Johann Stamitz and The Symphon

N A T IO N A L LIB R A R Y BIBLIOTHEiQUE NATIONALE
OTTAW A O TTA W A
CA N A D A
Murray Ross Charters

NAME OF AUTHOR
Johann Stamitz and the Symphony
TITLE OF THESIS
of Western Ontario
UNIVERSITY
MA
DEGREE FOR WHICH THESIS WAS PRESENTED .............
1972
YEAR THIS DEGREE GRANTED............ . . . ....................
Permission is hereby granted to THE NATIONAL LIBRARY
OF CANADA to microfilm this thesis and to lend or sell copies
of the film.
The author reserves other publication rights, and
neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be
printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s
written permission.
(Signed).
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
i
___
DATED. /.?.y . ... 19 7 * .
NL-91 (10-68)
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. F urther reproduction prohibited w itho ut perm ission.
JOHANN STAMITZ AND THE SYMPHONY
by
Murray Ross Charters
Faculty of Music
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Faculty of Graduate Studies
The University of Western Ontario
London, Canada
.April 1972
@ Murray Ross Charters 1972
Supervisory Thesis Examiners
Approved for the Faculty of

Graduate Studies
hairman of Examinina Board
Date: April 10, 1972
ii
ABSTRACT
The symphonies of Johann Stamitz are generally regarded as
significant stepping-stones on the road of the Predassical symphony
from the overture to the concert symphony. Hugo Riemann considered
the form of these works to he so close to the ideals of the Classical
era, that he called Stamitz the forefather of Haydn. Recently, this
view has been attacked on the basis of both analysis of the music and
a re-examination of the history of the period. Despite this, major
studies of Stamitz1 symphonies, based on Riemann!s conceptions,
continue to appear.
In an attempt to reach some conclusion to this controversy,
the present study offers an examination of methods of analysis,
analysis of twenty symphonies by Stamitz, and a survey of the
influences affecting Stamitz* composition.
The method of analysis used for this essay is demonstrated
in a detailed description of one movement. This method is applied to
relevant aspects of all the movements from twenty symphonies. (These
include all available m o d e m editions and all complete symphonies in
the Department of Printed Books of the British Museum, with the
exception of the ten Orchestral Trios.)
Analysis shows that, while Stamitz appears to use the same
basic form in all movements except the minuets of his symphonies, the
content and pattern of the smallest elements is such that the formal
structure is different in every movement. This formal process does
iii
not indicate a development towards sonata form, but does show adherence
to certain stylistic features. Examination of the historical facts
surrounding Stamitz1 work show that he was popular for this style, which
particularly appealed to the emerging bourgeois audience. In
developing this style, he benefitted from the unique advantages of
Mannheim, developments in the violin at this time, and his Bohemian
background.
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w itho ut perm ission.
PBEFACE
Two items in the text of this essay require some explanation.
The first is the use of the term "development section" to designate
the central portion of a movement in sonata form or quasi-sonata form.
Taken literally, this term implies a section which is defined by the
prevalent use of specific musical techniques. However, "development
section" is the term most commonly used in general, English-language
descriptions of sonata fonn to mean the section following the
exposition, regardless of the literal accuracy of the term for each
specific example. Moreover, the analyses and discussions in this essay
are concerned primarily with comparing the number and size of sub
sections within movements, and only secondarily with the contents of
such sections. Therefore, "development section" has been used through
out this essay with the meaning "middle section", rather than "a
section including procedures of development". For the same reasons,
the German term "Durchfuhrung" has been translated consistently as
"development".
Secondly, all materials referred to in the footnotes of the
essay are included in the section Works Consulted. Therefore, no
details of publication are included in the footnotes unless this is
useful to the discussion at hand.
Finally, I must acknowledge my debt to the Government of
Ontario for the granting of financial assistance, and to the Trustees
of the British Museum for the provision of copies of materials.
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Certificate of E x a m i n a t i o n .......... ii
A B S T R A C T .................................................. iii
PREFACE .................................................. v
TABLE OP C O N T E N T S ......................................... vi
CHAPTER I - I N T R O D U C T I O N ................................. 1
CHAPTER II - THE SYMPHONIES OP S T A M I T Z .................. 9
Johann Stamitz: His Life and Works ............ 9
The Selection of the Symphonies .................. 11
The Catalogue of the Symphonies .................. 13
CHAPTER III - CHOOSING A METHOD OP ANALYSIS ............ 20
CHAPTER IV - ANALYSIS OP G3/i ........................... 28
I n t r o d u c t i o n ..................................... 28
The Pirst Half of G 3 / i ........................... 30
Articulations ................................... 34
The Second Half of G3/i ......................... 35
Conclusions: The Movement as a Whole .......... 38
CHAPTER V - GENERAL A N A L Y S I S ............................. 42
Courses of Investigation ....................... 42
The Binary Form Harmonic Plan .................. 43
Structuresof Large Dimensions .................. 46
Movements in Three P a r t s ......................... 50
H/vtromon-fco ^n T®0 Pa.T*t3 _ ^ . 52
Ambiguous Movements ............................. 53
vi
v ii
Three Movements: F2/f, Ebl/i, and Eb5/i .... 56
Conclusions ......................................... 60
CHAPTER VI - HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................... 65
Introduction ......................................... 65
Contemporary Criticism .............................. 66
The Symphony in the Eighteenth Century .............. 68
P a r i s ................................................. 72
Mannheim ............................................. 77
The Mannheim Orchestra .............................. 80
Stamitz' Bohemian Background ........................ 85
Summary ............................................. 86
CHAPTER VII - CONCLUSION ..................................... 88
APPENDIX I - T A B L E S ........................................... 94
Table 1: Catalogue of the S y m p h o n i e s ........... 94
Table 2: Formal A n a l y s i s ....................... 97
Table 3: Analysis of Movements in Three Parts . . 101
Table 4 ! Analysis of Movements in Two Parts . . . 103
Table 5* Analysis of Ambiguous Movements .... 103
Table 6: A Comparison of the Results in Studies

by Stedman, de Stwolinski, and
Diirrenmatt ...................... 104
APPENDIX II - TRANSCRIPTION OF G 3 / i .......................... 106
WORKS C O N S U L T E D .............................................. 121
VITA ......................................................... 128
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Early in this century, Hugo Riemann declared that “Johann

•i
Stamitz is the long-sought forerunner of Haydn .1" Riemann was referring
to the development of the form of the Classical symphony, and ever since
that time the symphonies of Stamitz have been regarded as early,
tentative, and incomplete examples of sonata form. In a later article,
Riemann stated the same conclusions more explicitly:
Certainly Stamitz himself did not develop so-called

sonata form to the extreme of its potential; indeed,
he left the finishing touches to Mozart and Haydn.
But what was missing was only the lengthening of the
proportions of the development section and the
complete recapitulation of both themes after the
development. All the rest is actually there in his
works.^
The immediate result of Riemann's research was the controversy
between Adler and him whether Stamitz or Monn should be regarded as the
earliest influence in the new Classical style. However, Riemann1s
assessment of the contributions of Stamitz to the form of the symphony
received immediate acceptance. Karl Nef's Geschichte der Sinfonie und
1 "Johann Stamitz ist der so lange gesuchte Vorganger Havdnsi"

Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern. III/1 Cl902). xxiv.
p
"Zwar hat Stamitz selbst die sogenannte Sonatenform noch
nicht zur allerletzen Konsequenz ausgebaut, s o ndem Mozart und Haydn
darin noch die Legung der Schlusssteine uberlassen, aber was noch
fehlte, war nur mehr die Erweiterung der Proportionen des Durchfuh-
rungsteils und die vollstandige "JTiederkehr der beiden Themen nach
der Burchfuhrung. Alles anders ist doch tatsachlich bei ihm da."
2
Suite, published in 1921, and both the article "Die form ale Sntwicklung
der vorklassischen Sinfonie",^ and the essay Die Theorie der Sinfonie
(l925) by Robert Sondheimer pay homage to the contributions of this
composer to the development of sonata form.
Later, when Peter Gradenwitz published his biography of Stamitz
in 1936, a more realistic position was taken. He accepted that several
composers were equally responsible for the development of symphonic
form, but that Stamitz was prominent in this group thanks to both his
early appearance in this development and the influence which his
innovations had upon later composers. This has been the opinion that
has received wide circulation in the many general histories of music
written in more recent years. It was not until sixty years after the
first appearance of Riemann1s editions of Stamitz1 symphonies that anyone
seriously challenged the established verdict on how far Stamitz had
influenced the later Viennese school, or questioned the relationship of
the actual content of these symphonies to the sonata form of the
Classical era.
The first sign of such doubts appeared in 1962 in an article by
Werner Korte.^ His analysis of one movement from a Stamitz symphony
(Ebl/i)^ avoids the terms used to describe sonata form, bringing him to
"Johann Stamitzs Melodik", Neue Uusikzeitimg. XXXI (1910), 432. The

translation of 'uhirchfuhrung" by "development" is discussed in the
Preface.
Ârchiv fur Masikwissenschaft. IV (1922), 85-99*
^"Darstellung eines Satzes von Johann Stamitz", in Festschrift

