I. 18th century

10. The Habsburg monarchy: Vienna, Salzburg.

The traditional position of Vienna as a crossroads in European civilization stimulated a host of special achievements. In the 18th century the web of cultural influence spread unusually wide, owing to the vast reach of the Habsburg Monarchy, and the resulting confluence of talent brought an incomparable richness of ideas and creative activity to bear on the evolution of the symphony. Mannheim and Paris may have exceeded Vienna in brilliance of musical performance, but the imperial capital drew together an unprecedented number of musician-composers, attracted by an unsurpassed degree of patronage: in addition to the Habsburg court, literally hundreds of noble families supported musical establishments, generally dividing their time between Vienna and their ancestral estates in Austria, the Czech lands, Hungary and farther afield. The aristocracy also provided the principal audience for public concerts in Vienna, which grew ever more important during the second half of the century. In such a climate of opportunity every talent could prosper, every musical genre flourish.

The early Viennese symphony reveals the potent influence of three genres identified strongly with the Austrian Baroque. The first of these is opera and such related types as the serenata. Viennese opera overtures in the period 1700–40 cover a vast range of types, including French overtures of various kinds, polychoral works with as many as eight trumpets, concerti grossi, one- and two-movement overtures, and standard three-movement Italian types. It is the latter that furnished, together with the northern Italian symphony, the principal model for the concert symphony in Vienna. While the majority of such overtures have first movements that use ritornello procedures, without repeat signs, a substantial minority have binary first movements, providing a near-perfect parallel with the early Viennese concert symphony; a well-known example is Francesco Conti’s overture to Pallade trionfante of 1722, one of his ten overtures with binary opening movements. During the 1740s and 50s this type of overture became especially frequent, for example in the works of Wagenseil (see below); this tended to encourage their transfer from opera house to concert. In a more general sense as well, the influence of Italian opera persisted in Vienna throughout the 18th century. The characteristic Viennese feeling for recapitulation surely owes something to the long exposure to operatic ritornello and da capo. Equally important, the operatic aria had made important advances in the development of Classical melodic and phrase structure. And finally, many Viennese symphonies after c1760 represent either wholly or in part an adaptation of opera buffa style to a work for orchestra; one is reminded of the close connections between Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro and the Prague Symphony k504, to give only one example.

Two other genres important to the early Viennese symphony were the church sonata and the parthia or partita and related types (see Larsen, 1994). The former, often played with doubled parts, was the one of the sources (together with the French overture) for the many fugal movements in Austrian symphonies, as well as of four-movement cycles beginning with an Adagio or Largo; while the latter, which mixed abstract and dance movements and could be soloistic or orchestral, provided a model for the insertion of dance movements within the normal overture cycle, leading eventually to the four-movement symphony.

Interestingly, the 25 symphonies a 4 of one of the earliest Viennese composers of symphonies, the court organist W.R. Birck or Pirck (1718–63), follow precisely the typology just outlined: they consist of diminutive three-movement symphonies (in all but one case with binary first movements), church-sonata types with fugal second movements, and three early examples of the standard four-movement cycle with minuet and trio. More uniform are the many symphonies of Ignaz Holzbauer written before his departure from Vienna in 1750 (see above under Mannheim, §9) and those of his slightly younger contemporaries M.G. Monn, G.C. Wagenseil and J.P. Ziegler. As already pointed out in the discussion of the four-movement symphony (see above, §5), a work by Monn (1717–50) including a minuet and dated 1740 has been treated as a turning-point by scholars supporting Austrian primacy. But the score, an autograph, does not in fact label the work a symphony (it is so designated only in a notation by Aloys Fuchs, who owned the manuscript), and the extensive wind solos, the placement of all the movements in one key and the inclusion of a dance movement relate the work more closely to the Austrian parthia or serenade tradition than to the remainder of Monn’s symphonies, all of which are in three movements. While generally conservative, Monn’s symphonies show a sensitivity to line and a notable feeling for harmony, both in his choice of unusual tonalities and his expressive use of dissonance. Sonata forms predominate in the first movements, sometimes with clear, moderately lyrical secondary themes in the dominant minor that are then recapitulated in the tonic minor (a characteristic Viennese trait from the 1740s to the early 1760s, borrowed from the Italian opera overture); but numerous variants occur as well, such as ritornello or binary-sonata forms.

Wagenseil (1715–77), a prolific composer more in touch with the full spectrum of Viennese musical life, began his career in the mid-1740s as a composer of Italian operas for the Viennese court. Their overtures and, later, Wagenseil’s independent concert symphonies were published both in France and England. With one or two possible exceptions, all are in three movements, though still small in dimension, mostly with a fast 3/8 or ‘Tempo di Menuet’ finale. Wagenseil’s first movements, though still small in dimension, are typically Viennese in their firm grasp of the principle of recapitulation. Rhythmic vigour and a strong sense of continuity give an immediate appeal to many of his symphonies, but he rarely escaped the emphases characteristic of works of the period: his snap rhythms, frequent syncopations, sweeping upbeats and quick turns enliven the individual beat, but the grouping of beats into larger units – sub-phrases and phrases – lacks profile and may involve merely a chain of repeated beats without differentiation. This combination of small-scale, repetitious motivic material and strong rhythmic continuity tends to work against thematic contrast, and many of Wagenseil’s expositions, though clear in tonal-textural outlines, lack a correspondingly clear thematic organisation.

