MANNHEIM
(F-09)
1. Mannheim Background (Wolf)
"Golden age" - 1742-1778 - Ended by move of Court to Munich
Famous orchestra - Reports of
visitors like Burney and Mozart - Orchestra concerts in Rittersaal - Note that
opera and church music were also important venues for Mannheim orchestra
Grandeur and expense of musical
establishment – Typical of German court milieu – compare Esterhaz, Salzburg –
Contrast more public milieu of Paris and London
HANDOUT - Read account of concert
from Wolf in Basler Jahrbuch
2. Riemann and the "Mannheim School"
(Larsen article)
Mannheim as “origins myth” for 2nd
Vienna school – Riemann and early 20th century publications in DTB
Motive - provide a (German)
background for Viennese classical school - Debate with Guido Adler (Viennese) –
Adler fought back by publishing Austrian symphonies in DTÖ
Purported innovations (transmitted
to Haydn and Mozart) - Listed in Larsen:
4-movement symphony - assumes that
minuet is added to 3-movement opera overture
2nd theme - contrasting scoring and
character - Essential to 19th-century view of symphony and S/A form as drama
"Mannerisms" (Riemann:
"Manieren") = sighs, Bebung, "rocket," cresecendo – These
represent a distinctive “orchestral” style of string writing – Not present in
e.g. solo sonatas, concertos
Contrapuntal combination of themes –
“thematic work" – “subjective expression of individual parts” – 2nd
is more characteristic
All these are missing in Sammartini
- except for 2nd theme in later symphonies – all are very characteristic of
Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven
3. Critique of Riemann – Preparation (Larsen)
Mannheim wasn't source for Vienna
Mannerisms came from opera buffa
style - Haydn and Mozart knew this independently
Early Haydn symphonies had minuets -
They were 5-movement divertimenti - H settled into 4-movement structure
independently from Mannheim
Haydn doesn't use a second subject
consistently - Mozart uses several subjects – therefore “2nd theme”
isn’t essential to classical style
Larsen doesn’t discuss “thematic
work”
[We should be careful not to debunk Mannheim
too much - Even if Mannheim influence wasn’t decisive for Haydn and Mozart, it
was decisive for much of Europe – These were the most published and most
performed symphonies before Haydn]
4. Mannheim names and dates (HANDOUT BELOW)
Stamitz Biography (1717-1757)
Bohemian - violin virtuoso
To Mannheim c. 1740 - 1st record of
presence in 1743 - Already leader of orchestra as first violinist - (concert in
Frankfurt, 1742)
To Paris 1754-55 - His music was already
known in Paris - Performed as violin soloist and led LaPouplinière orchestra -
Influence on French symphony and Paris scene – Publication of his symphonies by
Paris publishers – Beginning of a big fad for German symphonies in Paris
Cannabich bio (1731-1798)
Music was family trade - father:
flutist; son: violinist; daughters: singer and pianist - CC was apprenticed and
played in Mannheim orchestra from age 12 on
Support by Prince - travel to Italy
(1752), Stuttgart (1754), Paris (1764, 1766, 1772) - Lifetime
employment – Move to Munich in 1778
Reputation was specifically as a
concertmaster, orchestra leader, then as composer
Close connections with the Mozarts – Wolfgang gave keyboard
lessons to Rose Cannabich
Mozart letter (Prep)
Mozart and mother on way to Paris in
1778 – Dropped by Mannheim to look for a job, hung around to flirt with Aloysia
Weber
Compositions for Mannheim musicians:
Arias, oboe quartet; piano sonata;
Tone of letter: access to Elector;
defense of maturity; scorn for inferior musicians
Report on orchestra and chorus
Report on Cannabich symphonies
5. Stamitz D-major symphony D-3 - Prep
Composed c.1755
4 movements – 1st and
last are S-A (kind of) – 3rd is minuet, 2nd is A-B-A
(I-V-I)
STUDENT PREP – What “Mannheim” characteristics
did you hear?