Karl Fellerer, (1962), ed. by Heinrich Hiischen, pp. 283-293*
r~
■'’i.e. the first movement of Op. 11, No. 3» This method of
conclusions regarding the formal process which differ greatly from those
commonly accepted. He accuses Riemann and Sondheimer of "reading between
the lines'* to draw their conclusions about these symphonies, conclusions
which have little to do with the actual content. It seems to him that
these researchers have spent too much time trying to find historical
facts to support a nebulous concept of formal development instead of
coining to a fuller understanding of the music itself. He concludes that
"the phenomenon of Stamitz the artist has yet to be described fully and
accurately.
Jens Peter Larsen, in the article "Zur Bedeutung der 'Mannheimer

7
Schule1", is also critical of theories based on the supposed influence
of the Mannheim school on the Viennese school. He points out that it is
unlikely that Mozart and Haydn were any more aware of Stamitz than of
any other early composer of symphonies. Even if they knew his works
well, they certainly did not always follows his example in their own
writing. Larsen notes that both Haydn and Mozart wrote symphonies in
three movements, and that Haydn does not always present two different
themes in his sonata-form movements. The four-movement symphony and the
bi-thematic exposition were two attributes of Stamitz1 style which led
j • j ________ - _____j _________j ________v. __________j ____________ -j j .• „ ni _____x t t

u t ^ a x ^ i i c d , o u t s mu v ts m tru o a &uxu. ts ju ijju u iU L ts a io j lll xx*
g
"Das Phanomen des Kunstlers Stamitz ist vollstandig und
zuverlassig noch zu beschreiben."
Korfce, "Darstellung eines Satzes", p. 292.
în Festschrift Karl Fellerer (1962), ed. by Hernrich Guschen,

pp. 303-309.
Riemann to regard him as an innovator.
The effect of the comments of Korte and Larsen may he reflected
in the different tones in which the achievements of Stamitz are discussed
in two m o d e m encyclopedias. In the 1955 edition of Grove’s Dictionary
of Music and Musicians it is said of him that ". . . h e developed the
sonata form and the sequence of symphonic movements as used later by

g
the classics . . . .” This statement echoes the conclusions first
voiced by Riemann. However, the appropriate volume of Die Musik in
Geschichte und Gegenwart. which was published shortly after the
appearance of the articles by Korte and Larsen, contains no such
sweeping and dogmatic statements. Instead of concentrating on Stamitz1
contributions to the development of form, this article, by the same
author as the article in Grove’s Dictionary, describes his relation in

9
general to the new concept of sound.
It is surprising, therefore, to find that two major studies of
the Mannheim school and Stamitz, published after all of the above
articles had been written, operate on principles that suggest that there
isstill no question but that Stamitz regularly wrote his music in
sonata form. Gail Boyd de Stwolinski discussed HThe Mannheim Symphonists
Their Contributions to the Technique of Thematic Development” in 1965*
and Hans-Rudolph Diirrenmatt published his study of Die Durchfuhrung bei

10
Johann Stamitz in 1969*
®Peter Gradenwitz, "Stamitz” ,in Grove’s Dictionary. VIII, 41•
^Peter Gradenwitz, "Stamitz”,in MGG, XII (1965), 1150-1163.

10
A study by William Preston Stedman. "Form and Orchestration
in the Preclassical Symphony”, completed in 1953, also examines the
symphonies of Stamitz. Despite the earlier date, his approach to the
Both of these dissertations deal only with the problems found
in the development section of the first movements of those symphonies
which the authors examine. The study by de Stwolinski does not
question the existence of such a section, although she admits that it
might consist only of a retransition. As decisive criteria for
sonata form she says:
The exposition must be at least bithematic: the area

beyond the exposition either must contain development
which seems to surpass transition devices and a re
capitulation of one or more of the themes, or it must
have recapitulated an appreciable portion of the
exposition material if only a retransition intervenes.
Durrenmatt offers most of the comments made in this century
concerning the existence of a development section in the works of
Stamitz, with the exception of the articles by Korte and Larsen. Yet,
he also notices that these comments do not present a uniform picture,
for he concludes that "on the basis of these partly divided and partly
conflicting opinions about the development section in works by Stamitz,

