Susanna Smit – MUHI 331 – Dr. Platt – November 23, 2015
The history of the symphony is a vital topic in regards to both the early classical period
and the development of major genres. This genre persists to modern day and has undergone
countless variations. Its beginnings lie in the early eighteenth-century; during this period the
genre underwent the transformation from loose categorization to formal structure. Different
decades of the era brought different ideas to the genre, while various schools and locations
brought composers together. In conjunction with the development of the symphony comes the
development of sonata-allegro form, which starts out as a harmonic form and eventually
formulates complex thematic requirements. This form is found throughout the symphonies of
this time period, and slowly changes with each work produced. Following a general explanation
of the changes the eighteenth-century symphony underwent, four representative composers have
been chosen in order to track the progression of the symphony. Paired with each composer is a
characteristic work that exemplifies the time, composer, and area. Georg Matthias Monn’s
Symphony in Bb Major, Bb2, begins the transition out of baroque and into classical style that
took place under the Austrian monarchy; Antonio Brioschi follows a few years later with his
Symphony in Bb Major, Op.II/54, which contains innovative harmony and a more fully
developed sonata form. Franz Xaver Richter, a member of the Mannheim School, harkens back
to the older learned style in his Symphony in C Major while including contemporary devices,
and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf presents a futuristic Symphony in C Major that pushes harmonic
boundaries of the era.
To examine the symphonic works of representative composers, one must understand the
general progression of style and form in the early symphony. The earliest symphonies
commonly follow a three-movement progression that alternates fast, slow, and fast for movement
tempos (Rudolf 1982, p. 142-143). The first movement of the symphony is either a precursor to
Smit 2
or a variant of sonata form, while the second and third movements may be in many different
forms. The second movement starts out in simplistic forms, but eventually progresses to become
more complex. The third movement of early symphonies is often another sonata form variation,
but as time progresses it deviates. In early symphonies there is sometimes elision between the
second and third movements, which reveals the opera sinfonia’s influence on the genre (Rudolf
1982, p. 145). This elision phases out, but an increased attention to continuity in the work as a
whole takes hold (Will, p. 493). With the addition of a fourth movement, typically in minuet and
trio form, comes the addition of instruments. Symphonies in the second half of the century begin
to add horns and oboes or flutes, eventually adding a full wind section with occasional
percussion. The length of each movement and therefore the overall symphony increases
dramatically as time goes on. While structure represents a large part of the changes, thematic
and harmonic innovations take place in this period as well. The style of each symphony will
vary by composer, but the general trend is to increase harmonic complexity. Each subsequent
generation explores more distantly related keys, coupled with unexpected harmonic content and
chromaticism. The use of baroque learned style, or counterpoint, gradually diminishes as the
genre progresses and gives way to longer melodies. The inevitably linked sonata form must also
undergo alterations. Froggatt points to the appearance of a secondary theme as the true mark of a
fully formed sonata-allegro movement, and composers gradually move from only changing key
to creating stark melodic contrast within their expositions. Hepokoski examines instead the
importance of the medial caesura to the overall expositional structure. Some of the following
symphonies contain a pause before progressing to the secondary key area of the exposition, but
an integral part of Hepokoski’s argument involves the building of tension through various
methods. These methods include a structural dominant, repetitive half cadences, or changes in
Smit 3
dynamic and texture. The absence of these methods creates a weak break in the exposition,
unlike what is found in textbook examples of sonata form (Hepokoski, p. 124-125). The
development and recapitulation are open to a freer interpretation, but subtle changes can be seen
in these sections as well. The development gains length, and in relation to the harmonic
innovation mentioned previously, gains interest. The recapitulation of early symphonies is often
sparse, and does not contain a complete restatement of themes. As the form gains traction, the
recapitulations become more complete.
