# What makes Haydn and Mozart sound different?



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

Often if I catch an unfamiliar symphony by one or the other on the radio I'm not sure which one it is. But often I do have a good guess and am usually right. Can anyone tell me what qualities in each distinguishes him from the other?

tia
las


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't know that I can name the differences, but they are distinctive and most people can tell them apart. (And if you hear something that sounds just almost like Haydn but not quite, it's usually by Dittersdorf.)


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Well, they both were Classical period composers, they certainly have similarity, but I wouldn't mistake Haydn's trumpet concerto (which is my favorite piece of music from Haydn) for Mozart, neither Mozart's Requiem (which was in fact completed by Franz Xaver Sussmayer as Mozart dies without finishing it, and is a favorite of mine since childhood) for Haydn; piano compositions of the two, however, do sound quite similar...


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Haydn v. Mozart. Hmm. 
If a "strings" sound propels the work, it's likely Mozart rather than Haydn. The latter composer tends to incorporate brass and woodwinds with a bit more prominence. Too, if you catch shorter, choppier melodies and intriguingly placed pauses, you're likely in Haydn's world rather than the more flowingly melodic Mozart's. 
The string quartets and piano solo music may prove a bit trickier than the orchestral music, since you can't rely upon a "strings" sound v. brass & woodwinds. But the melodic lines might give it away somewhat. Haydn is raggedly bolder, more like finger paint, while Mozart is cleanly "natural" and smoother, more like oil paint. Both are masters. And both deserve your attention. They get mine.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

If the melody sticks in your brain and is still there hours or even days later, it's Mozart. If it's pleasant but not particularly memorable, it's Haydn.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Mozart is about "singing" which equates to melody flowing to more melodies. Haydn is more about presenting a few motivic ideas and then putting them through their paces.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Haydn's themes are usually short in the beginning, but he has longer development section to develop them. Mozart usually has longer, developed themes in the beginning, but his development sections are shorter than Haydn's. Haydn has more monothematicism (development on a single theme) than Mozart, Mozart has more chromaticism (chromatic melody/harmony progression) than Haydn. Beethoven's first symphony has elements from both, Haydn's sense of 'wit and surprises', Mozart's use of 'dark' oboe texture.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Well, they both were Classical period composers, they certainly have similarity, but I wouldn't mistake Haydn's trumpet concerto (which is my favorite piece of music from Haydn) for Mozart, neither Mozart's Requiem (which was in fact completed by Franz Xaver Sussmayer as Mozart dies without finishing it, and is a favorite of mine since childhood) for Haydn; piano compositions of the two, however, do sound quite similar...


Some of the parts finished by Sussmayer reference Mozart's earlier masses (especially Spatzenmesse K220). In many ways it reflects the style of mass of Salzburg masters such as Leopold Mozart, Johann Ernest Eberlin, Michael Haydn, whom Mozart learned from from childhood. 
Joseph wasn't really part of this group, as he worked for the Esterhazys.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I feel Haydn is more aggressive and Mozart is more elegant. I do try to test my ear often in matters such as these!


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2019)

For the differences between Mozart and Haydn in terms of the string quartet, try this quiz:
http://qq.themefinder.org/


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Mozart sounds more playful and lighter to me. 

Although I should listen more to these 2 wonderful composers to explore this point of view further!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Both composers have their distinct characteristics, but no one has never been confused by one with the other. That was one reason why the romantic era was needed and inevitable. Each era has its new demand for self-expression, whether it’s considered an advance or not, that is a reflection of the evolution of man, and people can complain about it all they want and it doesn’t change its inevitability.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Both composers have their distinct characteristics, but no one has never confused by one with the other. That was one reason why the romantic era was needed and inevitable. Each era has its new demand for self-expression, whether it's considered an advance or not, that is a reflection of the evolution of man, and people can complain about it all they want and it doesn't change its inevitability.


