A few years ago, while searching for a Symphony of the classical era to complete a concert programme, I discovered Haydn’s Symphony no. 39.
I immediately realized that it was an extremely idiosyncratic symphony, while being, at the same time, typical for that taste for minor keys and for strong contrasts which is often indicated by the label of “Sturm und Drang”: a brief period in which the quantity of minor-key symphonies increased dramatically. I started to research the topic, and soon a kind of a family tree started to emerge: from Haydn’s Symphony no. 39 originate some symphonies by Vanhal (in particular the one recorded here), and, from these, Mozart’s Symphony no. 25 derives in turn. I began to think of recording a CD reconstructing this genealogy: a direct derivation, from a symphony to another, as rarely happened in the history of the Symphony. At the same time, reading a book by Matthew Riley, The Viennese Minor-Key Symphony in the Age of Haydn and Mozart, broadened my knowledge on the topic and on its context.
Haydn wrote the G-minor Symphony no. 39 in 1765. It features many traits which enabled it to serve as a model: stark dynamic contrasts, sudden silences, the use of figurations recalling the operatic world of tempest and furore (in some copies, this symphony bears the title of La tempesta di mare, “storm at sea”), repeated notes and tremolos, rhythmic energy, but also the presence of a contrapuntal “old style”, which had never truly gone out of fashion in Vienna and in the Habsburg Empire. Minor keys mark three out of its four movements (the slow movement is in a major key), and they rule within the individual movements, which remain in the minor key until the very last chord. In the reprise of the first and fourth movement, in fact, all elements are restated in the minor key, including those that had been first presented, in the exposition, in a major key. This faithfulness to the minor key is one of the features which would go out of fashion first, even in Haydn’s own later works, in favour of itineraries leading the symphonies to a close in the major key. Another peculiarity of this work is the use of four instead of two French horns (two in B-flat and two in G: this allows to partially overcome the limitations of the contemporaneous instruments and to increase their presence). Paradoxically, Haydn would not follow the path he had opened himself: later, he composed a series of minor-key symphonies with more experimental traits (among which the Farewell Symphony).
In Vienna, instead, Haydn’s Symphony no. 39 became a model, whose spread was increased through Vanhal’s numerous symphonies. In particular, his Symphony g1 clearly shows its derivation from Haydn, thanks to the key of G-minor and the presence of four French horns, along with all the features listed above, but also to more specifically similar details. Vanhal, however, had a style of his own and a clear awareness of compositional balance: thus he managed to remain original and to write a highly interesting symphony. Its Menuet is undoubtedly one of the most idiosyncratic in the entire classical era. In the slow movement (which, as in Haydn’s model, represents an aside among the other movements), Vanhal chooses to entrust a solo part to the first violin and first viola; in his other G-minor symphony, Vanhal adopted the same idea and wrote a solo for the first oboe. If the first and fourth movement feature the operatic topos of the storm, here Vanhal brings even the slow movement on stage, creating a great operatic scene in which the violin and viola become two characters singing a duet.
Vanhal’s symphony is performed here in the Kremsmünster abbey version. The critical edition presently available and universally adopted collates two of the surviving manuscript copies; when they diverge from each other, one of the two sources is favoured over the other on a case-by-case basis. This blending of two sources, however, has a paradoxical result: modern performances and recordings showcase a hybrid version, while, at Vanhal’s time, the symphony had never been performed in that form. I decided, therefore, to opt for a single manuscript, and I chose the Kremsmünster version, which I deem to be highly interesting and internally consistent.
Mozart’s Symphony no. 25 is the first he wrote in a minor key (it would be followed only by the Symphony no. 40), and it marks a pronounced qualitative change in his opus. Mozart wrote it in Salzburg in October 1773, shortly after returning from a two-months stay in Vienna with his father, Leopold. In Vienna he discovered Haydn’s new model, from which he evidently took inspiration under all aspects: the key of G minor, the use of four French horns, and the presence of all the traits listed above. This explains his choice to write this otherwise enigmatic masterpiece: the young Mozart wanted to challenge himself in a codified genre. His symphony is closer to Vanhal than to Haydn. It would be fascinating to be able to reconstruct in detail what Mozart did during those two months in Vienna: did he meet Vanhal? What did he listen to, what scores did he read? The numerous letters written by Leopold to his wife during that stay singularly lack all references to the Viennese musical life.
Certainly, however, the musical gestures adopted by Mozart, and which are sometimes even exaggerated in comparison with the average style of the time, allude to Vanhal. This happens, for example, at the beginning: unison forte with repeated and syncopated notes. Whereas the other two symphonies in this CD begin in piano, other symphonies by Vanhal begin in a similarly abrupt fashion. In the slow movement, Mozart employs the two bassoons in a concertante style, thus following Vanhal’s idea of a distinguishing soloistic and timbral trait, contrasting with the other movements of the symphonies. The use of winds features throughout the symphony, most prominently in the first oboe’s solo sections in the first movement and in the Menuet’s Trio, played by the winds alone.
The four French horns are employed in a highly refined compositional style in this symphony, and Mozart succeeds in overcoming the limitations of the instruments of the era: indeed, in some themes, the four instruments (two horns in B-flat and two in G) play alternatively, even note by note, depending on which pair is capable of playing a certain note. In other words, Mozart’s writing considers the sum of the notes playable on the four instruments as a unique whole, and, thus, the horns’ melodic potential is dramatically increased.
This encouraged me to modify the orchestra’s disposition: in Haydn’s and Vanhal’s Symphonies the two pairs of horns alternate with and respond to each other, and thus they are placed at the two sides of the orchestra, while, in Mozart’s Symphony, they are close to each other, since Mozart frequently uses them, so to say, as a single repository of notes and sound.
A final note on the repeats: in these symphonies, as was customary at the time, the first movement and the Finale have repeat marks not only in the first part, but also in the second. In this recording, these repeat marks are respected; we also played the Menuets’ repeats after the Trios. These repeats, frequently omitted in concert performance and in recordings, are part of the listening itinerary imagined by the composer; they are conceived both as an opportunity for making different aspects of the writing emerge, and as elements of a balance and a ritual concept different from the directionality of later Symphonies – such as those by Beethoven.
Notes by Alessandro Maria Carnelli
[Translation by Chiara Bertoglio]