's doubt ("is it an open theme?")—what the first theme actually is. The first theme consists of seven notes, flowery, but seven notes: la si do# re do# si la. It couldn't be more "closed" than this!

To Carlos's note, I only add that the episode between 9-12 is also based on the diminution of "la si do re"

I was getting there Carlos... great!

We are working hard

Carlos wrote:

I would like to spend a few words on the first theme of this symphony K 201, it will be my modest contribution to the analysis you will perform.

...what if I wanted to give a "modest" contribution also to the modulating bridge and to the second theme .... ? ...

Thanks Ludovica for the answers, I also have a doubt about the harmony of 37.

Legendary Carlos

Carlos wrote:

two "genius" bars

... it's really true, when someone is a genius ... they are a genius! Damn!

Bravo Mozart!!!

Carlos wrote:

the harmony will not change, but... well, you will notice it

What are you alluding to?

Eagle wrote:

What are you alluding to?

Try, instead of playing la la la sol# la la la sol# la la la si etc., playing la la la mi la la la mi la la la etc.

It is the same difference you find between a Brunello di Montalcino and a Tavernello (or, if you prefer, between Mozart and... Telemann, since in other lands it was said «it seems only Mozart exists»; well, there is a reason for that! )

Carlos wrote:

Try, instead of playing la la la sol# la la la sol# la la la si etc., playing la la la mi la la la mi la la la etc.

It is the same difference you find between a Brunello di Montalcino and a Tavernello (or, if you prefer, between Mozart and... Telemann, since in other lands it was said «it seems only Mozart exists»; well, there is a reason for that! )

So I understood correctly, it is a very classical attitude. The quaver flourish is more baroque.

I took a look at the second theme, also 8 bars between 33 and 40, where in the first 2 bars of the melody the violins I are progressively varied, passing to 37 for the violins II to close at 41 on the tonic, where the repeated eighth notes are developed and the arpeggio is aggravated, along with various appoggiaturas.

Characteristic also is the accompaniment, contrasting compared to the first theme, since in the first case we were talking about long notes... here short ones that become staccato (picchettate).

I wouldn't want to say something stupid Eagle, but the second theme is always a flourish of the scale si la sol# fa# (33, 35, 37, 39)

AbateFaria wrote:

I wouldn't want to say something stupid Eagle, but the second theme is always a flourish of the scale si la sol# fa# (33, 35, 37, 39)

Exactly!!!