Mozart sonatas

Originally Posted by Zetetic

I'm familiar KV511, it's very interesting, though I'm not convinced that it's quite as 'untypical' as you imply. The fact is, this very experimentation is a hallmark of the late Mozart's style. I'd not noticed any Bach pastiche in KV511, but his Fugue in G minor (KV401-375e) showcases Mozart's seemingly underexploited skill for neo-baroque counterpoint brilliantly. Actually, I've always thought KV511's opening statements are rather suggestive of Chopin.

If you're interested, other less orthodox pieces of Mozart I've enjoyed are:

The 'Modulating prelude' in F major-E minor (KV deest)
Eine kleine Gigue in G (KV574)
Allegro in G min (KV312-590d)
Kleiner Trauermarsch in C min (KV453a)

Each of these works hints at developments which would take another half-century to reappear, and, as I'm sure you're aware, most were written around the time Mozart started drawing heavily upon the late baroque tradition. In all honesty, I think the music I'll like is there, hidden amidst Mozart's nigh-superhuman oeuvre. I just need to locate it.

Well, if you got a score on you, the Bach-sounding part is measure 163 till 173. It's VERY clear what he was basing the section on (2 voice inventions, which Mozart is known to have studied in depth.)

Either way, it IS atypical for the entire period, and compared to his early work it's very strange. I mean the form is already very very strange, it's no bow-rondo or sonata-rondo, and there are passages such as the chromatic faux bourdon in measure 69 which can't be analyzed with functional harmony at all. Nevermind that, ontop of this he adds passing notes. It's very disorienting, and to the audience of his time it must've sounded extremely difficult to hear. It also explains the rather long pedals at the end of these passages, as Mozart was still working with the principle of balance (the pedal is longer because the parts where harmony is unclear are already long, and many.)

Besides the Kleine Gigue, there's a Menuett (KV 355) which he wrote in 1789, again as a single movement thing (he couldn't place it in a sonata, for the same reasons as the rondo in A minor.) It's also extremely weird for the style and it contains no trio (which is to establish a very simple harmony/form to contrast the experimental/more elaborate harmony and motive work that comes before), which is very strange. But upon further analysis, it's also clear that he worked the purpose of the trio within the two parts of the Menuett, such as the last 5 measures from the first part, and the last 5 from the second.

The second part has a very characteristic dissonance at the very beginning (suspension, yet it's not heard as such) and the piece itself uses augmented chords in which is not very typical for the Vienna classic harmony.

And so on~ It's very fun stuff to analyze.

PS: Oh, of course, check out the works for clock organ if you haven't, haha.

Yes, KV355 is surprising; I certainly agree that it's atypical for the entire period of Mozart's output. I do however continue to assert that the bizarre sorts of thing you list above are exactly the kind Mozart appears to have found most interesting in the years before his death. Even the first subject of Symphony No. 40 reveals the broad spectrum of invention sought to explore at that time; the alarming rapidity with which the orchestra leaves the tonic, the unclear harmonic centre, the fact that the melody isn't centred around the tonic or dominant, instead begining on the submediant....

I agree, it's marvellous to analyse.

Originally Posted by Zetetic

Yes, KV355 is surprising; I certainly agree that it's atypical for the entire period of Mozart's output. I do however continue to assert that the bizarre sorts of thing you list above are exactly the kind Mozart appears to have found most interesting in the years before his death. Even the first subject of Symphony No. 40 reveals the broad spectrum of invention sought to explore at that time; the alarming rapidity with which the orchestra leaves the tonic, the unclear harmonic centre, the fact that the melody isn't centred around the tonic or dominant, instead begining on the submediant....

I agree, it's marvellous to analyse.

Well, obviously it's the direction he was heading into. Very backwards and forwards at the same time, but it doesn't represent either his overall style nor the time he lived in if we go by statistics. That's what I mean.

I agree, though we'll never know in which direction he was truly headed. What makes me pensive is that these works represent a style that could have been! Thankfully, they weren't a musical dead end. Other composers took up the pen more or less where Mozart left off, even if it took some time.

