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

Great job Carlos, it's clear that you have mastered the sonata form and I don't need to tell you that; you are clearly aware of it, but I think it's nice to hear it said.

That being said, some questions to align myself on the terminology

Carlos wrote:

EXPOSITION - First theme: from 1 to 8 -

Transition: from 9 to 12 -

I would note that these four bars are used by Mozart as a liquidation at the end of the 1st movement (bars 201 ff.).

He also does this, albeit in a different way, in Symphony K 550 in G minor, where he uses the main motif (Eb D D etc.) as a cadence at the end of the development to introduce the recapitulation.

Would you still maintain the definition of Transition?

Carlos wrote:

Dominant pedal: from 23 to 27 -

Modulating bridge in the key of the dominant: from 28 to 32 -

I have a mania for simplifying, but, strictly speaking (perhaps I'm saying something silly), does a "modulating bridge" make sense after one has already arrived at the dominant? In my opinion, from 23 to 37 we are simply in the presence of a transition section whose purpose is to confirm the key of the dominant to prepare for the entry of the 2nd theme. As usual, I'll do a check (the litmus test): let's eliminate all bars from 23 to 31 and try to play by joining 22 to 32. Does it work? Yes: it sounds bad, but it works, because at 22 Mozart has already arrived at the dominant and only needs those ten bars to reinforce that harmony.

Clear, but I ask:

Only at a certain point is there a modulation, which you indicate at bar 22, and indeed the second chord is V56 of E+. However:

- at bar 28 there is a clear cadence in A+ namely V I

- the first chord of 22 is a II of A+

From my point of view, the second chord of 22 is still a V/V of A+

The real modulation, from which A+ will no longer be heard as the tonic, is precisely the second chord of 28, where the V/V of E+ appears, a strong tonicization that closes with its resolution at 32.

Usually, secondary dominants reinforce tonal paths, so, apart from the label between 23 and 32, harmonically I think what I tried to indicate is more logical.

Furthermore, what Faria indicates as a dominant pedal is still part of the first theme region; the modulating bridge truly begins at 28.

Nice idea with the litmus test, but why put a II56 of A+ at 22 without following up and cutting it "short"?

This doesn't convince me regarding your intervention, though it is beautiful.

Eagle wrote:

Would you still maintain the definition of Connection?

Yes, "connection", "codetta", I am also always a bit uncertain about the terms to use to define these short interludes, but I would say that if we understand each other, it's okay.

Eagle wrote:

Only at a certain point there is a modulation, which you indicate at measure 22 and indeed the second chord is V56 of E+. However:

- at measure 28 there is a clear cadence in A+ namely V I

One moment: I don't think that's the case. In mm. 27 and 28 the bass is E G# A A# and then ends on B at 29. That is a cadence to the V of E major.

Eagle wrote:

- the first chord of 22 is a II of A+

In my opinion, you are wrong (forgive me) if you consider that chord alone: you have to see where it ends up. The phrase concludes on measure 23, not on measure 22, so that seventh chord, in my view, is a seventh on the V of the V, meaning it leads to E major (it's the D# in the bass that tells us so).

Eagle wrote:

From my point of view, the second chord of 22 is still a V/V of A+ The real modulation, from which A+ will no longer be heard as the Tonic, is precisely the second chord of 28, where the V/V of E+ appears, a strong tonicization that closes with its resolution at 32.

I simply think that Mozart, after reaching the dominant (at m. 23), chooses to stabilize on the dominant of the dominant (mm. 28 to 32) to strengthen the second theme and to give variety to the harmonic discourse.

Eagle wrote:

Nice idea with the "litmus test," but why put a II56 of A+ at 22 without giving it follow-up and cutting it "short"? This doesn't convince me regarding your intervention, though it is nice.

Of course, it would have been a mess, but as I was saying, the "litmus test" was only needed to demonstrate that with that D# in the bass, the landing could be on E (beginning of m. 23) and directly into the second theme. Precisely to avoid that sudden connection, Mozart stabilized on the dominant of the dominant: to create, as I was saying, harmonic variety.