Georg Matthias Monn is well known today for his contributions to symphonic form in the
beginning of the eighteenth-century. The issue that lies with examining his works is one of
attribution. His brother often signed his works by only his last name, creating a multitude of
works with no clear composer (Rudolf 1985, p. lxxi). Georg Matthias Monn has a few salient
features that allow his works to be discerned. His orchestration is decidedly smaller than that of
his brother; Matthias Monn prefers three or four string parts with occasional wind additions. He
is seemingly random in his choice of winds, but their presence is relatively rare. In terms of
form, Matthias favors a three-movement symphony following the fast, slow, fast progression;
only a few of his works contain an interjected minuet movement. Most of Matthias Monn’s
movements follow binary form and variants thereof. Simple binary may be found in slow
movements and final movements while expanded versions such as rounded binary and sonata
form appear in first movements and occasional finales. Matthias Monn’s sonata form does not
have a full recapitulation, but still follows the general structure (Rudolf 1982, pp. 92-99).
Matthias Monn’s symphonies are representative of Viennese symphonies in his time. He follows
the practice of his contemporaries with three-movement symphonies that are scored for two
violins, viola and bass. Monn also commonly links the second and third movements of his works
Smit 4
with half cadences, as is seen later in Brioschi’s work (Rudolf 1982, pp.140-145). In terms of
sonata form, Monn follows the general tonal structure expected, but does not always follows the
three-part thematic form. As is typical of early sonata form, the first half contains a primary
theme, a possible secondary theme that may not be contrasting, but is in the secondary key. The
second half may contain a small amount of development, and a return to all or part of the themes
(Rudolf 1982, pp. 145-146). Each of these elements points to the developing sonata form as a
part of the overall symphonic genre.
The Symphony in Bb Major, Thematic Index Bb2, is one of the most well documented
works by Matthias Monn. As would be expected, the symphony is in three movements with an
Allegro, Andante Molto, and Presto. The outer movements are close to sonata form, while the
inner movement is in binary form, features also indicative of Matthias Monn’s early symphonies
(Rudolf 1985, p. lxxx). The first movement of an early symphony is the most complicated and
often the longest as well. Reflecting the development of classical style, the Allegro follows the
forming sonata-allegro structure but begins with a canon at the unison, which is followed by a
canonic sequence. The movement follows the expected form, with a slightly contrasting
secondary theme in the dominant key (Rudolf 1985, p. lxxx). The secondary theme of this
movement is marked by a medial caesura. In accordance with structural norms, the material
following the medial caesura is at a piano dynamic. However, there is not a large amount of
rhythmic or harmonic build into the medial caesura, making it weak (Hepokoski, p. 117). The
exposition ends with another canonic passage (Rudolf 1985, p. lxxx). Monn’s use of canon
reveals his ties to baroque style. Counterpoint was still common in symphonic repertoire, as the
learned style dominated baroque works of recent years. The use of counterpoint continues into
later symphonies, most notably by Richter, who found inspiration from early symphonic
Smit 5
repertoire (Van Boer, p. xvii). The exposition is actually divided into three larger sections when
examining cadential structure. It has three significant authentic cadences instead of the usual
two that would end the primary and secondary themes. The secondary theme elides into the
development of the Allegro without a double bar or repeat sign to signify the end of the
exposition (Rudolf 1982, p. 161). The development expands on the opening canon by
transposing it and expanding it to include complicated imitation. Finally, the primary theme,
secondary theme, and canonic passage reappear in the recapitulation (Rudolf 1985, p. lxxxlxxxi).
The Andante Molto is in simple binary form in Eb major. The theme is an ornamented
melodic line found in the violins. As is typical in Monn’s slow movements, the melody is placed
in the higher voices for clarity, while the lower voices play a simplified melody or supporting
harmony underneath. The movement follows a three-part harmonic plan like that of the first
movement, wherein the secondary key is the dominant. The first half of the Andante Molto
drives toward a half cadence on Bb, while the second half brings the movement back to Eb major
through a series of sequential changes. Another feature exemplified in this movement that is
commonly found in Monn’s slow movements is his use of parallel material between the two
sections. In this case, each begins with the same ornamented melody, in different keys, before
moving on to contrasting material (Rudolf 1982, pp. 210-211). Unlike his other slow
movements, the second movement of Bb2 allows for differentiation between themes in the first
half as shown in Example 1; the second theme can be seen in measure 5, with changes taking
place in the bass part as well. (Rudolf 1982, p. 212).
Smit 6
Vln.
Cb.