As well as the great pieces already listed, I suggest listening very closely to the slow movements of the late symphonies - especially the last three or four and especially the Jupiter's slow movement. It's full of very odd things.

Also worth checking out (as a curiosity) is the Suite in the style of Handel K.399.
Whether or not it is actually in the style of Handel is up for debate, but it's a great piece of neo-baroque.

Btw, I think if anything is naïve, it's Alma Mahler's comment. Well perhaps it applied to her time, but it no longer applies, especially with the neo-classical revival in the last century.

I think there can be something quite alluring to music that is "unbearably perfect". It's not something that lets you easily dive into, like a Schumann piece for example, because of its perfect, "glossy" surface, but that's exactly what makes it mysterious again. (Not unlike Debussy, for example). Everything fits so well that you don't even notice all the curious details and structural intricacies. It plays with beauty and seduction, but still never lets you get quite into it, like a mirror. It's exactly this aspect that makes music like this so fascinting to me.

It is however something that much music just doesn't succeed in. There's lots of music that seems to go for "perfection" which does nothing for me and ends up simply sounding boring. In Mozarts music it's the combination of this outward perfection and simplicity with inner structural refinement to a great degree and possibly something third, artistic, undefineable, which again is in my opinion quite similar to Debussy's music.

Mozart isn't very easy to listen to... because it's so easy.

P.S. I find nothing wrong with the term "naive". I don't find it negative in the least. Many of the artists (not just musicians) I enjoy most have been called "naive" and even with some justification. I find naivity desirable.

Well, I have to agree that Mozart hit his stride about the mid 1770's with some early exceptions. A sonata which is a precurser to the Romantic era (among others) is the Sonata in a minor. The development section of the first movement is quite "experimental" for Mozart for the contrasts of pp anf ff and the harmonic movement and thematic development. Also, the second movement in F major was very unusual harmonic choice for his time (with that great middle section in c minor and the seconds -- one of my favorite musical moments!). You really start to hear stuff like that when you get toward the end of Beethoven's early period.

Also a sonata I always find fascinating and where Mozart seems forward looking when using very old fashioned devices --- the Sonata in D major, K 576. The canonic treatment of the themes create such odd harmonic movement due to how soon the second voice starts (in the end it serves a very orthodox purpose -- to move to the dominant but at times you wonder if you are in the ii/II area). The second movement has this neo baroque improvisatory line that seems to obliterate the melody (and there is a chromatic movement spread between various voices -- see mm 26 - 30). The only movement that is traditional is the third mvmt.

Also, I disagree that Mozart's phrase and bar structure tends to 2 + 2. Some of his works yes but the majority in his maturity no. For example, the Sonata in F KV 332 opening theme 11 2/3 long (4+4+3 2/3). It seems 2+2 or 4+4 because Mozart in this instance finds ways to delay the arrival to cadence. I do think some of it was the influence of CPE Bach and to a lesser extent Hadyn.

But I don't listen to his works often -- though he is always a great reference.

I adore the sonata in A minor, to the extent that I found the time to learn it a couple of years agi. One the problems I (not an especially proficient pianist) found with most of the others was that despite being hugely fiddly, they generally sounded far easier to play than they really were.

It seems, strangely, that most of the works people have picked out are the minority that I've found approachable. I'm listening to the Clarinet Concerto in A as I write this, and it's growing on me.

Zetetic -

Actually that is a common problem with the Hadyn Sonatas (starting from 1771) and the Mozart sonatas. It is quite easy to get careless with the articulations and play them with a moire late romantic gesture (a good example is playing the cadences correctly. Any undue emphasis on the tonic chord when it is written a shorter value than the dominant preceding it can result in a premature sense of finality which, in turn, can have the phrase sound very square). BTW, don't underestimate your pianism the a minor sonata is one of the most difficult Mozart sonatas to play well - especially the second movement.

I just wanted to thank everyone who has recommended pieces by Mozart. I mainly listen to Beethoven onwards, with the occasional time travel back to Bach. Now I have wonderful Mozart pieces in my listening repetoire, thanks again fellas.