This is the sort of wishful nonsense Romantic music enthusiasts usually indulge themselves in. We discussed this before. "They all sound the same" is an excuse to justify your lack of interest and effort to learn and find more about their different features and elements. 
People like you thinking that Tchaikovsky and Taneyev, and Ravel and Debussy are "so obviously different and individual even people like me  will instantly tell them apart on hearing their obscure pieces for the first time" comes off as arrogant and presumptuous from my point of view. Just because you think some things are individual, or homogeneous, don't assume everyone will think along the same line as you. The reason why I'm not heavily into stuff like Bruckner and Mahler is because their supposed 'voices of individuality' don't speak to me. 
If I tell you Hummel and Chopin sound extremely similar, I know you'll say their best works sound different. But then Haydn and Mozart's best works also sound different.



hammeredklavier said:


> This Waltz was originally attributed to Chopin, but was found out later that it is actually Charles Mayer's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Mayer_(composer) There are other examples, like Nocturne oubliée.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

This rule doesn't cover all bases, especially if you're talking about slower movements, but if Mozart suddenly takes a shot of adrenaline and starts hitting everything with a hammer (like at 19:00 in the video below), it was probably Haydn the whole time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

G B A G C ---- B - G# A -( upward chromatic scale spanning almost 10th, from C# to the next octave's E ) - D C A

G B A G , D C# C --- A# B --- G# A -(upward chromatic scale spanning half an octave from C# to G)

Most of the time Haydn wouldn't write it this bendy.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

Mozart uses more surface chromaticism whereas Haydn uses deeper-level chromaticism.

In other words, M will stay in a key and use many chromatic melodic notes, as shown in the previous post. These chromaticisms are frequently unharmonized leaving them on the surface of the music. H will more often harmonize chromatic pitches and make sudden key shifts putting the chromaticisms into a deeper level of the structure.

This contributes to the feeling that M is more melodic and H is more harmonic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

drmdjones said:


> Mozart uses more surface chromaticism whereas Haydn uses deeper-level chromaticism.
> 
> In other words, M will stay in a key and use many chromatic melodic notes, as shown in the previous post. These chromaticisms are frequently unharmonized leaving them on the surface of the music. H will more often harmonize chromatic pitches and make sudden key shifts putting the chromaticisms into a deeper level of the structure.
> 
> This contributes to the feeling that M is more melodic and H is more harmonic.






"The first theme (which spans all 12 tones of the chromatic scale) is restated, supported by the basses (in groups of six 8th notes, starting at [0:17] in the video) that gradually come down in half steps C -> B -> Bb -> A -> Ab -> G -> F, under 10 measures (which in turn is re-stated by the first violins in measures 64 ~ 70 in high registers, [1:22] at in the video) and continues its restless chromatic bassline. Next follows obsessive semi-tone figure [1:37] Db - C - B - C in the first violins, gradually rising to create tension. Next comes the 'eerie-sounding' chromatic fourths in the woodwinds, towards the end of the orchestral introduction. Other moments include the chromatic rise by orchestral tutti end of the cadenza [12:20] that we can relate to 'Der Holle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen'. Contemporary German composer Giselher Klebe paid homage to the work with his Symphony for Strings No.2." The "tone row" used is Mozart's ( 



 ) If you think this is not a deep-level chromaticism, or chromatic harmony, then I don't know what is.

You don't see this much 'chromatic harmony' even in a similar orchestral work, Haydn symphony No.78 in C minor, which inspired this work. First, 



 Haydn alternates his bassline between G and Ab and then alternates between C and B. After that he doesn't do much chromaticism: Eb to Db, (repeat) and then Ab to Bb. Stay in Bb for 4 measures, then to Ab, to Db.

_"he (Haydn) remained a bit flummoxed by this opening (Dissonance Quartet), saying only "if Mozart wrote it he must have meant it.""_ https://www.brentanoquartet.com/notes/mozart-quartet-k-465-dissonance/

But one thing about Haydn is that he worked far more with monothematicism in development of the sonata form, which Mozart rarely did.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

Thank you for the Mozart example; I love this concerto. I will address this when I have more time. For now I should make clear that I use the idea of levels (surface, deeper levels) in the Schenkerian sense.

I agree completely with your statement about Haydn's monothematicism.

I think the idea that H was "flummoxed" by this opening is telling. It shows that he used a different approach to chromaticism than M.