12
a closer study of this part of sonata form certainly seems justified."
However, the conflict which Durrenmatt mentions has to do with the
content of the development section, and he therefore decides that a study
of this section alone is necessary. The idea that this conflict may
indicate a more serious fault in the previous analysis of the form of
these symphonies is not pursued.
form of the symphony does not assume the existence of sonata form.
11
de Stwolinski. "The Mannheim Symphonists", p. v.
12
"Auf Grund der z. T. uneinheitlichen, z. Y. sich widersprech-
enden Urteile iiber die Durchfuhrung bei J. Stamitz erweist sich eine
speziellere Untersuchung dieses Sonaten-Formteils sicher als gerecht-
•f*/-.•
X&JL yyf
*4 r?
1*151
6
In summary, then, the literature on Stamitz and the Preclassical
symphony shows differing opinions concerning his position in the history
of early sonata form. Sondheimer, and Gradenwitz accepted and amplified
the conclusions which Riemann had stated so enthusiastically as early as
1902. Their combined comments are the basis for the statements found in
all general histories of m o d e m times. Early in the 1960s, Korte and
Larsen questioned the widespread acceptance of these views, and suggested
that a fresh examination of Stamitz* music was necessary. Their opinions
were not influenced by the large amount of contemporary material being
unearthed by Barry Brook and Jan LaRue, but by the discovery that at
least some of the music in question did not fit the general description.
Yet the studies by de Stwolinski and Durrenmatt, which were published
later in the same decade, appeared to take Riemann1s statements of
sixty years earlier at face value, for they examine only one aspect of
the presumed sonata form in Stamitz* symphonies.
This essay offers another examination of these much discussed
symphonies in an attempt to resolve the controversy outlined above.
Prom the comments made, it seems clear that the first requirement will
be a fresh analysis of as many symphonies as possible; as many as will
promise to give a clear idea of Stamitz* usual style. By far the
greatest problem facing the researcher in music is that of a choice of
a system of analysis. For example, both Korte and Larsen suggest that
the use of different analytical methods is responsible for the existence
of various opinions about the same works. This difficult question is
discussed in Chapter III, and the problems of analysis are demonstrated
Durrenmatt, Die Durchfuhrung, p. 54’
in a detailed discussion of one movement in Chapter IV. The choice of
symphonies used in this essay is given in Chapter II together with
comments on the editions used and on relevant details of Stamitz’
life. In Chapter V, the results of the analysis of all the symphonies
are presented.
To judge these works only on the basis of a fresh analysis,
however, would be to ignore the fact that the fame of Stamitz as the
founder of a new symphonic style does not date simply from the time of
Riemann1s researches. Even in his own lifetime Stamitz was hailed as
an innovator, and his symphonies were performed all over Europe.
Thus, in broader terms, the problem is to discover why the name of
Stamitz has been associated with the history of the symphony for over
two hundred years.
In stating that Stamitz' symphonies represent important steps
in the development of sonata form, Riemann and all others who subscribe
to this opinion are implying that the reason for Stamitz1 fame was his
conception of the form of the movement. The analytical portion of this
essay will attempt to show that, in fact, Stamitz was not concerned
with the form of the entire movement. Rather, he used commonplace
devices to make the form clear enough, and concentrated his energies
on other aspects of the style. It is these other aspects that seem to
be the essence of Stamitz’ contributions to a new symphonic style,
and the reason for his wide popularity in the second half of the
eighteenth century. The historical considerations which make this
analysis appear to be a just ana true picture of the symphonies are
discussed in Chapter VI, even though the study of these aspects will
involve discussion of a more general nature than the preceding analysis.
Thus, the pattern of this essay will not reflect a movement from the
general to the specific as migfrt be expected: only by adopting the
contrary course can one hope to find a sound alternative method for
properly assessing the problems raised by Stamitz research so far.
CHAPTER II
THE SYMPHONIES OP STAMITZ
■i
Johann Stamitz: His Life and Works
Johann Stamitz was b o m on June 17th or 19th, 1717» in
Deutschbrod in Bohemia, as the eldest son of Anton and Rosine Stamitz.
Anton had been invited to Deutschbrod in 1710 to take the post of
organist at the church. Since this post included the tasks of choir-
director, cantor, and schoolmaster, it is clear that he must have been
highly regarded as a musician in order to be sent this invitation.
Rosine was the daughter of the wealthy land-owner and burgher Ferdinand
BShm. When BOhm died in 1708, Rosine, as one of only two daughters,
inherited a comfortable living. Thus, Johann was b o m into a moderately
wealthy and actively musical home.
It is probable that the first-born son of such a family would
have been well educated, and in his father’s profession. Although no
information is available, it seems likely that Stamitz was trained in
music in the Italian tradition at the Jesuit Gymnasium, for all his
early compositions are choral religious music. But it was as a violin
virtuoso that he attracted the attention of Duke Carl Philipp, Elector
The material in this section has been taken from the following
books and articles:
Peter Gradenwitz, Johann Stamitz: I. Das Leben; Peter Gradenwitz,
"Stamitz", in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians. VIII, 41-43;
Peter Gradenwitz, "Johann Stamitz ais Kirchenkonrponist", in Die
MusikfogsohxmF.-. XI, 2-15; sni Peter Gradenwitz, "Stamitz", in Die Musik
in Geschichte und Gegenwart, XII, 1150-1163*
of the Palatinate of Mannheim, and he joined the Mannheim court
V A WllVd a
in
J.J1
17/1
x / *t x •
When Carl Philipp died at the end of 1742, the young Carl
Th.sod.OTS, b o m dn 1724, hsc2.nio tiho nsv.f Hlsctox*. C2.TI ThoodoTS v.r3.s vsTy
interested in the arts, particularly music, and Stamitz' career
prospered under his reign. In 1743, Stamitz was made principal violin
with a considerable rise in salary. In 1745 he was appointed concert
master and director of chamber music, in which post he was responsible
for the music in all activities at the court, including the church and
theatre. Finally, in 1750, Stamitz was given the title of director of
instrumental music presumably in recognition of his importance to the
court and his growing fame in other lands.
Stamitz1 relations with Paris are indicative of the spread of
his name. In 1748, horns were brought into the orchestra of A. J. J.
le Riche de la Poupeliniere upon the advice of Stamitz. He visited the
city briefly in 1751, and in September, 1754, he arrived again to spend
a year in what was then the cultural capital of Europe. During this
visit, Stamitz performed at the Concert spirituel, conducted la
Poupeliniere's orchestra, and had his Mass in D performed.
He returned to Mannheim in the fall of 1755, and remained there
until his death in March, 1757. During his life at the court he had
exerted a strong influence on his students and fellow orchestra
members, among whom were Cannabich, Holzbauer, Richter, Filtz, Benda,
Beck, the brothers Toeschi, and Stamitz' son Karl. This is the Mannheim
School of composers and performers that Stamitz is considered to have
founded.
11
While at Mannheim, Stamitz appears to have written instrumental
music almost exclusively, as opposed to the large amount of choral music
attributable to his student days. The music extant from this period
includes seventy-four symphonies, thirty concertos, and forty-four
pieces of chamber music. Of these, thirty-nine symphonies, six violin
concertos, six harpsichord concertos, one flute concerto, twelve
sonatas for violin, and two "duos" for solo violin were published in
the eighteenth century. This distribution of published works seems
to reflect the fame of Stamitz in his own time as a composer of
symphonies and a violin virtuoso.
The Selection of the Symphonies
As stated in Chapter I, the aim of this essay is to arrive at an
understanding of the reasons for Stamitz1 fame in his own time, and
particularly his fame as a symphonist. It is for this reason that works
in manuscript, the circulation of which is a relatively unknown factor,
were generally disregarded in making the selection of the symphonies
to be analyzed. Instead, the several sets of symphonies published in
the international centres of the eighteenth century, Paris, London, and
Amsterdam, appear to have been the really popular works that carried his
fame as a symphonist throughout musical Europe. For example, in some
cases the same symphonies were issued by several different publishers,
even within the same country. Therefore, the analysis is of twenty
symphonies, of which seventeen were published in the eighteenth century,
and the other three form a small control sample of unpublished works.
Ten of the thirty-nine extant published symphonies are
orchestral trios, written for only three string parts (two violins and
bass, i.e. cellci) but "qui sont faites pour Executer ou a trois ou avec
2
toutes [sic] 1 'orchestre". Consideration of these trios has been
omitted from this essay even though eight of them edited by Riemann and
one obtained from the British Museum were available for study. Riemann
is particularly enthusiastic about Stamitz' trios, and a discussion of
the set of six published as Opus 1 immediately precedes his pronouncement
of Stamitz as "Vorganger Haydns". However, these trios have been avoided
in the studies by Durrenmatt and de Stwolinski, and that example is
followed here. Stylistically and spiritually they seem to be closer to
the Baroque, and, in particular, the contrapuntal techniques necessitated
by the trio texture are not to be found in the symphonies in four and
more parts. This fundamental difference is sufficient to warrant
keeping consideration of the two styles quite separate, especially in

3
a study of the form of the music.
Excluding Opus 1, then, the seventeen published works included
in this essay represent a little over half the total number of published,
four-part symphonies, and the total of twenty symphonies when the three
2
From the title page of Opus i as published by Bayard. This
comment appears on all editions of Opus 1.
3
It must be admitted that even symphonies with eight instrumental
parts frequently have only three real parts, and that the scoring of the
two violin parts in constant thirds often suggests the trio setting.
But these are infrequent examples in a style which shows a great variety
of techniques. On the other hand, the style of the trio symphonies
shows a high degree of uniformity, suggesting that they should be
treated collectively, distinct from the rest.
1 3
manuscript works are included represents a little less than one-third
of the sixty-four known four-part symphonies by Stamitz. These
percentages should be sufficient to indicate the trend of Stamitz’
methods.
The choice of these twenty works was dependent only upon
availability, using modern editions and the holdings of the British
Museum. In particular, except for the orchestral trios, no symphony
was excluded after analysis because it did not conform to the general
pattern of results. Furthermore, a substantial number of the symphonies
used here appear in one or more of the studies referred to in Chapter I .
If the conclusions reached in this essay differ from those in other
studies, this may justify the concern in selecting a method of analysis
as discussed in Chapter III.
The Catalogue of the Symphonies
Table 1 in Appendix I gives a list of information about the
twenty symphonies used in this essay. The numbers assigned to the
symphonies by Riemann^ will be used throughout this essay to refer to
these works and any other works by Stamitz which come into the discussion.
These numbers can easily be identified with the thematic incipits given
by Riemann, and this system proves to be more accurate with the music
Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern, III/l, xxix-xl: and VII/2,

xxix. These catalogue numbers are given in the first column of
Table 1 in Appendix I.
14
of this period than the use of opus numbers. The letter given in each
case identifies the key of the symphony as a whole, and thus the keys
of the first movement, the minuet and usually also the trio, and the
last movement. The second movement is almost always in a related key
rather than the tonic, and so, occasionally, is the trie. All of these
twenty symphonies are in the major key, the only use of minor tonalities
being in two of the slow movements.
One symphony, Eb2, is compiled from two sources. The first and
last movements are contained in V o l . XXIX of the Anthology of Music, and
all four movements were published about 1780 by William Napier of London.
However, the two versions have different finales. For the purposes of
this essay, the two sources are combined to create the four movements
referred to here as Eb2: the first and last movements from the m o d e m
edition and the rest from Napier's publication. The designation Eb2'
will be used only to refer to the final movement in Napier's publication.
Short forms will be used in combination with Riemann's catalogue
numbers to indicate the different movements of each symphony as follows:
to take as an example symphony A4, A4/i will mean the first movement,
A4/ii the second, A4/mt the minuet and trio, and A4/f will mean the
finale. The latter two terms will eliminate any confusion when the
symphony has only three movements. For example, in the case of A2 the
third movement is a finale, but for Bb3 it is a minuet and trio.
Since the editions of the symphonies used for this essay are not
only various in number but quite dissimilar in editorial practices, some
discussion of this point is required. Seven of the symphonies were
edited by Hugo Riemann,'’ and are to be found in Vols. III/l and VII/2 of
Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern and in the Broude Brothers reprint,
Mannheim Symphonists: A Collection of Twenty-four Orchestral Works.
These editions offer the advantage that Riemann was able to collate many
sources, so that a complete instrumentation is given, and annotations
provided as to the alternative use of instruments, other versions of
parts, and the substitution of entire movements. The eight symphonies
by Stamitz which Riemann edits, of which one is an orchestral trio and
therefore excluded from this essay, were all published in the eighteenth
6
century.
Robert Sondheimer edited many symphonies of this period and made
them available through the series Sammlung Sondheimer: Werke aus dem 18
Jahrhundert, published by Bernoulli. Two symphonies have been used from
this series: A4, a work in manuscript, and D7, a published symphony.
Because of this editor's practice of arbitrarily altering, omitting,
or adding repeat signs, dynamics, phrasing, tempo indications, and even
chords, his editions have been avoided where possible. However, such
tampering does not normally alter the form, and since the form is the
first concern of this essay, these two symphonies have been included in
7
the analysis.
‘’This information is given in the fourth column of Table ] in