Example 1: Georg Matthias Monn, Symphony in Bb Major, Bb2, Andante Molto, mm. 1-10
(Rudolf 1982, p. 213)
The Presto of this symphony is the longest finale movement in all of Monn’s symphonies
at 137 measures. It is in 2/4, which implies a more serious nature than that of his other finales,
which are often in a dance meter. All of Monn’s finales are marked by a strong central cadence
in the dominant (Rudolf 1982, p. 236-237). This movement is one of six finales to employ
sonata form; the distinction from full sonata form lies in the number of themes. Presto contains
two themes in each key area and two independent transitional themes, which creates an
exposition that is comprised nearly completely of thematic material (Rudolf 1982, pp. 240-242).
Froggatt’s examination of secondary themes would place this movement into the realm of a very
divergent sonata form, but it may be considered a precursor to sonata form instead, as it does not
follow the traditional structure (p. 231). Instead of distinct thematic material, Monn opts for a
multitude of ideas, which is unusual considering the repetitive tendency of early eighteenth-
Smit 7
century composers. The development is relatively unique as it moves through each theme
sequentially, an unusual practice for Monn. The recapitulation is preceded by a strong cadence
and a break in all parts. The recapitulation of this movement is typical in structure; it begins
with the primary theme in tonic and moves through the other themes (Rudolf 1982, pp. 240-242).
The Milanese School of composers played a significant role in the conception and
development of the Classical symphony. Giovanni Batista Sammartini and Antonio Brioschi are
considered the most influential composers of this group, in part due to their amount of surviving
works. Many of their early symphonies are trio symphonies, as the years progress symphonies
for four string parts become more prominent. While both types of symphonies are a mixture of
Classical and baroque styles, the trio symphonies show a preference for baroque while the fourpart symphonies lean toward Classical style. These symphonies employ homophonic texture,
major keys, and repetition. Additionally, they follow the fast, slow, fast progression that was
typical of three movement works. They begin with a longer first movement, which leads to a
slow, minor second movement. The finales tend to be in a dance form (Churgin 2012, p. 105).
Brioschi’s later symphonies follow a similar general format. The first movement is the most
involved and uses an early sonata form. Typically, they include a long development and
thematic freedom. This freedom may allow for a nearly monothematic form in some cases, but
in all cases places an emphasis on the P theme. The slow movements are nearly always in minor,
tonic or relative, and explore lyricism (Churgin 1985, p. xiv). The use of tonic minor is more
common, as this contrasts with baroque practice. Brioschi’s finales avoid the minuet form used
by Sammartini and instead opt for 3/8 dance forms (Churgin 2012, p. 106).
Antonio Brioschi’s Symphony in Bb Major, Op.II/54 is a representative example of his
symphonies written in four parts. It was given many titles in its time, such as sinfonia or
Smit 8
concerto, as the term symphony had not yet taken hold (Mandel-Yehuda 2012, p.139). MandelYehuda explains that all of Brioschi’s outer movements are in two parts, and most of these are in
a loose sonata form. The first part of each movement is expositional; they present the theme and
undergo harmonic movement to the dominant key, ending with an authentic cadence. Brioschi
themes do not follow the conventional contrasting model of later sonata form. Instead, his
themes are often melodically related, and contrast can only be found in harmonic structure.
Because of this, the S theme is not considered fully formed, which is indicative of the
underdeveloped sonata form present (Mandel-Yehuda 1999, 3.2.1-3.2.2). The monothematic
tendency mentioned by Churgin is contested by Mandel-Yehuda who suggests a lack of contrast
instead. During the development of sonata form, the appearance of a secondary theme is vital.