The second generation of Viennese symphonists begins with Karl von d’Ordonez (1734–86), who composed more than 70 symphonies, a substantial majority (about 75%) in three movements. Four of the latter open with a slow introduction connected to a following Allegro; these may be related to a four-movement symphony of his in the Göttweig monastery (A-GÖ), dated 1756, which begins with a slow movement (ed. in Brown, 1979). The second movement of the 1756 symphony (marked Allegro molto), like several of the first movements from Ordonez’s early period, could be considered formally either a ritornello-influenced variant of sonata form without repeats or, perhaps less anachronistically, a tri-ritornello structure with clearly contrasting secondary material. Otherwise, his opening movements rarely depart from standard Viennese sonata procedures, including in the earlier works the frequent placement of the secondary theme in the dominant minor. Stylistically Ordonez’s symphonies tend to rely more upon rhythmic activity than melodic suavity, and contrapuntal texture, including imitation at the outset of a work, is not uncommon. As an orchestrator, Ordonez can claim credit as one of the few symphonists of the 18th century to give a prominent solo passage to the viola (with pizzicato accompaniment), the cantabile opening theme of a slow movement from the early 1760s (Brown B♭ 6).

The slightly older composer F.L. Gassmann (1729–74) made his reputation as an opera composer in Venice and later served as Kapellmeister to the Viennese court. In Gassmann’s concert symphonies, all or most of which date from the 1760s, more of the operatic lyricism carries over than in Wagenseil, even affecting vigorous fast movements. Gassmann experimented constantly with first-movement form, using shapes ranging from binary-sonata forms to rather sophisticated thematic plans in which the transitional, secondary and closing materials are each variants of the primary theme yet at the same time preserve their characteristic functions. Also exemplifying this fluid conception of form are a number of works with recapitulations beginning in the subdominant or submediant.

In other details of style Gassmann’s most striking talent is his control of rhythmic outline, both as a means of creating a smooth rise and fall of activity in the phrase and as a way of building excitement when approaching a point of climax. His management of orchestration and texture, especially his careful deployment of partial tuttis and mixed groups with cello or even viola serving as the bass, reflects an awareness of the broad objectives of each movement. Another composer worth mentioning in the Ordonez-Gassmann generation is the violinist and ballet composer Franz Asplmayr (1728–86), who composed over 40 symphonies.

Apart from Haydn and Mozart, the highest achievements in the Viennese Classical symphony – an opinion shared, incidentally, by Charles Burney (BurneyGN, 124) – were those of a trio of prolific, gifted composers who were nearly exact contemporaries: Leopold Hofmann, Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf and J.B. Vanhal. The sources for the symphonies of Hofmann (1738–93), most of whose output falls into the 1760s, are second in number only to those of Haydn and Pleyel in European archives – a significant measure of contemporary popularity. Like Haydn during this period, Hofmann employed a wide variety of movement cycles. While about half of his approximately 50 symphonies are in normal three-movement form, at least 20 turn to the four-movement pattern that was soon to become standard in Vienna; several of the latter date from at least as early as 1759–60, making him one of the first Viennese symphonists to adopt this plan. Notable among the four-movement works are two with slow introductions, one of which is dated 1762 in the Göttweig catalogue; together with Haydn’s Symphonies nos.6–7 of 1761, these are the earliest known instances of standard four-movement symphonies with slow introductions. Other cycles found in both Hofmann and Haydn, already seen in Ordonez, include three movements with slow introduction and four movements in the slow–fast–slow–fast pattern of the church sonata.

Though only slightly younger than Gassmann and Ordonez, Hofmann matured at the right time to exploit the new internal coordination and larger phase units characteristic of the full Classical style. As a result, his sonata structures and thematic types leave an impression of both clarity and a firm sense of functional differentiation. Much of his music has a pre-Mozartian smoothness, extending even to lyrical allegro themes. In view of his convincing style and the wide distribution of his music, there is little doubt that Hofmann’s four-movement symphonies exercised a strong influence on the evolution of the symphonic form.

Dittersdorf (1739–99) was the most prolific symphonist of the second half of the century; he wrote over 120. Although one expects (and finds) many recurrent formulae, there is also much genuine invention and instinctively good structure. The large-scale movement of his line is convincing, and he was equally skilful in a brisk Allegro or a sophisticated cantabile with smoothly balanced phrases. There are many small niceties of thematic relationship and development, using techniques such as imitation (never long pursued), diminution, augmentation and recombination of motifs. On occasion, like Haydn, he could simulate (or perhaps remember) a catchy peasant tune to fit a rustic mood. Also like Haydn, Dittersdorf introduced many touches of the specialized musical humour that results from phrase extensions or truncations, displaced accents or other bar-line manoeuvres. On the other hand, there is often a lack of rhythmic variety in the lower parts, and the bar-to-bar harmony is rarely imaginative.