Appendix I.
6For symphonies published in the eighteenth century, the opus

number given to them and the names of some of the publishers who issued
the work are given in columns two and three of Table i in Appendix I .
■7
Sondheimer sometimes does tamper with the form, as when he marks
a return to the first movement after the finale in his edition of Bb4.
The appearance of two movements from A2 in his edition of A4 may indicate
that he also selected various movements to make up his "symphonies".
16
For the nine symphonies transcribed by the author from
published parts in the British Museum, no attempt has been made at a
scholarly edition. Comparison could not be made with other sources, and
in the case of most of these works this would be necessary in order to
include, for example, the second horn part which is missing from some of
the collection in the British Museum. In a few cases, no oboe parts
were available, although the existence of such was suggested by
apparent gaps in the score. Also, the minor mistakes and ambiguities
which plague eighteenth-century publications have been corrected only
in so far as the solutions were obvious, or were suggested by comparison
with similar passages elsewhere in the score. However, these very minor
problems have not interfered with the analysis of the form, and only
g
rarely with an appreciation of the style.
Adolf Hoffman has edited three manuscript symphonies for the
Corona series, but only two of these are included here. The reason for
rejecting the first symphony of this set is not due to editorial
practices, but to the question of authorship. These three are among
thirteen symphonies attributed by Friedrich Noack to Johann Erhard

Q
Steinmetz. Noack's argument is based on finding a packet of symphonies
marked "Steinmetz" in the Darmstadt library, of which about half are
symphonies previously attributed to Stamitz. This problem of authorship
occurs with one other symphony in this essay, for symphony Bb3, edited
Q
The kind of problems encountered can be seen in Appendix II.
9"Die Steinmetz-Manuskripte der Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek

Darmstadt", Die Musikforschung, XIII, 314-317.
17
by Riemann, has been claimed as the work of F. X. Richter.
The problem of establishing the authorship of eighteenth-
century symphonies is a real one in the face of so many similar works
which either do rot have a composer's name attached, or have different
names in different sources. All too often, fairly reliable sources
conflict, or more commonly, no reliable source can be found. The
matter is greatly complicated by the variety of spellings of composers'
names which can be found in different sources, often creating confusion
with other names.** When all bibliographical possibilities for
identification have been exhausted, the final recourse must be to the
stylistic evidence provided by the music itself.
Hoffmann's editions of A3 and Bb4 and Riemann's edition of Bb3
have been included in this essay because, first of all, there are still
items of bibliographical evidence which have not been explained away.
For A3 and Bb4, Noack admits that even the packet he found was once
marked "Stamitz", but altered by persons unknown; and in other
sources, notably the Breitkopf catalogue, these two are identified as
works by Stamitz. Furthermore, Gradenwitz has observed that both
"Steinmetz" and "Stamitz" are only some of the many German and French
12
variants of the Bohemian "Stamic". For Bb3, although it can be found
iUThe arguments concerning this symphony are summarized in

Hans-Rudolp'n Durrenmatt, Die Durchfuhrung bei Johann Stamitz, pp. 77-78.
11This point is elaborated by Jan LaRue in "Major and Minor

Mysteries of Identification in the 18th-Century Symphony", in the
Journal of the American Musicological Society, XIII, 181-196.
19
Peter Gradenwitz, "Die Steinmetz-Manuskripte der Landes- und
Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt", in Die Musikforschung, XIV, 214. See
also the article "Steinmetz” by Jan LaRue anu Jeanette Holland m
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. XII , 1244-1245.
18
in a manuscript copy under Richter's name, also in the Darmstadt
library, it was published by la Chevardi^re around 1760 as the fifth
symphony in Opus 8 by Stamitz.
As to stylistic evidence, none is offered by Noack in his brief
article. Examination of the three symphonies in the Corona album shows
that the first is indeed quite different from the style to be observed
in other symphonies by Stamitz. The same is not true of the other two,
however, and they seem to be very similar to Stamitz' style in general.
Symphony Bb3 also appears to be a representative example of Stamitz'
style, although Durrenmatt (see footnote ten) says that Gassier judged
it to be typical of Richter's style. This judgement was based on the
fact that the symphony ends with a minuet, a feature which was considered
at the time to be unusual for Stamitz. Symphonies of this design by
Stamitz do exist, however, and more recent research has concluded that
if the work is by Richter, it shows the strong influence of Stamitz,
and therefore could really be judged, equally well, as the work of
either composer.
It is clear that doubts remain about these symphonies, and their
inclusion in this work must be explained. The first point is that since
analysis of all works of doubtful authorship may eventually discover
valuable clues, it seems sensible to include them here with the hope
that the information derived may be of help to future research. On the
other hand, the results of the analysis in this essay are rarely presented
as totals or percentages, and never without identifying the symphonies
being discussed. Thus, the reader is able to extract information about
specific symphonies, and if he so chooses, ignore the information given
about these doubtful works. It must be said, however, that the results
obtained for these three works do not differ significantly from those
for all the other symphonies.
CHAPTER I I I
CHOOSING A METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In Chapter I, some reference was made to the problems and
dangers involved in choosing a method of analysis suitable to the
symphonies of Stamitz. The need for such unusual care seems a
characteristic associated by many with research in the Preclassical
era. As Paul Henry Lang has said, "There are few phases in the
history of art so little explored yet so categorically settled in
manuals and even in learned dissertations as the preclassical symphony
and sonata."*
The reason for this situation may be found in the fact that the
Preclassical period must be regarded as an age of transition, combining
features of styie common to both the Baroque and the Classical eras.
Evolutionary, developmental, or progressive philosophies of history have
been used in connection with all periods of the history of music, but
they seem particularly attractive in describing an age of transition.
For example, when the perfection of the High Classic has been described,
it is appealing to search out the means by which that apparent perfection
was reached, and to list the stages through which the music progressed.
This approach can be found in many histories of the Preclassic.
*Music in Western Civilization, p. 591.
2 0
2 1
The application of the biological theory of evolution as a
philosophy of the history of music has been thoroughly criticized in
Warren Dwight Allen’s book Philosophies of Music History. The single
chronological viewpoint which is the basis of this theory creates a
situation in which the contemporary artistic scene becomes the long-
sought perfection after various periods of inadequacy and rejection.
Analogy to the process of growth is used to justify this viewpoint,
and the use of this analogy leads to qualitative distinctions which
are, in fact, invalid:
Just as the compositions of Pergolesi, of Handel, of Leo,

etc., are infinitely above Carissimi's and Corelli’s, so
our good French masters are very superior to those admired
at the end of the last century.2
This philosophy of evolutionary history creates serious
problems when applied to methods of analysis as well. The careful
choice of a few examples can be most effective in demonstrating a
pattern of growth, but this method usually ignores both anomalies and
the difficult problem of establishing to what extent these examples
actually influenced each other. For instance, Sondheimer discusses
the development of form throughout the history of the Preclassical
symphony in a lengthy article which includes a large number of musical

3
examples: long quotations from twelve works by eleven composers.
2
Cahuzac, original source not given, quoted in Allen,
Philosophies, p. 286.
■^Robert Sondheimer, "Die formale Entwicklung der vorkiassic’

nen
Sinfonie", in Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft, IV, 85-99.
22
In 1965, however, Jan LaRue estimated that the 10,000 incipits then
collected for his Union Thematic Catalogue of 18th-Century Symphonies

4
would be only half of the eventual total. Even if only half of these
symphonies could be considered as Preclassical, Sondheimer's examples
are obviously too few, and were chosen to demonstrate his particular
version of the development of sonata form.
Influenced by an evolutionary view of history, one is also
tempted to analyze the earlier examples in terms of the later. In the
case of Preclassical symphonies, this results in the dubious process
of applying the terminology of sonata form to examples which are intended
to display the development of that same form. The weakness of this
logic must qualify as an example of the fallacy of petitio principii.
Commenting on the specific problem of the analysis of music in sonata
form, Larsen criticizes this very thing: the application of an
abstract, generalized description of sonata form, based on certain works
of the late Classical period, to all works of the entire Classical and
Preclassical periods.^ He concludes that the only aspect of sonata form
which may be common throughout these periods is the compositional
principle involved, and not the adherence to a strict, text-book form.
4
Jan LaRue and Friedrich Blume, "Symphonie: A. Allgemeines", m
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegerwart, XII, 1806.
5Jens Peter Larsen, "Sonatenform-Probleme", in Festschrift