Allow me to get out my score of the concerto and look it over before replying further.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

drmdjones said:


> I think the idea that H was "flummoxed" by this opening is telling. It shows that he used a different approach to chromaticism than M.


By that logic, Mozart's finale to String Quartet K464, for example, is an extended exploration of monothematicism so can we not say Mozart's approach to monothematicism was 'merely different' from Haydn? 'X' was just as great a composer for the fugue as Bach - he just wrote his differently? Sure, Haydn didn't always write diatonically, nobody would deny that, but the fact remains there's more chromatic elements in Mozart than Haydn.



drmdjones said:


> This contributes to the feeling that M is more melodic and H is more harmonic.


And no, Mozart's chromaticism is not unharmonized by any stretch of the imagination. Can you tell which line is the melody or harmony in sections such as 2:17~2:51, or 3:44~4:14, the animato section, or 6:20~6:54 in the example below?


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

Later this evening I will have time to address the concerto. Tomorrow I will take a look at the sonata. Do you have measure numbers for the parts of the sonata you reference? These would be helpful. Thanks.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

I will discuss the first 9 measures of K. 491, which comprise the first phrase.

The first three measures imply Cm with the Ab in m.3 acting as an unharmonized upper neighbor to the following G. Cm, in first inversion, returns in m.9.

The chords in between, which are more fleshed out in the counterstatement, are : F#dim7 (m.4), Bdim7 (m.5), Edim7 (m.6), Adim7 which is enharmonic with F#dim7 (m.7), and Bdim7 (m.8).

These are non-functional harmonies; they don't resolve to their respective tonics. They establish no new key, even temporarily. 

At a middleground level, therefore, the first nine measures are a prolongation of the tonic chord. Such non-functional harmonies, with all their chromaticisms, as found in mm.4-8, are a foreground (surface) feature of the music.

I will stop here for now to allow you a rebuttal. I look forward to it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

drmdjones said:


> I will discuss the first 9 measures of K. 491, which comprise the first phrase.
> 
> The first three measures imply Cm with the Ab in m.3 acting as an unharmonized upper neighbor to the following G. Cm, in first inversion, returns in m.9.
> 
> ...


No. You're trying distort what's normally accepted as the definition of chromaticism the way you want to fit your amateur conception of the music and pass it off as objective fact.

[ _"Music that uses the pitches of a particular scale - and those pitches only - is diatonic. Any music that introduces even a single note outside the scale is, by definition, chromatic. However, unlike pregnancy, the term is not absolute;"_ ]
https://dancoren.weebly.com/section-6-letting-the-genie-out-of-the-bottle.html

chromaticism in its basic definition is 'using tones outside the given key.' Non-functional harmonies that don't resolve to their respective tonics and do not establish new key - even if the chromaticism doesn't lead to modulation, it doesn't make it any less chromatic. If the The phrase still contains tones outside, let's say you stay in C major and you use C#, D#, F#, G#, A#. That still establishes chromatic harmony.

[_"One of the things that chromaticism helps to make possible is modulation to new keys, so *sometimes people think that chromaticism is music that changes keys. That's not completely true* - although it is often the case. In "Write Like Mozart", we will look only at *uses of chromatic harmony that do not cause modulation.* "_]
-From the course by National University of Singapore Write Like Mozart: An Introduction to Classical Music Composition https://www.coursera.org/lecture/cl...ic-substitutions-the-neapolitan-6-chord-Cnyl0

[ _"Mozart's harmonic language is more chromatic than Haydn's."_ ]
-A Concise Guide to Orchestral Music By DAVID FLIGG
https://books.google.ca/books?id=PjKoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35

[ _"his [Mozart's] harmonies richer and often more chromatic than Haydn's" _ ]
-Heinemann Advanced Music By Pam Hurry, Mark Phillips, Mark Richards
https://books.google.ca/books?id=YIjzx6AoIvYC&pg=PP60

[ _"Mozart also had a taste for more chromatic chords (and greater contrasts in harmonic language generally), [than Haydn]"_ ]
-The Music Sound By Nicolae Sfetcu
https://books.google.ca/books?id=kXyFAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1208