Possibly because of his success in dramatic music, Dittersdorf began early on to give descriptive titles to symphonies, including a seven-movement work describing the humours of mankind (before 1771) and a series based on Ovid’s Metamorphoses (c1782). Though these can be considered remote ancestors of the 19th-century programmatic symphony, they contain scarcely more actual description than the touches that gave Haydn’s Paris symphonies their nicknames – Actaeon, transformed into a stag, jumping in a 6/8 ‘tempo di caccia’, or the croaking of the farmers changed into frogs. From the musical standpoint these are among Dittersdorf’s least interesting works; more successful is a Sinfonia nazionale nel gusto di cinque nazioni (1767) with movements intended to reflect German, Italian, English, French and Turkish taste.

Dittersdorf’s contemporary, Vanhal (1739–1813), with symphonies published in London, Paris, Berlin, The Hague and Amsterdam as well as a large corpus of manuscript sources, was unusually popular in northern Europe. All his symphonies were composed in the period c1760–80. Although they are soundly constructed, with attractive, well-contrasted themes and skilful formal techniques, the real reason for their popularity may be their frequent quality of pathos, as reflected in their exceptional number of minor tonalities and their broad spectrum of expression, which ranges from melancholy introspection to fiery tragedy. Five of Vanhal’s minor-key symphonies call for four horns – as in Haydn’s Symphony no.39 and Mozart’s G minor Symphony k183, tuned a minor third apart as a means of coping with the modulation to the relative major – and another adds a fifth horn tuned a perfect 5th above the tonic. With this exception, Vanhal was not particularly experimental, and he made no particular contribution to the evolving symphonic convention. But more than Hofmann or Dittersdorf, he seems to parallel Haydn in the ability to make his music move in a tight process of continuation, with each phrase containing, as it were, the genetic code for its successor. There is also a kinship with Mozart in the italianate lyricism of his later works and in the occasional use of gentle, retrospective closing themes that interpolate a moment of quiet before the entry of the cadential trumpets.

In addition to Haydn and Mozart, the most important and prolific composers of symphonies in Vienna from c1780 to 1800, the date of Beethoven’s First Symphony, were the composer and publisher F.A. Hoffmeister (1754–1812) and the two Bohemians Paul Wranitzky (1756–1808) and Adalbert Gyrowetz (1763–1850). For the most part their works are content to represent the high Classical tradition of Mozart in well-wrought, melodically accessible works rather than to break new or controversial ground.

The prince-bishopric of Salzburg has only recently gained attention as a centre of symphony composition, both for its intrinsic importance and for its role in Mozart’s compositional development (Eisen, 1994). Among symphonists active in Salzburg, the most important during the middle decades of the century was Leopold Mozart (1719–87), who arrived in 1746 as a court violinist and became Vice-Kapellmeister in 1763. Both formally and stylistically his symphonies trace the same overall evolutionary path as those of the imperial capital. However, he had begun using a four-movement cycle on occasion by about 1750, earlier than in Vienna; his preferred sequence of movements placed the minuet and trio in second rather than third place, a practice found in most of Haydn’s quartets from op.9 through op.33 and in five of his symphonies. Leopold’s symphonies are also up-to-date in their use of clearly differentiated secondary themes; like the Viennese, during the same period, he often places them in the dominant minor, recapitulating them in the tonic minor.

Leopold Mozart evidently wrote few if any symphonies after his promotion in 1763, which was also the date at which Joseph Haydn’s younger brother Michael (1737–1806) arrived in Salzburg as Konzertmeister and court composer. Trained in Vienna, where he may have written a few of his earliest symphonies, his style belongs more to that school than elsewhere. Yet as with Leopold Mozart, there are certain qualities that set him apart. In the first place, in many of his works there is an almost Baroque rhythmic continuity with many similar note-values – bar after bar of quavers, for example; in similarly continuous and undifferentiated passages, his brother Joseph would typically find ways of punctuating and regulating the flow by harmonic or textural means. Another somewhat old-fashioned characteristic in Michael’s music is both welcome and more successful in the Classical context: the frequent use of contrapuntal textures and devices, which lend unusual interest to many of his movements. Even his latest symphonies, from 1788–9, contain several fugal finales (as the last movement of three). Michael’s music is also impressive for the richness of its harmony, which features not only unusual modulations and the dramatic placement of remote chords, but also sinuously chromatic lines reminiscent of passages in Mozart; it is difficult to know who influenced whom.

Any discussion of the symphony in Austria should also refer to the active role of the great Austrian monasteries such as Göttweig, Melk, Kremsmünster and Lambach in fostering both the performance and composition of symphonies (see Freeman and Meckna, 1982), a role magnificently illustrated by the huge collections of instrumental music extant at each. Of numerous monks who composed symphonies, the most important was probably Amandus Ivanschiz (fl 1755–70), whose 20-odd symphonies from approximately the 1760s generally reflect contemporaneous Viennese trends, including clear sonata forms (in this case with or without repeats) and the frequent use of four movements.