Friedrich Blume, ed. by Anna Amalie Abert, pp. 221-230.
Particularly when analysts are attempting to evaluate the music
objectively, they should apply such terms as "principal, modulatory,
or secondary themes", or "exposition, development, or recapitulation"
with great care. These terms do more than serve as convenient labels:
they define musical functions, and the defining and labelling of
function requires as much care and objectivity as the identification
of units of structure.
Werner Korte has supplied an excellent example of the fruits
of such objective analysis in his study of the first movement of
Stamitz' symphony Ebl.6 In that analysis each musical unit is given
a number for a label as it is identified, so that complete objectivity
is maintained until the entire movement has been surveyed. It cannot
be an accident that in this analysis Korte discovers two aspects of
Stamitz1 style which had not previously received attention, although
they prove to be common and essential features of his music. The first
of these is the use of short, often bar-length melodic and rhythmic
units, combined in twos and fours, and occasional threes, to create the
typical Stamitz phrase. The other is the complex way in which these
phrases are presented, varied, and recapitulated in order to create the
form of an entire movement. Far from being an example of modified
sonata form, this particular example forces Korte to set down his
analysis as a relatively complicated graph in order to demonstrate its
^Werner Korte, "Darstellung eines Satzes von Johann Stamitz",

in Festschrift Karl Fellerer, pp. 283-293
7
true structure and unity.
Korte's single example and the valuable results he achieves
should serve to justify the care taken with the method of analysis
for this essay. However, the fact that he restricted his analysis to
only one- movement invites criticism of a wide acceptance of his
results; application of his method to the movements of no less than
twenty symphonies will provide a sounder basis for generalizations.
After examination of the articles mentioned above, and the
analyses appearing in Durrenmatt's Die Durchfuhrung bei J. Stamitz
and Stwolinski's "The Mannheim Symphonists", and after studying the
symphonies in some detail, the method of analysis to be used in this
essay was largely worked out. At this time there appeared Jan LaRue's
book Guidelines for Style Analysis. LaRue recognizes the need for
objectivity in analysis, and offers this book as his attempt to
create a system of analysis which will function "as a flexible mesh
through which the music passes, leaving a network of tracings from

g
which we perceive the essence of a style". Despite LaRue's efforts, it
was found that only certain elements of his system could be adopted
without endangering the method already developed. For instance, LaRue
uses theme-identification symbols which are directly related to the
terminology of sonata form. However, LaRue's ideas of "dimensions" and
"articulations" were most useful to the present work.
7
Korte, "Darstellung eines Satzes", p. 286.
g
La Rue, Guidelines, p. vii.
25
LaRue points out that the analyst can perceive music at one of
at least three dimensions; small, middle, and large. For example, one
can think of a piece of music proceeding in units of period length, as
the theme areas in sonata form. Also, one can perceive the same piece
as a succession of larger sections: introduction, exposition,
development, and so on. Ultimately, one might want to examine the
relation of this whole movement to other movements in the same work,
or within a group of related works. These would be examples of LaRue's
small, middle and large dimensions. For the purpose of Stamitz'
symphonies, however, this interpretation of the dimensions must be
scaled down. Stamitz rarely creates any connection between the move-
9
ments within a symphony, but his smallest unit is often of great
importance. Therefore, in this analysis the three dimensions were
equated to the phrase, the period, and the section. The use of LaRue*s
idea of "dimensions" allows the analysis to reflect Stamitz' music more
clearly by avoiding the spatial concepts associated with sonata form.
Articulation, as LaRue uses the term, refers to the changes in
melody, texture, orchestration, harmonic rhythm, or function which
serve to mark the ends of phrases, periods, or sections. Since
Stamitz' music is so highly sectional, the observation of all artic-
Q
Such unity would seem unlikely since performance and
publication practices of this time show little respect for symphonies
as integrated wholes. Riemann's editions of Stamitz' symphonies
indicate alternative movements to be found in some publications, and
other publishers regularly omitted the minuet and trio. Despite this,
instances of thematic repetition are particularly common in the
orchestral trios, and are not unknown in the symphonies. For example,
compare the opening measures of G2/i and G2/f.
ulations, and the relative strength of each, is essential to an
appreciation of the intended effect.
With the inclusion of these valuable ideas from Jan LaRue, the
method of analysis used in this essay proved most effective in un
covering all features of Stamitz1 style. The procedure followed with
every movement of the twenty symphonies may be described in general
terms. Each movement was surveyed in each of the three dimensions,
beginning with large and proceeding to small. In each dimension the
number and bar-length of every section was noted, and each was assigned
a letter. From this, a vertical line-graph was constructed which showed
not only the number and size of the units in each dimension during the
course of the movement, but also the relationship between each of the
dimensions, as how many units of small dimensions appeared in each
unit of middle dimensions, and so on. Particular attention was paid to
the existence of a major articulation point in the second half of the
piece, indicating the beginning of a third section of large dimensions.
Only after the form had been plotted in this way was the
thematic content of each area noted. Now, thematic relationships
between areas were indicated on the graph, together with symbols
specifying a varied or an exact return of material. Stamitz often
introduces entirely new and unrelated material into the second half
of the movement, and this fact was included on the graph.
Finally, the result of the interaction of the thematic
relationships and the division of the movement by points of articulation
was assessed. These observations were set down usually as verbal
comments, but occasionally, in complex situations, as a revised and
condensed graph similar to the one referred to in footnote seven of this
w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
chapter.
All of this information was transferred to a largechart
showing similar information for all the movements at once.Only at
this point, when all the results had been gathered on to this chart,
was any comparison made between the different movements. Each one
had been analyzed independently of the rest, so that therewas no
encouragement to make any one analysis conform to any other. This final
comparison often suggested new ideas to be pursued, however, and some
movements were examined again for traces of features which were promin
ent in others.
Not all of the information gained by this analytical process is
presented in this essay, however. In Chapter IV, one movement alone
is examined in detail, and this examination serves as a demonstration
of the approach to analysis taken in this essay. But the results of
this examination indicate the specific areas of investigation which
pertain to the problem as set out in Chapter I. Therefore, Chapter V
describes the analysis of only these specific areas in respect to all
the symphonies, and gives the conclusions reached.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OP G3/i
Introduction
To make the method adopted for this essay absolutely clear,
this chapter will be devoted to a thorough examination of only one
movement from the twenty symphonies* This procedure will also provide
an introduction to Stamitz1 style, and the specific observations of
this chapter will provide a solid basis for the more general comments
which will be necessary in the discussion of all twenty symphonies in
Chapter V.
The movement chosen for such thorough discussion is the first
movement of Op. 3» No. 3 in G major (G3/i). The present writer has
prepared the score of this movement from parts in the British Museum,
and it appears in Appendix II. Riemann says that a manuscript part

•j
for two oboes belonging to this symphony exists in Regensburg.
However, the title-page of Opus 3» published by Hhberti of Paris,
shows that they were scored "a quatre parties obligees avec les Cors
de chasse ad libitum," Therefore, the score in Appendix II, without
oboes, represents the work as it was printed and widely circulated in
"*Hugo Riemann, Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern, IIl/l, xl.
‘■Quoted in Riemann, DTB, III/1, xxxiv,
28
the eighteenth century. A few editorial problems regarding accidentals
or omitted measures were encountered in the transcription of this
movement, but none was insoluble, or necessitated comparison with other
sources. Such emendations as were necessary have been noted in the
musical text.
The dating of any Stamitz symphony can only result from
speculation; yet, independently, both Stedman^ and Durrenmatt^ believe,
on the basis of stylistic features, that this is an early work.
It was desirable to have the music, which was to be examined so
thoroughly, appended to this essay. Copyright restrictions suggested
the use of material which had not yet been published in a m o d e m
edition, and therefore music obtained from the British Museum and now
in the Public Domain was used.
The choice of this movement was based on editorial consider
ations, for no parts were missing nor were there similar problems
which could not readily be solved. Yet this movement was seen as
an average example of the techniques of Stamitz with respect to
instrumentation, form, and style. However, it was not chosen for the
suitability of its content for the thesis of this essay. At any rate,
it is used only as an example, and all argument is based, at all
times, on analysis of all twenty symphonies.
^William Stedman, "Form and Orchestration in the Preclassical

Symphony”, p. 191.
^Hans-Budolph Diirrenmatt, Die Durchfiihmng bei Johann Stamitz.