[ _"The most breathtaking chromatic trip of all occurs in the final movement, which begins innocently enough, and isn't too eventful tonally throughout the whole exposition. But then, again comes the development section, and all hell breaks loose. 
Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? What an inspired idea.. all the notes except the tonic.
It could easily pass for twentieth-century music, if we didn't already know it was Mozart. 
But even that explosion of chromaticism is explainable in terms of the circle of fifths, not that I'd dream of burdening you with it. Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is classically contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor. 
And, again, believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."_ ]
-Leonardo Bernstein





If the given example is shallow-level chromaticism as you claim, why did it inspire contemporary composers such as Klebe in their own work in chromaticism 




[ _"Especially during his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time." _ ]
http://www.wolfgang-amadeus.at/en/music_of_Mozart.php

[ _"Mozart, too, derived much of the drive of his harmonic style from a constant use of chromaticism.. ..By using the secondary dominant, he expanded the harmonic range of the composition by introducing chromaticism. In his later works Mozart also came to rely more and more on the dissonant value of suspensions to create harmonic interest. The slow introduction of his String Quartet in C Major, K 465 (the Dissonance Quartet; 1785), consists of a string of long-delayed suspensions so that the harmonic definition at any given instant is as blurred as anything in Wagner."_ ]
https://www.britannica.com/art/harmony-music/Chromaticism-in-harmony


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

I agree these tones are chromatic; I know what chromatic means. All I have shown is that these are surface chromaticisms.

I am going to end this discussion now because you are so rude and insulting. Regarding my "amateur conception" of music, I will tell you that I have a PhD in music theory from a prominent American university and have taught theory for 22 years. I know what I am talking about.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

drmdjones said:


> I agree these tones are chromatic; I know what chromatic means. All I have shown is that these are surface chromaticisms.
> 
> I am going to end this discussion now because you are so rude and insulting. Regarding my "amateur conception" of music, I will tell you that I have a PhD in music theory from a prominent American university and have taught theory for 22 years. I know what I am talking about.


I apologize. But I still maintain that 99% of musicologists around the world will laugh in your face if you tell them something like 



 is not deep-level chromatic harmony. seriously, look at the number of accidentals.



drmdjones said:


> Tomorrow I will take a look at the sonata. Do you have measure numbers for the parts of the sonata you reference?


And btw, Rondo K511 is not a sonata or a movement from a sonata, as the title of the piece states.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

drmdjones said:


> Mozart uses more surface chromaticism whereas Haydn uses deeper-level chromaticism.
> 
> In other words, M will stay in a key and use many chromatic melodic notes, as shown in the previous post. These chromaticisms are frequently unharmonized leaving them on the surface of the music. H will more often harmonize chromatic pitches and make sudden key shifts putting the chromaticisms into a deeper level of the structure.
> 
> This contributes to the feeling that M is more melodic and H is more harmonic.


I see what you are saying here, but I'm not sure the terminology of "surface" and "deep" chromaticism is the best way of describing what is going on. It sounds as though you are essentially saying Mozart's chromaticism is cheaper and just sprinkled on, where Haydn's chromaticism is well thought out and has structural depth.

However, another way to look at this is that chromaticism is defined against the key the piece is currently in, this is what gives the chromatic notes their harmonic flavor. Therefore if Haydn is using his chromaticism as you suggest - to pivot to other keys, the aural effect is that of _less_ chromaticism, because he is using the notes to change keys as opposed to adding a sustained feeling of chromaticism to an existing key. This is why Haydn's music sounds as though he uses less dissonant and rich harmonic material compared to Mozart. In the vertical sense his music is less harmonically spicy, and in this sense I think Mozart used more dissonance than Haydn or even Beethoven for that matter. I think it is also fair to say that Mozart did not have any weakness in terms of using modulation either, so he did have the structural depth, and more harmonic spice.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

tdc said:


> I see what you are saying here, but I'm not sure the terminology of "surface" and "deep" chromaticism is the best way of describing what is going on. It sounds as though you are essentially saying Mozart's chromaticism is cheaper and just sprinkled on, where Haydn's chromaticism is well thought out and has structural depth.


