EARLY SYMPHONIES
(F-09)
1. Preparation – Symphonies vs. Scheibe – Only
time to cover a couple of the assigned symphonies
Handel
– Symphony in Saul (1738)
Relation
to vocal music
Theater
(not church or chamber)
Unusual
for Handel because most of his introductions are French overtures – that’s why
he calls this a “symphony”
Instruments
– strings + oboes – role of organ
movements
– four – I left off last in xerox – character of movements: dotted but allegro;
aria w/o voice; concerto; dance
concertante
– almost every movement
1st
movement form – concerto-like – HANDOUT
Deviates
in almost every respect from Scheibe description
(skipped)
C.P.E. Bach – Sinfonia III in C (Wq 182/3)
Who
was CPE Bach – Composed 1773 (?) for Baron van Swieten – (a little late for
Scheibe)
Relation
to vocal music (none)
Chamber
– performance context unknown
instruments
– 4-part strings
movements
– F-S-F – linked by harmony – unusual character – 2nd mvt rhetoric
1st
mvt form – concerto-like – HANDOUT
Sammartini
– Sinfonia in F J-C 36 (1740s)
Who
was Sammartini – later – date c. 1740
Chamber
– concert performances
instruments
– 4-part strings (but violas double a lot)
movements
– F-S-F – typical charaacter – all are binary
1st mvt form – HANDOUT – close to
Scheibe description – compromise between binary and ritornello – 2 themes
(textures)
Questions
or comments about Graun, Montezuma; JC Bach 3/1; Richter (next week?)
We
need to remember that in Scheibe’s day (c.1740) there was no model for what a
symphony ought to be – Handel didn’t think he ought to imitate this or that
piece called “symphony” – Sammartini didn’t think he ought to imitate Handel
(he probably never heard Handel)
In
this context it’s impressive that Scheibe called it right – that is, he
recognized that F-S-F was going to be the prevailing movement scheme and
that I-V:||V-I would be the
predominant 1st mvt form (not ritornello)
2. Giovanni Battista Sammartini life (c.1700-1775)
Sammartini was first composer principally associated with symphony
composition - Previous composers wrote symphonies as introductions -
Sammartini's symphonies were influential (HOW do we know this? - Ms. and print
distribution) – Sammartini made his living as an organist and church music
director – Symphonies were supplementary (but obviously very important)
Northern Italy under Austrian administration from 1706 – Run by governor
appointed by Emperor – Governor maintained a court in Milan – Sponsored opera
and outdoor concerts 3 times per week (picture in J & C - period is late
40s, early 50s) - Also indoor concerts on Fridays instead of opera - Sammartini
provided orchestras and music for these concerts - Also for run-outs in other
Northern Italian cities - Also concerts by amateur instrumentalists, especially
the Accademia Filarmonica (Role of amateurs in 18th-century symphony . . .)
“Sammartini’s orchestra” (S & Z, 168) – Probably a pick-up group
from opera orchestra (on Governor’s payroll) plus church musicians – Accademia
Filarmonica was a different (amateur) orchestra – professional participation in
amateur ensembles (leader, winds) – Concert symphonies for these ensembles by
Sammartini, Giulini, Chiesa, Brioschi, Lampugnani
Features of Sammartini’s symphonies change over his career
1730s – strings only, sometimes 3-part, short movements, short phrases,
1740s-50s – sometimes winds, contrasting textures in 1st mvt,
longer phrases
1760s-70s – influence from Galuppi, Jommelli, Haydn et al – diversified
orchestrations, S-A organization in mvts 1 and 3 – more “classical”
3. Preparation
– Origins myths
What
were origins/predecessors of symphony as a genre? – i.e. where did style of
Prep 1 symphonies come from – unstated question: where did Haydn-Mozart style
come from?
Three
myths
Lazarevich – Neapolitan opera
sinfonia (standard)
Wolf – “ripieno concerto”
Larsen
– “partita”
Evidence
Find
proposed “progenitor” works – e.g. overture by Sarro, concerto by Vivaldi,
partita by Wagenseil
Find
early symphonies – e.g. Sammartini
Compare
stylistic traits of one to the other – especially formal organization,
textures, instrumentation, movement schemes
Similarities
mean that A is “origin” for B
Problems
with this approach
No
way to prove connections – “maybe” is best you can say – you could disprove by
showing that composer X didn’t know works Y and Z
Nature
of connections undefined – if ripieno concerto is the “origin,” what does that
say about concertos and symphonies?
Maybe not much
Problem
is that early symphony was not defined as a genre – by c. 1750 genre
expectations become established, and we can say that composer Y modeled his
symphony on composer X
4. (if time) Neapolitan
opera overture (sinfonia)
This is traditional line - 18th-century writers already saw this as the
source of symphony genre (e.g. Scheibe, Schulze)
Begin to turn up around 1700 - Previous overtures (Rome, Venice, Paris)
were in French overture style, canzona style, or sonata style
Similarities: name (sometimes), F-S-F movement structure,
[instrumentation]
Problem – Organization of 1st movements - Italian overtures use
few or no sonata-like procedures
5. (if time) Ripieno
concerto
Characteristics of genre:
strings only
- 4-part scoring
no
soloist
mostly
homophonic, non-fugal
F-S-F
movement scheme
ritornello
structure (tri- vs. bi-ritornello)
Why
does Wolf prefer as predecessor? – social context, historical continuity in
northern Italy, ritornello structure in many early symphonies
Was
there really any such genre?
Title used only by Vivaldi – and
only rarely
Which works does W. claim for genre? What are their titles?
What about pieces for strings without soloists that
do not have remaining characteristics?
6. (if time)
Partita
J. P. Larsen advocated this (though not to exclusion of others)
South German (Austrian) specialty – entertainment music for dinner or a
serenade
characteristics of genre:
more than 4 movements
1 on a part
no connection with vocal music
diverse forms – binary, dance, S-A, aria
– not usually ritornello
lots of concertante
What is attraction? – explains addition of minuet, diversity of
movements, fugues