Brioschi is in the transitional between composers who utilize a secondary key, and those who
have a fully formed secondary theme. The key in his sonata forms always changes, creating a
three part harmonic form, however the secondary subject is often related to the first, but does not
simply repeat the primary theme in a new key. These distinctions make it difficult to place him
definitively on one side or the other (Froggatt, p. 231). Regardless of the technical classification,
Brioschi’s first movement, Allegro Assai, places an emphasis on the primary theme by allowing
it to take up nearly three quarters of the exposition, diminishing the weight of the secondary
theme. However, the secondary theme is preceded by a short caesura, which makes the
transition slightly more obvious (Mandel-Yehuda 2012, p. 141). This caesura is not preceded by
any of the building principles explained by Hepokoski, therefore making it a relatively
understated stopping point (p. 124-125). The development of this movement exposes Brioschi’s
contrapuntal nature. In general, he uses more counterpoint than Sammartini, and the return of
this style in late eighteenth-century symphonies may be linked to Brioschi. The development of
Smit 9
Op.11/54/I begins with independent string parts that gradually build into a fuller texture through
imitation as seen in example (Mandel-Yehuda 1999, 3.3.5)
Example 2: Antonio Brioschi Symphony in Bb Major Op. II/54/I mm. 23-24 (Mandel-Yehuda
1999, 3.3.5)
Following the free part writing he employs multiple other forms of learned style. He involves all
parts in an imitative section, oscillates between solo and tutti, and delves into ornamented fourthspecies suspension. The retransition of Allegro Assai features reduced rhythmic activity and
thinning texture that is common for Brioschi. His retransitions often contain some sort of
contrasting element to bring interest to the section. Only half of Brioschi’s sonata form first
movements contain dominant pedal point preceding the recapitulation, and Op.II/54 is one of
these. The basso continuo provides a steady repetition of the dominant, F (Mandel-Yehuda
1999, 3.3.6). Brioschi’s recapitulations are often free in nature; beginning with an exact
recapitulation, and then spiraling into other material (Mandel-Yehuda 1999, 3.4.2). In this
symphony he begins with an exact repetition of the P theme, which is suddenly interrupted by an
Ab in the first violins. This disruption leads to a short period of harmonic instability that
eventually leads to the return to Bb Major and the conclusion of the movement. Mandel-
Smit 10
Yehuda explains that the recapitulation is almost a second development (3.4.4). His
recapitulation is a simplified version of the development of this movement, with the largest
difference found in harmonic stability. While the development is unstable, the recapitulation
offers stability in the subdominant, which reinforces the tonic and leads to the concluding
authentic cadence (Mandel-Yehuda 2012, p. 143).
In contrast to his typical non-modulating, long second movements, Brioschi’s Largo
Staccato of Op.II/54 is relatively short, and has a brief tonicization of D Major (Churgin 2012, p.
106). This movement is in the more baroque relative minor and uses unexpected harmonic
content. Brioschi uses diminished seventh chords to add interest, a feature that was highly
innovative for the early symphony; this chord can be seen on the downbeat of measure 5 of
Example 3.
vln. 1
vln. 2
vla.
cb.
Example 3: Antonio Brioschi, Symphony in Bb Major, Op. II/54/II, mm. 1-5, (Mandel-Yehuda
2012, p. 140)
Additionally, he varies the texture throughout, occasionally reducing the orchestration to one
voice (Churgin 1985, xiv-xv). The movement contains several telling Brioschi trademarks
besides the seventh chord; he uses staccato chords, snap rhythms and suspensions throughout.
Smit 11
While most sources present the slow movement ending on a half cadence, a few scores substitute
an authentic cadence. The open-endedness of a half cadence is highly unusual for the time and
can only be found in three of Brioschi’s inner movements (Mandel-Yehuda 2012, p. 139).
Sources do not concur on whether or not the second and third movements of this work are
continuous, but this may be the case (Churgin 1985, pp. xiv-xv). If they were in fact meant to
elide, it would liken this symphony to those of Georg Matthias Monn of the previous generation.
The last movement of this symphony returns to Bb Major. It is in sonata form like the first
movement, but its second theme is slightly more pronounced. The primary theme is presented in
imitation between the first and second violins, while the secondary theme contains syncopation
and ornamentation. This suggests a more fully realized sonata form, and also gives an example
of Brioschi’s tendency to input a rest in all parts before the secondary theme (Mendel-Yehuda
1999, 3.2.4). Later sonata form expositions follow this trend, which requires a cadence and a
break, called a medial caesura, before the secondary theme. Froggatt’s distinction between the
presence and lack of a secondary theme is dependent on contrast, and by this method Brioschi’s
Presto achieves a secondary theme (231). However, the development of this movement is rather
short, and focuses on the primary theme. Additionally, it ends with an incomplete recapitulation
that was common for Brioschi. He often condensed his themes for a shorter recapitulation with
more variation (Mandel-Yehuda 1999, 3.4.5). Therefore it can be deduced that Brioschi’s
Allegro Assai is a full sonata form movement with a weak secondary theme, while Presto is a
full sonata form movement with a contrasting secondary theme, but insufficient second half. His
Symphony in Bb Major, Op.II/54 is a mixture between baroque and Classical styles that
represents the transition into a formal symphonic form.