I don't interpret that to mean anything of the sort. Refer back to post 18 by drmdjones. He pointed out that he was referring to Schenkerian analysis. In that context, his comment makes perfect sense. (drmdjones, if I'm off base here, please feel free to correct me.) I see no implication whatsoever that drmdjones thinks that Mozart's chromaticism is "cheap."


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

Apology accepted my dear hammeredklavier!  I think our differences stem from different ideas about the meanings of "surface" and "deep level." As I stated, and as Bluecrab reminds us (thank you Bluecrab), I use these terms in the strict Schenkerian sense. 

I do not mean to say that Mozart's music is shallow in some pejorative sense, or that Haydn is deep in the sense of his music being more profound or thoughtful. What I have suggested is that Mozart's chromaticism resides in the Schenkerian foreground, while Haydn's is more often a middleground phenomenon. Certainly no one has to agree with this; I only want to be understood.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

drmdjones said:


> Apology accepted my dear hammeredklavier!  I think our differences stem from different ideas about the meaning of "surface" and "deep level." As I stated, and as Bluecrab reminds us (thank you Bluecrab), I use these terms in the strict Schenkerian sense.
> 
> I do not mean to say that Mozart's music is shallow in some pejorative sense, or that Haydn is deep in the sense of his music being more profound or thoughtful. What I have suggested is that Mozart's chromaticism resides in the Schenkerian foreground, while Haydn's is more often a middleground phenomenon. Certainly no one has to agree with this; I only want to be understood.


This makes sense, I do value your thoughts on the topic. Maybe just using the terms melodic vs. structural chromaticism would sound less derogatory than surface vs. depth. (I can't agree that Haydn's music is more _harmonic_, since it sounds to my ears as though he is less adept at using harmony for expressive purposes.)

It is difficult to speak about music sometimes. The word harmony for example can be used in different ways.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

drmdjones said:


> I will discuss the first 9 measures of K. 491, which comprise the first phrase.
> 
> The first three measures imply Cm with the Ab in m.3 acting as an unharmonized upper neighbor to the following G. Cm, in first inversion, returns in m.9.
> 
> ...


What do you make of one of the more interesting passages from that same concerto(k.491) movement from measures 220 to about 238? Or measures 162 to 171 in the rondo finale from his 18th piano concerto k.456?


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

tdc said:


> However, another way to look at this is that chromaticism is defined against the key the piece is currently in, this is what gives the chromatic notes their harmonic flavor. Therefore if Haydn is using his chromaticism as you suggest - to pivot to other keys, the aural effect is that of _less_ chromaticism, because he is using the notes to change keys as opposed to adding a sustained feeling of chromaticism to an existing key. This is why Haydn's music sounds as though he uses less dissonant and rich harmonic material compared to Mozart.


I agree completely. Mozart's music, in general, sounds more chromatic since the foreground is the most salient level and this is, I have argued, where much of Mozart's chromaticism lies.

I also agree with tdc that music is difficult to talk about. It helps if we are specific about the way in which we are using a term if it potentially has multiple meanings, as all of Schenker's terms do, e.g. surface, prolongation, diminution, foreground, middleground, background, line, unfolding, reaching over, interruption, etc.

In fact, this is so important I will start a new thread in this sub-forum asking for such terms and their various uses. How about terms like "tonality" or "sonata" and "harmony" is a good one too. Oh yeah, how about "salient?" For the longest time I thought it meant "salty." 

And trazom, I will look at the passages and post on them within the next couple of days.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Listen to the chromatic motivic build at 8:13. 




Beethoven studied this and wrote a fugue after it. Interestingly, late Haydn's 'parallel' to this piece, Variations in F minor Hob.XVII/6 also inspired Beethoven in other aspects (in works such as Sonata Op.2 No.1)



tdc said:


> This is why Haydn's music sounds as though he uses less dissonant and rich harmonic material compared to Mozart. In the vertical sense his music is less harmonically spicy, and in this sense I think Mozart used more dissonance than Haydn or even Beethoven for that matter. I think it is also fair to say that Mozart did not have any weakness in terms of using modulation either, so he did have the structural depth, and more harmonic spice.