p. 139.
30
Although the principles of analysis as outlined in Chapter
H I have been followed here, there would be no point in recreating
the procedure of analysis exactly as given there. Instead, this
description is intended to indicate the style as much as to analyze
the form. For this reason, the movement will be discussed in detail
from the beginning. In order to do this, and to make clear the
problems of formal analysis of this music, units of small dimensions
will generally be discussed before units of larger dimensions. In
this way, one can appreciate the manner in which Stamitz creates the
form of his music from units of exceptionally small dimensions.
The First Half of G3/i
Movement G3/i is rather short, totalling only eighty-one
measures. The division made by the double bar line comes almost exactly
at the middle, creating a first half of forty measures and a second
half of forty-one. In the first half, the first three measures
constitute an introductory phrase. A subdivision of these three
measures into six units is suggested by the repetition of the opening
motive and the recurrence of the note G at the beginning of each unit.
Examination shows that this subdivision is evident in every measure of
the movement, as in the varied repetition of the motive in measures
4 «nd 5 , or the exact repetition in measures 30 to 33* Thus, one has
the aural impression that this movement is in 2/4 , not 4/4 *
This half-measure unit actually functions as the building block
5
of the phrase* Since this unit does not represent an entire measure,
the phrases built by joining several units together will not display
/*
the regularity which many studies wrongly associate with this era*
Thus, after the introductory phrase of three measures, one finds
constructions of two measures, another two measures, and then four-
and-a-half measures. After this phrase, the succeeding phrases begin
on the half-measure until measure 20. This succession of small units
and irregular phrases contributes to the movement's general impression
of patchwork design, when viewed at the smallest dimension.
When structures of middle dimensions, or periods, are sought,
changes in the function of the music usually indicate the existence
of new sections, axkl strong points of articulation mark their limits.
Thus, when the first sign of modulation away from the tonic appears in
measure 14> one can assume that the second period has begun. The
first period has consisted of a large variety of melodic material, but
only tonic and dominant harmonies. The second period displays the
radically different process of modulation. It can be argued that
this is emphasized by the use of material from the first group, for
the melodic repetition directs the listener's attention to the novelty
of the h a m o n i c process. Therefore, ending the first period with the
articulation in measures 11 to 12— the cadence and unison passage— can
^Cf. Werner Eorte, "Darstellung eines Satzes von Johann

Stamitz", in Festschrift Karl Fellerer. pp. 284-285, where similar
comments are made.
Friedrich Blume, Classic and Romantic Music, pp. 32-33.
be justified, for the modulatory phrase begins immediately after.
The modulation begun in measure 14 has been accomplished by
measure 20. After this there occur several incomplete cadences in
D major until the reiterated half-cadences in measures 26 and 27»
followed by the strong articulation of the general pause at the end of
measure 27. Despite the strength of this articulation, if the
first half of the movement were to end with the first note on the third
beat of measure 29» measures 28 and 29 would be regarded as the final
cadence, carrying the dominant harmony of measure 27 to a final stop
on the tonic chord of measure 29. In this light, inclusion of these
two measures as the ending of the second period would be justified.
The next four measures seem to confirm this hypothesis.
Measures 30 to 33 present a complete contrast to all the material
encountered so far. The energy and vitality which have been this
movement's most prominent feature are totally lacking. The constant
sixteenth notes disappear, one harmony is sustained for two measures
at a time, and the melodic repetition is such that one hears virtually
the same motive eight time3 without a break. Appropriate to this new
mood, these measures are marked piano. In the tenninology of sonata
form, this phrase has all the characteristics of a second theme.
One might even suspect that the Regensburg oboe parts would have a
solo at this point, providing a change of colour as well.
This mood is broken by a sudden forte and the return of
sixteenth-note motion. A repetition of measures 28 and 29 leads to
the final cadence and the reiterated D !s which firmly close the first
half. This repetition of measures 28 and 29 directs the listener to
o inspection of this ohrase, p.Tu^ it is found to have more than
usual significance. First, these measures represent the longest unified
melodic expansion heard to that point which does not depend upon
repetition of motives. Secondly, the first three beats are clearly
an altered form of measure 4 , although this relation is more readily
apparent to the ear than to the eye. Finally, the repetition of this
phrase in measures 35 and 36 gives rise to the cadential extension
of measures 37 and" 38. Thus, the first appearance of this phrase,
being a melodic extension of material from the first period, seems
to sum up the movement to that point. When the second appearance
confirms this impression by leading naturally to the final cadence
of the first half, the close relation between these two areas is
obvious, and the music from measure 28 to the end is heard as a
unified codetta* The contrasting material of measures 30 to 33
becomes an interruption to this lengthy section which balances the
previous long modulatory section.
This view of the final measures, gained through a careful
analysis of the score, contradicts the impression given by the first
hearing of this passage. Then the second period appeared to end at
measure 29» and the most significant characteristic of the third period
was the "second theme" area of measures 30 to 33* Now that phrase is
seen as an interruption to the cadential material which concludes
the first half of the movement. No further analytical details can be
found to influence these views, and the judgement as to which is correct
must remain a matter of individual taste and opinion. However, the very
great significance of that judgement to theories of the historical
evolution of sonata form will be discussed in the conclusion of this
Cilcirp
Moving to an examination of the first half of this movement
at the level of the large dimension, the first forty measures clearly
constitute one unified section. Only the third period contains
material which contrasts with all the rest of this section. This
impression of homogeneity is the result of several things. First, the
melodic patterns are all based upon the triad and the scale. Secondly,
the harmonic plan is static: except for measures 14 and 15, the entire
forty measures are in the key of either the tonic or the dominant.
Thirdly, material is repeated within each period and from period to
period. For example, measure 7 is a repetition of measure 6 , and
this material is used for the modulatory process in the second period.
Finally, the overall activity with a predominance of sixteenth notes
completes this impression of a unified and coherent piece of music.
Articulations
The articulations noted in measures 27 and 29 are common
features of Stamitz1 style. Since a discussion of articulations
will be so important to this essay, some method of identifying these
two types will be needed. For the purpose of this essay, the
articulation in measure 27 will be called a general pause, nomnally
abbreviated to G.P.; and the articulation in measure 29 will be called
the link device.
The G.P. is clearly a strong articulation, for it involves a
rest in all the parts at once. It is often found after a half-cadence,
exactly as in this example, and thus creates a sense of expectation for
the next section. A G.P. is also found in measure 3 of this movement*
but here it is preceded and followed by the tonic chord, strongly
suggesting that the three measures before the G.P. constitute an
independent section. The impression of a strong articulation is only
slightly lessened by the use of a link instead of a G.P. For example,
the use of the link in measure 16 brings new energy to the succeeding
phrase, emphasizing the conclusion of the modulation. As often
happens, the purpose of the link is to cancel the leading tone of
the previously established key, and the energy is created by the
resultant descent of the music down a fifth. In this example, then,
the link serves as much to bind the two phrases together as to
articulate their separation. However, the example of the link in
measure 29 is very similar to the G.P. observed in measure 3, for it
occurs between two statements of the same harmony. In effect, this use
of the link is only an ornamented version of a strong G.P., and
should be regarded as an articulation of the same strength.
The Second Half of G3/i
The second half of G3/i opens with the first period, minus
the introduction, in the key of the dominant. There are some slight
changes from the original appearance, notably the insertion at measure
45 and the leap to material from the second period at measure 4 8 .
Measures 50 to 58 bring all new material which passes briefly through
the cycle of fifths from B through E, A, and D, to G major. This
energetic section ends with a half-close in the key of G and a G.P.
The next four measures begin in G, but since material from the second
period is used here, the music modulates through the keys of the
36
subdominant and the dominant before returning to the home key to stay.
Measures 63 to 70 repeat the cadence formulas found in the second
period of the first half, and add two new measures which emphasize
again the chords of the subdominant and dominant. The thirteen
measures from 69 to the end constitute a statement of measures 28 to
40 moved to the key of the tonic.
The discussion of the first half of this movement has shown
the difficulties encountered in defining structures of small and
middle dimensions. Because that section appeared homogeneous, no
attempt was made to examine it for structures of large dimensions.
The second half invites such an examination, for the function of the
music appears to change through this section. First, there is develop
ment of material at the beginning and restatement at the end. Then,
the amount of harmonic activity seen after the first few measures
disappears completely as the movement continues. Therefore, while an
examination of structures of small and middle dimensions need not be
repeated for the second half of this movement, an attempt to define
the two sections of large dimensions suggested by these observations
will be instructive.
A problem immediately develops in the search for the articulation
which defines the third section of the movement, i.e. a second section
in the second half. In order to make such an important division
obvious, this articulation should be of some weight. There should be
something about it which attracts the listener's attention. The
commonest device beyond the use of a strong cadence and a G.P. or link
is a return to known material in a familiar form, and firmly settled
in the tonic key. The first strong articulation which occurs after
the harmonic activity of measures 50 to 57 in this movement is the
unison half-close in the key of G major in measure 58* This suggests
a return to the desired tonic key, hut the material following this
articulation modulates away from G into the keys of C and D before
returning to G major in measure 6 3 . The link device is used in
measure 62 to move from D to G, and the following measures perpetuate
this cadence impression as was done in the second period of the first
half. Only in measure 70 is there an articulation which is followed
by stable harmonies in the home key.
Measures 59» 63, and 71 could each be considered as the
beginning of a recapitulation. Measure 59 is the f i r s t return to the
tonic, and states familiar material in that key. Measure 63 represents
a more solid return to the home key after the temporary harmonic
A ^
diversion of measures 60 to 62, and it also presents familiar
material. It is followed, however, by repeated cadences which suggest
that the new section does not really get under way until measure 71 •
This last articulation is only eleven measures from the end of the
movement, however, which makes the last section of large dimensions
no bigger than the final period of the first half of the movement.
Thus, one may choose as the third section of this movement music which
either contains elements of harmonic activity and function similar to
that characterizing the second section, or else clearly demonstrates
only the function of restatement, but is barely long enough to warrant
such attention. As with the problems with defining the third period
of the first half, there is no solution here on the basis of the given
facts. One is left with the impression of a change of function through
the second half, but without an exact knowledge of where that change
occurs.
Conclusions: The Movement as a Whole
Looking at G3/i as a whole in an attempt to define its form,
the analyst must remember that two subsections of the movement could
not be defined accurately. Doubt remains concerning the exact point
at which to mark the beginning of the third period of the first half,
and the second section of the second half. The necessary fact for a
correct interpretation of this music is that such doubt does exist,
and that great harm would be done by making an arbitrary decision in
favour of one solution or another. For instance, in the case of the
third period of the first half, the choice of a point of articulation
will determine the relative importance of measures 30 to 33* It will
be remembered that by beginning the third period with these measures,
they presented a contrast to all the preceding material, and thus
fulfilled the function of a second theme in sonata form. However, by
including the previous two measures in the third period, the entire
twelve measures takes on the appearance of a unified codetta to the
preceding two sections, and measures 30 to 33 become only an inter
ruption to the cadential flow, a decision in favour of either
interpretation is of great significance to any hypothesis regarding the
place of this movement in the history of sonata form. A first half
consisting of statement, modulation, and cadence is typical of many
instrumental pieces throughout the Baroque era} but an incipient second
theme tends to indicate a later stage, approaching the principles of
the Classical era. Similarly, any decision made as to which of the
three possible articulations could begin the second section of the
second half will obviously effect its length and thus, to a limited
extent, its importance as a possible recapitulation to balance the
entire first half of the movement.
The importance of a thoroughly objective system of analysis
can now be appreciated. If the analyst were to examine this movement
for traces of sonata form, or as an example of binary form, he would
find sufficient evidence to support his case either way. Yet, based
solely on the facts of the music, neither view can be wholly justified
nor rejected, and some alternative hypothesis, explaining these areas
of doubt, must be brought forward.
Setting aside these problematic areas for the moment, the
entire movement can now be examined in each of its dimensions, in
search of clues towards such a hypothesis. At the largest dimension,
the movement is based on a binary form harmonic plan. That is, the
first half modulates to the dominant, and the second half makes a
statement in that key before returning to the tonic through a brief
flourish of more foreign keys. Yet, despite the effect of this
harmonic plan, it is evident from an examination of the relation of
structures of middle and large dimensions that the movement is not
heard as a coherent whole. At no time is the listener required to
conceive of more than half the movement at once. The second half
parallels the first, using material from the first period at the
beginning, from the second period in the middle, and from the last
period at the end. Therefore, only the equivalent place in the first
half is recalled by any of the thematic statements in the second
half. In this way, no interdependence of the end and the beginning
of the movement is created.
Within this scheme, events are not related. The event of the
modulation in the first half, so striking at first, is only distantly
related to either of its ultimate objectives— the statement in the new
key at measures 30 to 33 or the cadence in measures 37 to 40. The
strong contrast presented in measures 30 to 33 is never related to any
material in the movement other than that in which it is originally
found. The exciting harmonic activity in measures 50 to 57 should
serve to cancel the impression of the dominant key and prepare the
return to the tonic, but the ambiguity regarding the beginning of the
next section makes these measures an effect which is not important to
the form of the movement as a whole.
If the view of this movement in its larger dimensions does
not reveal a stronger unifying force than the logic of the underlying
harmonic plan, a quite different picture is given by an examination
of the smallest dimensions. At the very beginning of this analysis
it was noted that the entire movement progressed in half-measure
units which were joined in various quantities to make up the phrases
and themes. It is only at this level, then, that the listener is
aware of a regular pattern of articulation. But the result of this
insistent articulation is that the listener is constantly aware of a
great variety of events at this level. Bach unit or small group of
units has been imbued with such rhythmic and melodic vitality that
contemplation of more than one at a time, and their relation in
structures of larger dimensions, is made very difficult. Moreover,
the energy created by the relentless succession of half-measure units
is released at every rest or momentary relaxation— the G.P. or link—
so that every one of these articulations gives the initial impression
of being important.
With these facts in mind, it comes as no surprise that the
limits of structures of large dimensions are difficult to define in
this movement. Therefore, the form of the movement cannot be
described in terms of such large structures, and the analyst cannot
use such terms as "sonata fom". Since it is impossible to sum up
this movement in terms of structures larger than the phrase, the
analysis reflects the listener's impression of this movement as a
succession of small units, each one contributing to the energy and
enthusiasm which characterize, not only this piece, but much of the
music of this period.
CHAPTER V
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Courses of Investigation
The examination of G3/i in the previous chapter has brought
forth several ideas which will guide the investigation of all twenty
symphonies. First of all, since the primary aim of this analysis is
to investigate Stamitz' approach to form, and particularly to sonata
form, it is interesting that G3/i could not be analyzed as an example
of this form. Indeed, the fact that the movement could not be
analyzed at all in terms of its large structures suggests that
Stamitz was not thinking in terms of the form of the entire movement,
but was more intent on sustaining interest in the small elements which
were the movement's unifying feature.
On the other hand, the examination also revealed why some
analysts might consider this movement to be an example of incipient
sonata form. The binary form harmonic plan, involving a first half
which moves from tonic to dominant and a second half which reverses
that procedure, bears a superficial resemblance to sonata form.
Also, the ambiguity regarding the limits of structures of large
dimensions found in two places in that movement allows analysts to
make arbitrary decisions at these points. Although the music
strongly suggests that in fact no decisions should be made, a careful
choice of points of articulation in these two places makes the number
42
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited w itho ut perm ission.
and relation of the larger structural elements similar to those of
sonata form.
These findings suggest courses of investigation for all
twenty symphonies. The first step will he to determine how many
movements hear the same superficial resemblance to sonata form
through the use of a binary form harmonic plan. Then, the division
of each movement into sections of large dimensions will he analyzed,
and compared for the clarity of the divisions in each case. This
will give an indication of how many movements clearly do not resemble
sonata form, and which ones should he examined more fully. Those which
show some evidence of sonata-form techniques will he analyzed and
compared. Finally, movements which show a highly ambiguous structure,
similar to G3/i, will he analyzed in more detail. This final section
will pursue the idea that Stamitz seems to he more interested in the
relation of structures of small dimensions than in unifying the
whole movement through a clear presentation of structures of large
dimensions.
The Binary Foaaa Harmonic Plan
The simple harmonic movement from tonic to dominant and hack
_~.%4~ 4~ ~,*^4 T4-« 4~ 4-1*^ ~4