Smit 12
Franz Xaver Richter was a Bohemian composer of the eighteenth-century (Van Boer p.
xv). He began his professional career in Vienna, where his works reflected the contrapuntal
theory found in Johann Fux’s Gradus ad Parnassum and early composers like Matthias Monn.
He retained a fondness for counterpoint throughout his career, and uses both the imitative and
non-imitative forms (Murray, p. 304). Other features of his early symphonies are indicative of
most symphonies produced during the early eighteenth-century. They are scored for string
orchestra: two violins, one viola, and basso continuo. The basso continuo part often features
figured bass. His early symphonies’ first movement form is based on repetition. His main
themes are often triadic and may contain dotted rhythms. He brings these themes through a
series of keys, with little to no development (Van Boer, pp. xxii-xix). Critics like Burney did not
consider this practice to be innovative, instead he remarked, “Indeed, this species of iteration
indicates a want of invention in a composer, as much as stammering and hesitation imply want of
wit or memory in a story-teller” (Murray, p. 305). The lack of a solid primary theme in
conjunction with minimal development leads to the assumption that Richter’s early symphonies
did not follow sonata form in any of their movements, instead he followed a binary form with
small deviations that may have led to sonata form. In spite of his adherence to older styles, he
maintained popularity.
In 1747 Richter was invited to join the Mannheim Kappelle. The Mannheim Kappelle
was created to bring recognition to its patron, Carl Theodor; it brought talented musicians
together, creating a highly skilled orchestra. Within the orchestra were numerous composers;
referred to as the Mannheim School. The early Mannheim School included Johann Stamitz,
Ignaz Holzbauer, and Franz Richter. These composers represent the most influential of the first
generation in Mannheim. Although these composers are grouped by their occupation, they did
Smit 13
not have similar compositional styles. Richter joined the Mannheim School as an established
composer (Murray, p.303). Upon his employment, Richter’s compositional style underwent
subtle changes. He began scoring his symphonies for the orchestra available to him, which
opened the possibility for the addition of two horns and two flutes or oboes. Additionally, the
basso continuo parts were no longer figured, and the strings enjoyed fuller harmonies (Van Boer,
p. xvii). Unlike many symphonies in Vienna and Mannheim in this period, Richter preferred a
three-movement work like his predecessors, however he did write a few four-movement pieces
as well. By this period of his life, the first movement of his works had begun to resemble sonata
form. He often employs a double statement of the primary theme and a lyrical second theme.
Additionally, the transition and closing are more developed than in earlier years. Keeping with
his compositional style, each section is interspersed with contrapuntal passages. Building on his
previous exploration of keys, his developments often include unexpected modulations. His
themes do not vary much in his development, which is also similar to his early symphonies (Van
Boer, p. xix). Richter often uses contrapuntal methods to repeat his theme such as sequence,
imitation, and chain suspensions. Occasionally, his use of counterpoint distracts from the formal
structure of his movements, so it can be said that his focus was not on sonata form, but instead
on melodic content (Murray, p. 305). The second movements of Richter’s late symphonies are
usually in binary form. He uses both simple and rounded binary, and includes lyrical melodies.
He often changes the texture of his second movement by including only melody and bass,
harkening back to much earlier works. As is typical with Richter, there is a use of counterpoint
throughout, but the emphasis of the movement is placed on the musicality of a rhythmically
complex theme (Van Boer, p. xix). While Richter preferred a three-movement symphony, in rare
cases he includes a fourth movement. When the fourth movement is present, the third is usually
Smit 14
a minuet. The finale of his symphonies can follow the form of an Italian Presto, a minuet like
the third movement, or a fugue.