Regarding dissonance, I think Beethoven (and Haydn) preferred using dissonances involving diatonic intervals more, rather than the kind of chromaticism Mozart favored. I think there's no such thing as 'correct way' to write dissonance and I think that more dissonance doesn't necessarily make music greater. The only 'correct way' is to write it in such a way that it inspires other and later artists (criteria which all greats in classical music fulfilled to certain degree). For instance, Brahms in his late years admired Bach and Mozart's use of dissonance more than Beethoven's. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135
While I would not say Beethoven's (and Haydn's) use of dissonance were objectively worse or less impressive than the other masters, I think this quote by Brahms can be used to argue that Bach and Mozart's use of dissonance wasn't any less inspirational, influential than Beethoven's in music history.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=2MPXSVcdzPUC&pg=PA99
_"Stylistically Spohr's and Beethoven's development as composers took them in diametrically opposite directions. The op. 18 quartets are the point at which they were closest, but from there their paths diverged. Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'"_


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Regarding dissonance, I think Beethoven (and Haydn) preferred using dissonances involving diatonic intervals more, rather than the kind of chromaticism Mozart favored. I think there's no such thing as 'correct way' to write dissonance and I think that more dissonance doesn't necessarily make music greater.


I've never argued that more dissonance makes a work greater. It is more about striking a balance and putting everything in its proper place. Some of Mozart's music is not very dissonant at all, but he still is able to win over my ear with his melodic charm and playful inventiveness, and when he is looking to express something more melancholy he is able to do it with taste and a sophisticated use of dissonance. I think Beethoven and Haydn sought to use harmony more in the horizontal sense, rather than the vertical for expressivity. Beethoven also in the use of his dynamic contrasts. To my tastes this is a less effective approach, because it relies too much on time and linearity to make a point.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

In response to trazom's request I have prepared the following analysis of K. 491 excerpt. First, I will acknowledge that this example contains subsurface (I will use this term rather than deep-level since the actual middleground level of these chromaticisms depends on their context within the entire movement and the analyst's parsing of levels) chromaticism proving that Mozart's chromaticism is not always at the musical surface. This analysis is slightly long and dense, but that's just the way these things go (lol). Having the score handy will help a lot.

K. 491, 1st mvt. mm. 220-241 looks stranger than it sounds due to the use of enharmonic chord spellings which involve sharps in the strings, flutes, and piano, and flats in the clarinets and bassoons. For example, mm. 228-233 are written in F# major and Gb major simultaneously.

The passage obviously references the opening of the movement. BTW, this passage is embedded in the closing section of the solo exposition adding drama to a typically static part of the form.

Ok, now for the blow by blow. The previous phrase ends clearly in the prevailing key, the expected second key of the sonata form, Eb major. Mm. 221-22 change to the parallel key Eb minor with the progression Ebm-Cb (i-VI). This key is quickly abandoned as we enter a section of descending fully-dim7 chords which characterize the opening.

Just a preparatory word on dim7 chords, their enharmonic spellings, and transpositions. When a dim7 chord is transposed up or down by a m3rd or tritone the pitch classes remain invariant while the spellings of some notes switch to their enharmonic equivalents. For example, C#dim7 = Edim7 =Gdim7 (C#EGBb =EGBbDb = GBbDbFb). When a dim7 is transposed by any other interval, the sets of pitch classes are non-intersecting. For example, transposing down by a perfect 5th, Gdim7, Cdim7, and Fdim7 have no pitch classes in common. This means that these three chords, taken together, complete all 12 pitch classes.

This pattern of descending P5s is what happens in the opening, mm. 4-8, and in the counterstatement mm. 16-20. The chords are more complete in the counterstatement so I suggest you look there. The chords, as they are written, are F#dim7 (m. 16), Bdim7 (m. 17), Edim7 (m. 18), Adim7 (m.19), Bdim7 (m.20). The pattern of P5s appears to break down when Adim7 goes to Bdim7. But, remembering the enharmonicism of the m3 transposition, Adim7 = F#dim7. So the pattern of P5s is unbroken. And in an earlier post it was noted, correctly, that all 12 pitch classes are sounded in the opening phrase.