o^ckLu J-o xtixvz ua o io w-l xncmjr lu im o ux rnuoxui xuo uac jox wxxx? o-i-g^x-xutxoxjLMix—
century symphony is demonstrated in G3/i: a. first half consisting of
a statement in the tonic, followed by a modulation to the dominant
with either an extended cadence cr a statement in that key; and a
second half which often uses the same material in the same order,
hut reversing the order of keys. Both halves are usually marked to he
repeated. 'When the first half includes statements in both keys, and
the second half offers some variation upon these statements, this form
begins to resemble sonata form. Analysts influenced by an evolutionary
theory of music would describe this as an early and incomplete example
of sonata form, exactly as Riemann did on the first page of this essay.
This is not to say that such a description does not have some
basis in historical fact. Leonard G. Ratner has studied the writings
of many of the theorists of the eighteenth century, and concluded
that "underlying the construction, order, and behaviour of all
melodic material in classic music are the characteristic harmonic

*1
and periodic formulas." In the main, these theorists describe the
movements in question only in terms of their harmonic plan. Thus, one
might assume, as Ratner does, that the harmonic plan a lo n e is
sufficient to indicate an early version of sonata form. After all,
William S. Newman has found no adequate description of sonata form

2
extant in theoretical writings until 1838 or 1840.
The element of thematic conflict, however, is also part of
the principle of sonata form, and despite the thoroughness of the
research of Ratner and Newman, references to the thematic element can
"Harmonic Aspects of Classic Form", in Journal of the American

i5isicologi-"l Society. II, 167* See also Leonard CL Ratner, "Eight
eenth- century Theories of Musical Period Structure", in Musical
Quarterly. XLII, 439-454*
2
"The Recognition of Sonata Form by Theorists of the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries", in Papers of the American Musicological
Society. 1941, pp. 21—29*
also be found, in theoretical writings of the eighteenth century. In
particular, Francesco Galeazzi, writing in 1796, described the use of
both recall and derivation of themes as techniques to build a musical
structure.'3 Stamitz1 G3/i gives examples of these techniques, for
material derived from the first period of the exposition is used for
modulation within the exposition and to open the second half of the
movement, and material from the last part of the exposition is recalled
or recapitulated in the last part of the second half. This indicates
that the examination of all twenty symphonies in this essay must
consider these thematic procedures as well as the binary form harmonic
plan as indicating early sonata form.
As the result of such an examination, it is clear that all
twenty first movements display the general resemblance to sonata form
which results from the use of the procedures described above. This
is true in spite of the fact that half of these movements lack the
repeat signs characteristic of ’’practically all early sonatas".^
That all first movements should display this resemblance is not sur
prising, for the use of sonata form in the opening movement is
common to the composers of the Classical era. In fact, de Stwolinski
and Durrenmatt examine in detail only the first movement of each
^Bathia Churgin, ’’Francesco Galeazzi's Description (1796) of