Symphony in C major, Thematic Index 11, is an example of a rare Richter fourmovement symphony. It is scored for two oboes, two horns, and string orchestra. This piece
was written during Franz Richter’s time in Mannheim, and therefore was most likely written for
the Mannheim Kappelle. It may be in four movements as a way of giving in to the more modern
practices of Richter’s peers in the Mannheim School. It begins with a mostly developed sonata
form movement. The triadic theme is stated first in the horns and strings (Van Boer, p.xxiii). It
is an example of the Mannheim rocket, defined as a rising triadic theme in equal note values
(Wolf). Ever resourceful in his use of keys, the development of this movement undergoes many
modulations, and includes some chromaticism in the strings (Van Boer, p. xxiii). The winds
enjoy relatively independent parts in this movement, largely due to Richter’s use of counterpoint.
The movement does not have a distinguishable secondary theme, making it more analogous to
the monothematic expositions found in Haydn pieces. Monothematic sections are commonly
paired with the use of counterpoint, which is the case with Richter’s work (Froggatt, pp. 230231). The second movement is in C minor, which follows Richter’s typical key assignment.
Additionally, the theme contains ornamentation, short rhythms, and a small amount of
syncopation, creating the rhythmic complexity expected in Richter’s second movements
(Murray, p. 305). The winds scoring of this movement is rather light; they serve only to flesh
out harmonies and add texture variation (Van Boer, p. xxiii). The third movement is a minuet, as
can be expected from Richter’s compositional trend. However, this minuet is slightly irregular.
Richter disrupts the meter by breaking the melody into multiple parts. The harmonic structure of
the movement is static, placing emphasis on the development of the theme. While the movement
Smit 15
begins with full involvement of the winds, the trio section brings the oboes to the forefront. The
soloistic line of the oboes carries the minor mode trio through to the end with sparse string
accompaniment. Richter also brings suspensions to the contrapuntal oboe duet (Van Boer, p.
xxiii-xxiv). The last movement of this symphony is a Presto, which uses dynamic contrast to
highlight the use of counterpoint (Van Boer, p. xxiv). While it follows sonata form, as was
typical of Richter, the movement is not as short as expected (Murray, p. 306). Franz Richter’s
adherence to antiquated symphonic style makes his works into a link between conservative and
innovating composing. Although he seems out of sync with his contemporaries, he also brought
subtle innovations to the symphonic repertoire (Murray, p. 306). Richter’s use of sonata form in
the first and last movements of his symphony relates to the practice of his predecessors. His use
of counterpoint also ties his works to early classical style and baroque influence. Richter’s
Symphony in C Major holds on to older styles while acquiescing to modern practices.
Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf contributed at least 107 works to early symphonic repertoire
in the late eighteenth-century. His pieces undergo significant changes as the genre progresses.
Dittersdorf is considered part of the Viennese School, which included Joseph Haydn and W. A.
Mozart (Will, p. 483). Before 1766 Dittersdorf kept his symphonies to three movements,
following the fast, slow, fast outline. His symphonies employed gallant style, which was popular
with audiences of his time. He commonly uses Trommelbass, which builds intensity through the
use of syncopation, fanfare, and tremolo sixteenth notes. His ideas often blur into one another,
with the main themes being formed from repeated small sections. His early first movements are
short, with thinner textures that relate to those of previous generations. They can be found in
binary form and a simplistic version of sonata form. The following slow movement is typically
longer and full of expressive harmony; they are always in a minor key and keep a somber mood
Smit 16
through modulations. In contrast, his third and final movements were often light hearted and
witty. He brings about ideas of grandeur in his themes, but added syncopation and unexpected
harmonies set a more amusing tone (Will, pp. 485-486). After 1770, Dittersdorf’s symphonies
become larger in multiple facets. Most notably, his symphonies are now in four movements,
often fast, slow, minuet, fast, but with some variation. He begins to write longer symphonies
through the use of repetition and a multitude of themes. Instead of the repetitive small sections
found in his earlier melodies, he begins to use longer melodic phrases with more complex
harmonies underneath. He also experiments with the use of gallant style that interrupts or
expands upon formal structure. Dittersdorf keeps his developments proportionally short, and his
recapitulations are more indicative of modern sonata form. The second movements of this
period do not use Trommelbass, and instead have a more active bass part. The third and fourth
movements in his middle period are longer and show more complexity, but are in the forms of
minuet and rondo. Dittersdorf also begins to use an expanded orchestra in this period, adding
two oboes, and two horns. It may also be noted that he begins to place an emphasis on the
continuity of the work and how each movement is related to the next (Will, p. 487). Following
his middle period, Dittersdorf takes a slight detour and focuses his energies on Characteristic
Symphonies that are based on Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Dittersdorf completed twelve
symphonies to represent the story, and each follows a four-movement form. These symphonies
further his growth in sonata form and harmonic interest, but place most of their focus on the
importance of programmatic elements (Will, pp. 487-493). His last period mimics many of the
changes found in the Metamorphoses symphonies. They are longer and have four movements,
but also allow for freedom within their structure. In some cases Dittersdorf splits completely
Smit 17
from traditional sonata form. Additionally, these symphonies contain more chromaticism, and
keys related by thirds (Will, p. 494).