So back to m. 223. Here begins a series of P5 related dim7 chords: Adim7 (m. 223), Ddim7 (m. 224), --m. 125 is where the simultaneous enharmonic spellings begin -- Gdim7 (piano) together with Edim7 (all other parts) -- remember that these are the same sound since they are a m3 apart -- then in m. 226 all parts spell D#dim7 which is enharmonic with Cdim7 (an aug2nd apart which is enharmonic with a m3!), in m. 227 all parts spell E#dim7 which is enharmonic with Fdim7 (zero transposition), and the dim7s end as m. 228 has Gb major simultaneously with F# major, as mentioned in paragraph two, above.

The reason I have described all of the enharmonic spellings, even when not written, is to show the pattern of descending P5s from m. 223 to m. 227: Adim7, Ddim7, Gdim7, Cdim7, Fdim7. It was this pattern that gave the opening its characteristic sound, and we recognize that same pattern here, despite spelling variations.

Mm. 228-233 are written in the keys of F# major on Gb major simultaneously, alternating I and V. I suggest that we hear Gb not F#. Gb is the relative major to Eb minor with which the passage began and this is a simpler relationship, in theory, than that of Eb minor to F# major. Cognitive theory tells us that the simplest conceptualization is what the mind will hear (don't have any citations readily at hand). Taking a wider view, Gb is in a chromatic mediant relation to the prevailing key if Eb. Such relations become common with Beethoven and the Romantics. This establishment of Gb as a key is a subsurface chromaticism.

Quickly, mm. 234-238 present another series of P5-related dim7 chords with simultaneously enharmonic spellings. Choosing the spellings which result in the P5 pattern (again, this is what we hear if we think this sounds like the opening) we have: A#dim7 (m. 234), D#dim7 (m. 235), G#dim7 (m. 236), C#dim7 = Edim7 (m. 237), Adim7 (m. 238). It is interesting that this sequence is a half step up from mm. 223-227. I need to think more about this.

Finally (whew!), the Adim7 of m. 238 restores functionality as viidim7/V in Eb. The rest (mm. 239-241) is a standard cadential progression in Eb.

Happy to discuss this or answer questions. Since this post is so long I will address the K. 456 rondo excerpt in another post. Suffice it for now to say that it is much simpler than what we have just been through.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

The question remains, why did Mozart write the clarinets and bassoons in flats and the other parts in sharps? I assume it is for ease of reading. Maybe some of you wind players could help me here.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

In discussing the differences between Mozart and Haydn, it seems that Haydn often gets mentioned as having his strength in long range structure, which is why I found this comment I recently came across by Charles Rosen interesting:

"Mozart is the first composer consistently to use the subdominant with a full sense of its relaxation of long-range harmonic tension; he generally introduces it as a regular feature of the recapitulation immediately after the re-entry of the tonic. Haydn's practice was similar, but less consistent, and Mozart's sensitivity to large tonal areas remained unequalled until Beethoven."


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

drmdjones said:


> The question remains, why did Mozart write the clarinets and bassoons in flats and the other parts in sharps? I assume it is for ease of reading. Maybe some of you wind players could help me here.


I'm looking at the manuscript right now. The first and second movements are written in a flat key for everybody, but it's only one flat for the clarinets because it's a B-flat instrument, and no flats are written for the French horn because it's an E-flat instrument... The only sharps that show up in the key signature are in the last movement when it goes into the key of C major. This means that for B-flat clarinet the key signature would be in D major with two sharps. The horn part is written in three sharps, A major, because it's an E flat instrument. There are no sharps written for any of the C instruments, such as the violins, because this section is in C major. But when the C-major passage ends, it returns to the key of C minor, and three flats for all the C instruments and whatever key signature is appropriate for each instrument built in its appropriate key, as before. The bassoon used here is built in the key of C and that's why it has three flats in the key signature, and no sharps in the last movement going through the key of C major until the returns to the key of C minor... In the first movement, the chromatic passages change by half-steps, so it's easier to read going from flats to sharps. If you're using the scale of G flat Major instead of F sharp major, it looks like the G flat major is related to the key C Minor, and it's not; it's merely a chromatic passage going from one scale to the next, but it's not in that key. It's merely passing through. If I've made any errors here, I hope someone will kindly correct them. This is not a harmonic analysis of this outstanding concerto and its chromaticisms.


----------