I am referring to measures 23-27.

Do we all agree that it is an E harmony pedal?

If so, it could be two things, either a tonic pedal or a dominant pedal; I notice:

On one hand, such a strong tonicization would make a single A+ chord lasting a quarter note... seem a bit wasted as a resolution.

On a dominant pedal of A, I would want to hear a "dirty" D, but instead there are only D# (every other measure).

How do you consider measures 19-23 harmonically... in relation to this pedal?

Never mind, I had looked too quickly.

The natural keys are there; that passage really has the appearance of a dominant pedal of A+ (at 24 and 26 there are even V46 of A+) that resolves to 28... albeit briefly. Then the real modulation begins.

Carlos wrote:

Therefore, doubts:

HARMONY Measures of the exposition between 63 and 66.

None of the examined solutions convince me 100%.

I am sorry to Oracolo and Marzapane, whom I thank for their availability. I like the idea of the progression, but the scheme is not yet clear to me.

I haven't read the other solutions, so I might repeat things already said, but I would say this (attention: I am placing the degrees by reasoning in E major!):

meas. 63 I6 (the chromatic movement of the violins has no harmonic function),

meas. 64 IV - #II7

meas. 65 I6 - #I seems like a tonicization of the II, so it could be read as the #VII of F#, but it isn't, because the oboe holds the B, so:

meas. 66 V36-V56 then, a very normal cadence:

meas. 67 I - VI

meas. 68 V - I

Ok up to the IV of 64, but what degrees are #II and #I? My ignorance?

At 68 I see a II V

At 69 the I arrives

Therefore, very normal syntax (from 67 to 69) I IV | II V | I

Marzapane wrote:

what degrees are #II and #I? My ignorance?

Isn't it just a "simple" development of the appoggiaturas of the theme which, as it happens, arrive in an expanded form, in the form of a repetition on the upbeat of every measure?

Marzapane wrote:

At 68 I see a II V

At 69 the I arrives

Therefore, perfectly normal syntax (from 67 to 69) I IV | II V | I

Sure

Marzapane wrote:

Ok up to the IV of 64, but what degrees are #II and #I? My ignorance?

#II stands for the "raised" (#) II degree, and the same applies to #I which could actually be (in the case that we are facing a tonicization to F#) a VII of F# (the raised I degree does not exist except in these situations, but the tonicization is automatically announced yet denied, and all «because of» that B on the oboe, which ruins our little game...).

I've never heard of those degrees Carlos, but it's not news... I'm still studying, so I take note of it.

Another doubt: usually pedals (in this case the upper one) are excluded in the analysis of harmonic paths, in the sense that they participate in the construction of the harmony but the indications do not take them into account.

Pretending they don't exist, the point is that melodically they are sensitive... therefore tonicizations. Is the theory of appoggiaturas really that messed up?

Maybe, but to me those F# and E# seem like diminished sevenths, so we are in the area of the Dominant and anyway I consider them tonicizations, appoggiaturas

You are all very talented, but there is still something that doesn't add up for me.

Let's look at everything between 27 and 29, then:

- the orchestration seems to open a new chapter at 29 (already heard it, but that's where the woodwinds change melodic pattern)

- 27 is melodically quite different from before; see the Violins but also the low strings

And even this is very interesting to me.

In my opinion, that (between 23 and 27) is a pedal point starting on the dominant; it's impossible to consider in E+ that D-natural which is nothing more than a transformation of the chord into a dominant seventh of A+, but the bass from 27 makes me think of E+, so the last D# seen at 26, given the change in texture at 27, must necessarily be the true modulation.

In fact, I would say that harmonically from 27:

27: V of A+ = I of E+

28: IV #IV

29: V etc.

I don't know, I've just said it.

Regarding that pedal, "fanta-analysis" could lead to forcing a complete tonic pedal of E+, where one would speak of I V/IV IV6 etc. until capitulating to the first

Ok guys... you are massacring me!

Maybe useful

Open content (youtube)

Gerardo wrote:

Maybe useful

In effect, I had completely ignored the imitative/counterpoint aspect

Thanks!