One of the first works from Dittersdorf’s last period is the Symphony in C major,
Thematic Index C14. This symphony is in four movements, which had become the standard by
the late eighteenth century. This symphony uses a much larger orchestra than what has been
seen previously. Dittersdorf writes for two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two
horns, strings, and timpani. Larger orchestras were becoming increasingly common in this time,
and technological advancements allowed for expanded instrumentation. The first movement is
in sonata form, but begins with a slow introduction. These were common, and were used
extensively by Dittersdorf’s contemporaries. This particular introduction is marked maestoso
and continues for thirty-three measures. The introduction is not particularly noteworthy, as it
lacks a strong melody (Badura-Skoda, p.xxxiv). It was relatively common for Dittersdorf to
begin his symphonies with a section that had little structural or thematic weight (Will, p. 495).
The exposition begins with a lyrical theme that is contrasted by a tutti section. The use of winds
is restricted mostly to the tutti sections; the use of winds is mostly for contrast and textural
change. Unlike Richter, whose counterpoint allowed for independent wind lines. The secondary
theme of this movement is in the dominant as expected, but is relatively short lived and gives
way to a tertiary theme in Eb Major, referred to as an epilogue theme. The presence of a definite
secondary theme makes this sonata form movement’s structure apparent. There is a fully formed
second key along with a heavily contrasted secondary theme, regardless of its short length,
pointing to the growth of the form (Froggatt, p. 231). The exposition ends in G major, and the
following development is in E major (Badura-Skoda, p. xxxiv). Through these key progressions
it is obvious that Dittersdorf is expanding his modulatory techniques to include third related keys
Smit 18
and mediant progression. This advanced use of keys highlights the innovations taking place in
the late eighteenth century symphony and builds upon the key usage of Richter. The
development continues with the epilogue theme in the new key of E major. As is common
throughout Dittersdorf’s career, the development section is short, only twenty-five measures in
this particular piece. The recapitulation follows as expected, with the primary theme in the tonic
key. However, it shifts the transitional theme into D minor and omits the tertiary theme.
Surprisingly the primary theme is stated in another mediant key, A major. After transitioning
back into the tonic key, the coda reprises the missing tertiary theme (Badura-Skoda, p. xxxiv).
The repositioning of thematic material in the recapitulation is found in sonata forms of the next
century and shows flexibility within sonata form that has not been seen before. While there is
leniency within the structure, the presence of sonata form is unmistakable.
The following Andantino is in F major. Unlike the first movement of this symphony and
many of the other second movements of this period, the Andantino is presented with minimal
harmonic change (Will, p. 496). It is in rondo form, and has an expressive melody that BaduraSkoda describes as “nearly a Lied” (p. xxxv). In this movement Dittersdorf thins the texture by
removing the clarinets and timpani, and reserving the winds until the second section of the
rondo. In concurrence with the four-movement progression, the third movement is a minuet.
Dittersdorf employs the winds for textural variation in this minuet, with gradual building and
thinning throughout. Notably, he uses the trumpets and timpani to create a booming ostinato that
allows for chromaticism and harmonic change (Badura-Skora, p. xxxv) As is remarked by Will,
Dittersdorf’s minuets often contain sudden modulation, which is in this case connected through a
repetitive element, the ostinato (p. 496). Dittersdorf’s final movements favor a rondo or
sectional form, and the Finale is no different (Will, p. 496). The Finale is in a variation rondo
Smit 19
form, which allows Dittersdorf to break away from the restrictive form of a rondo. Haydn, who
influenced many of Dittersdorf’s works, also commonly uses this form. The theme of this
movement is also faintly Haydn inspired and opens regally in C major. Unlike what would be
expected of a simple rondo, the first section of this movement does not leave the tonic key, it
only progresses through a short tonicization of the dominant chord. Dittersdorf treats his
ritornellos as developmental sections and brings back his scherzante themes in varied forms
throughout the movement. The winds are used for textural effect and dynamic contrast (BaduraSkora, p. xxxv). The expanded use of winds in Dittersdorf’s symphony is a precursor to the
extensive role they would eventually play in later symphonies. Additionally, his use of varied
forms and a singular sonata form movement foretell later symphonic trends.