4 movements
Minuet
Crescendo used thematically
Mini-tirade (m.14)
Vögelchen (m.38 ff)
2nd theme: lyrical, in
dominant (m.37)
Other striking features – not listed
as “Mannheim mannerisms” but very influential in symphony style:
wind organ
long plateaus,
pedals,
petite basse,
tremolo,
pianissimo and subito piano
unision,
wind soloists (2nd mvt, 3rd
mvt trio)
PLAY Mvt 1 – listen for
characteristics
1st movement form –
unexpected but typical Mannheim – HANDOUT
1
5 13 25
29 37 ||
53 65 77
82 91 103
111 124
To T1
T2 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T2 T3 T1‘ T4 T1 T2 To
I
I I “trans” V V
V I
“dev” V I
I I I
This is sometimes called “recap with
2nd theme,” but there’s a simpler view – The themes are deployed
twice through in order first from I to V, then from V to I – This is precisely
what Scheibe recommends - Note that T3 serves for harmonic movement in both
cases (per ripieno concerto) – Note also that there’s no double bar – also note
tonic in m.65
The larger point is that key and
theme are carefully managed at the level of the entire movement to obtain a
large-scale effect – This is very different from Vivaldi and Sammartini, where
effects are much more local
6.
Cannabich symphony #47 in G – PLAY
Late Mannheim period (1770s)
STUDENT PREP – What “Mannheim”
mannerisms did you hear?
Tremolo (60)
Rocket (68)
Crescendo (66) – used very different
from Stamitz
Wind concertante
DIFFERENCES from
Stamitz?
3 movements (Italian)
¾ meter in 1st movement
Longer phrases, more lyrical
minor key for color and contrast (52,
143) – (comp. Sammartini)
more soloistic use of winds
lyrical “2nd theme” material –
but twice, m. 47, m. 77
Formal plan of 1st mvt –
again unexpected – HANDOUT – PLAY
1 24 38
46 52 76
84 103 137 145
151 176
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T3 T4 T5
I
V V V v V
I “dev” I I I I
This is sometimes called a
sonata-allegro “without development” – But really the “development” just comes
in an unexpected place – This structure is common in JC Bach – Note that the
themes come in the same order in the second half as in Stamitz D-3 – except T2
is omitted – Hard to understand why – Note that last movement is the
expected S-A structure with a development and a recap (but without double bar)
Larger point (again) is that key and
theme are both very salient and both very carefully managed
Expanded approach to 1st
movement structures – All have
Move to dominant in 1st half (coordinated with
theme)
Return to tonic in 2nd half (coordinated with
theme)
Feeling of double bar in middle
Feeling of development
Contrasting, lyrical theme
More?
But how these elements are deployed
can vary a great deal – It seems wrong to me to consider all these patterns as pointing toward
S-A structure or (worse) as deviations from S-A – It would be nice to hear them
on their own terms
7. (if time) – Mannheim
influence
As above, don’t debunk too much –
Looking through symphonies published 1755-1775 many are modeled on Stamitz –
Mannheim was model for concert symphony – Supplanted by model of Haydn
symphonies
Traits we hear
Formal organization – 2 rotations
Orchestral mannerisms
Scoring techniques (esp. winds)
Effects on large scale – symphony is
no longer overture or chamber music
E.g. Thomas Erskine – Early of Kelly
(1732-1781)
Family was Scottish lords, to
Mannheim 1752-56
Later active in Edinburgh
PLAY Periodical Overture No. 17 in E
flat (pub. 1767) – Listen for Mannheim traits
MANNHEIM
NAMES AND DATES
Elector
Carl Theodore
began
reign at age 18 in 1742
moved
to Munich (with orchestra) in 1778
Johann
Stamitz (1717-1757)
violinst
Bohemian
Mannheim period
1741-1757
(Paris (1754-55)
Ignaz
Holzbauer (1711-1783)
Keyboardist
Viennese - in Vienna
until 1750
Mannheim: 1753-1783
Kapellmeister and court
composer
Anton Filtz
(1733-1760)
cellist
in
Mannheim orchestra 1754-1760
Christian
Cannabich (1731-1798)
violinist
concertmaster
after Stamitz
Mannheim 1744-1778,
Munich 1778-1798
F. X.
Richter (1709-1789)
bass
singer
Mannheim: c. 1747-c.1769
pre-Stamitz
style symphonies
Franz Beck
(1734-1809)
violinist
Mannheim: 1740s
moved
to France c. 1759 – active in Bordeaux
Carl
Stamitz (1745-1801)
violinist
son
of Johann S.
Mannheim orchestra:
1762-1770
Paris 1770-1777
Munich 1778-