Author: Cdh
Date: 2024-04-23 07:09
Thanks Liquorice & brycon for your generous words.
It was bold to suggest that the NMA is incorrect in bar 61 of the Rondo, but there are three ways in which that reconstruction does not conform to Mozart's style:
1. Over a single harmony Mozart never changes from an arpeggio to a scale without also changing direction.
2. The counterpoint with the bass is not good. Among other defects the scale produces parallel 7ths with the bass. Brycon has instinctively identified the problem with the 2nd last note, written e, which leads to the third problem:
3. Mozart's use of the 4/2/6 chord. It is easy to discover all the melodic types it can accompany:
The 2nd and 4th can be directly preceded with an appoggiatura (rising or falling) or any other chord tone. Decorating the 6th of the chord (usually the the 2nd degree of the scale) with an approach from the note above is not found. But it can be preceded by any other chord tone. The resolutions also follow specific patterns, and generally ascend to create contrary motion with the bass. Brycon mentioned the upward resolution of the 4th (usually scale degrees 7-1), which is by far the most common form.
Fortunately, from the voice leading of the string parts it is clear that the last note of bar 61 was a low D. As the 6 in a 2/4/6 chord, it can only be preceded by another chord tone, the closest of which are F and B. These two "2nd last notes" give rise to my two reconstructions. The new one, using low B, is the more convincing one because it is simpler, and offers an easy explanation as to why Stadler had to change it. He was one of those players brycon mentions who didn’t look at the bass
So, it seems there are no examples of Mozart writing a rapid scale to or from low C. KV 581, Allegro, bar 41, anyone?
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