While each composer presents their own stylistic characteristics, each symphony of the
time period examined has ties to the others. The symphonic genre developed substantially in this
time period, and with it the sonata-allegro form. The sonata-allegro form converts from a
harmonic structure with expanded binary thematic material into a fully realized three-part form.
The presence of a secondary theme is vital to the progression of the form, and can be marked by
the quality of the preceding medial caesura. Each symphony examined uses a different
combination of movement length, number, and form to create a unique step in the path to a
unified genre. Small ideas are carried through the century, such as the use of elision,
modulation, and counterpoint. The general trend for the century can be summed up as a gradual
growth; this is found in orchestration, movement length, and harmonic exploration. Georg
Matthias Monn begins the journey with a symphony that straddles the baroque and classical
styles; it remains representative of its time through the use of typical orchestration and length
while employing contrapuntal techniques throughout. In Milan, Antonio Brioschi focuses on
Smit 20
furthering the sonata form of his symphonies, while in Mannheim Franz Xaver Richter balances
between a fondness for old styles and a push for innovation. Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf leaves
convention behind and surpasses the typical sonata form while continuing the exploration of
distantly related keys. The chronology of the symphony in the eighteenth-century can be seen
clearly though the similarities and differences of these composers, with each adding innovation
to the genre that now permeates musical repertoire.
Wordcount: 5943
Smit 21
Bibliography
Badura-Skoda, Eva., “Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf,” in The Symphony 1720-1840 Series
B Volume I, edited by Barry S. Brook, xiv-xv. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1985.
Churgin, Bathia., “Antonio Brioschi,” in The Symphony 1720-1840 Series A
Volume III, edited by Barry S. Brook, xiv-xv. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1985.
Churgin, Bathia, “The Symphony in Italy,” in The Symphonic Repertoire
Volume I: The Eighteenth-Century Symphony, edited by A. Peter Brown, 103-107.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.
Froggatt, Arthur T., “The Second Subject in Sonata Form.” The Musical Times 68/1009
(1927): 230-232.
Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. “The Medial Caesura and Its Role in the
Eighteenth-Century Sonata Exposition.” Music Theory Spectrum 19/2 (1997): 115-154.
Mandel-Yehuda, Sarah, “Antonio Brioschi,” in The Symphonic Repertoire
Volume I: The Eighteenth-Century Symphony, edited by A. Peter Brown, 139-143.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.
Mandel-Yehuda, Sarah. “The Symphonies of Antonio Brioschi: Aspects of Sonata
Form,” Min-ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online 1 (Summer, 1999) Accessed
October 9, 2015. http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/ims/Min-ad/vol_1/brioschi.htm.
Murray, Sterling E., “The Symphony in South Germany,” in The Symphonic Repertoire
Volume I: The Eighteenth-Century Symphony, edited by A. Peter Brown, 303-306.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.
Rudolf, Kenneth Emanuel., “Georg Matthias Monn,” in The Symphony 1720-1840 Series
Smit 22
B Volume I, edited by Barry S. Brook, lxxx-lxxxi. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,
1985.
Rudolf, Kenneth Emanuel. “The Symphonies of Georg Mathias Monn (1717-1750).”
PhD diss., University of Washington, 1982.
Van Boer Jr., Bertil H., “Franz Xaver Richter,” in The Symphony 1720-1840 Series C
Volume XIV, edited by Barry S. Brook, xv-xxiv. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,
1985.
Will, Richard., “Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf,” in The Symphonic Repertoire
Volume I: The Eighteenth-Century Symphony, edited by A. Peter Brown, 483-496.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.
Wolf, Eugene K., “Mannheim Style,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford
University Press, accessed November 20, 2015.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/17661.