Sonata Form”, in Journal of the American Musicological Society, XXI,
181-199.
^Harvard Dictionary of Music, ed. Willi Apel, p. 791*
symphony which they have chosen for their studies. (See the list of
Works Consulted.) However, the same resemblance to sonata form occurs
in all the slow and final movements of the twenty symphonies examined.
In fact, the resemblance is more immediately apparent in these move
ments than in the opening movements, for only one of the nineteen
slow movements and four of the nineteen final movements lack repeat
5
signs to separate the halves. This would indicate that de Stwolinski
and Durrenmatt are wrong to limit their studies to first movements,
and are clearly betraying their use of the standards of the Classical
era in their study of Preclassical music. Therefore, on the basis of
the use of a binary form harmonic plan and an elementary thematic
technique, no less than fifty-eight movements from these twenty
symphonies— all movements except the minuets and trios— deserve to be
examined as ”early and incomplete examples of sonata form.".
Structures of Large Dimensions
The form of large movements is made intelligible by clear
divisions into a regular number of parts. For sonata form, this
division is into three parts, and the division is effected through
5Only nineteen slow movements because that of A2 is the

same as that of The final movements of these two symphonies
are also the same, and symphony Bb3 lacks a fast finale. However,
since Eb2 has an alternative final movement, there are nineteen
finales as well.
both, the harmony and the thematic content.^ The comments of Riemann
quoted in Chapter I, and both the titles and the methods of the studies
by Durrenmatt and de Stwolinski show these scholars believe that all
the first movements of Stamitz’ symphonies divide in orthodox manner
into exposition, development, and recapitulation. For instance,
although Durrenmatt and de Stwolinski are investigating only the
development sections, neither of them indicate that they were forced
to reject any symphony because such a section did not exist, or could
7
not be defined.1 The belief in the existence of this section
indicates the assumption that Stamitz is consciously controlling the
entire movement in the pattern of sonata form.
In a discussion of the division of the movement into structures
of large dimensions, one must consider the means by which the division
is made. The problem lies with the articulation between the develop*
0
ment section and the recapitulation. Obviously, the method used at
the end of the exposition— the double bar preceded by a full cadence—
cannot be duplicated, but some similarly obvious signal should be
employed. Before considering the type of signal which Stamitz uses, it
This tripartite division appears to contradict the conclusions

reached by Ratner in his article "Harmonic Aspects of Classic Form",
but his first two subsections have been included in the exposition since
their thematic functions are similar. The equal importance of
thematic and harmonic content has already received comment.
7
'The observations of several twentieth-century theorists on the
existence of a development section in these symphonies is given in
Durrenmatt, Die Durchfuhrung bei Johann Stamitz. pp. 51-55*
0
Since the continued avoidance of the terms commonly applied in
an analysis of sonata form causes circumlocutions that obscure the trend
of the argument, these terms wrll be used from here on. The .m ,gg
sections will be called exposition, development, and recapitulation,
is important to remember two common features of his style: the third
section does not regularly begin with material heard at the beginning
of the movement, and the range of keys, even in the development
section, is not always wide enough to make a return to the tonic
very obvious or important. Therefore, one cannot assume that a return
to the tonic automatically signals the new section, as is so common
with music from the Classical period.
In all, three factors must be considered in deciding on the
existence of a third section; the kind of articulation, the material
before the articulation, and the material which opens the new section.
The articulations which Stamitz employs have been described in the
analysis of G3/i. Any sudden change of texture, harmony, or melody
can create the sense of an articulation, but the pause or filled-in
pause, called the G.P. and link respectively, create a much stronger
signal. The material before the articulation can suggest the approach
of a new section either through harmonic means, as a dominant pedal, or
melodic means, as a false recapitulation. Stamitz1 use of a false
recapitulation does not give rise to further development, as one would
expect from familiarity with Classical examples; but by beginning in
the tonic with familiar material, and then turning to unexpected keys be
fore returning to the proper tonality, he merely delays the new section
aJTiu S atteifitiGii to It 8 b 8gi aliifig» CliGG tu6 u£W 3GGti.CH h£L3 been
announced, the nature of the material it contains determines whether it
and the theme groups will be called first, modulatory, second, and
closing in order of their appearance in the exposition. The use of
this terminology is only a convenience, and does not indicate acceptance
of the relation of these pieces to sonata form.
49
is heard as only another part of the previous music or as a different
idea with its own function. Thus, the use both of familiar material
after new or varied material, and of harmonic stability after
instability, contributes to the sense of a recapitulation after a
normal development section. The length of the section following the
articulation is important also, for a short recapitulation will not
stand on its own against a long exposition and development. It is
obvious that all these factors can be combined in various ways to
create articulations of various strengths, and thus each situation
must be examined on its own merits. Enough uniformity of techniques
exists, however, that these movements can be arranged in small groups,
and the strength of their articulations compared.
Analysis of the fifty-eight movements for structures of large
dimensions reveals that twenty-seven are in three parts, nineteen are
in two parts, eleven cannot be clearly defined as being in either two
or three parts, and at least one cannot be divided into any structures
9
of large dimensions. These results suggest that idiile almost one-half
of the movements in question may resemble sonata form in their
division into large sections, one-third clearly do not. In order to
perceive this aspect of Stamitz1 style more clearly, these movements
will all be examined and compared for the clarity of their articulations.
9
The results of the examination discussed in this chapter are
given in Table 2 in Appendix I in the form of measure counts. The
discussion found in the next three sections of this chapter is
summarized in Tables 3, 4? and 5 in Appendix I.
50
Movements In Three Parts
The strongest sense of a third section is found in the three
movements A2/i, Eb3/i, and 0>3/ii, (See Table 3 in Appendix I.) Here,
the previous section ends in each case in a related key with a perfect
cadence and a G.P. Further, the third section begins with material
from the first theme group. Closely related to these examples, the
use of the G.P. or link device followed by material from the first
theme group, but preceded only by a half-cadence in the tonic, is
strong enough in the case of A3/ii, G2/ii, and Bb4/f to create a
definite new section also. It is of some interest to note that the
same articulation— the G.P. or link— is never used by itself when the
next section begins with material other than that of the first theme
group. Five such recapitulations are prepared by the device of the
dominant pedal, followed by the G.P. or link, and then the new section
begins with so-called secondary theme material. These are D3/i» Eb2/i,
F3/i, D3/ii, and G2/f. A false recapitulation works in exactly the
same way in D7/i, Eb5/f» and Eb2’/f.
The recapitulation does not always begin with prominent material
from the first or second theme groups, but the presence of the G.P. or
link is of such force that the presence of a third section is con
sidered to be indisputable. In the case of Eb2/ii, Eb5/ii, Eb2/f,
4 aam v
t o wn A1 ■
f*
TWTTl"
f’
VlA
l y auu x x 9 W 4 1 C V X U . J L U n x v i x A w u v
exposition. In the case of A4/i and Bb3/ii» however, the third
section begins with material that is new to the movement. This should
not seem unusual ’

unless judged by the standards of the Classical
sonata, for Stamitz regularly introduces new material into both second
and third main sections. It is important to note, however, that none
of these seven movements makes use of the preparatory devices of the
dominant pedal or false recapitulation. Rather, the size of the third
section, together with its eventual recapitulation of known material,
is enough to confirm the impression made "by the G.P. or link devices
at this point.
when the G.P. or link is not used, a fairly strong articulation
can still be effected by the false recapitulation or the dominant pedal
alone, especially when combined with either principal or secondary
material at the beginning of the new section. G2/i and A4/f use
the false recapitulation and begin the third section with the principal
theme. M / i i uses the same device with the second theme, and D5/i
begins the third section with other known material after a false
recapitulation. The case of A3/i is very interesting, for the use
of a dominant pedal of two measures introduces a recapitulation
which begins in the key of the subdominant. The recapitulation is
complete, beginning with principal theme and including all the material
of the exposition. The modulation to the tonic is made very unobtrusive
ly at the beginning of the second period.^ D2/i is also of interest
in that the beginning of the third section is clearly articulated by
the first two measures of the first theme followed by the second theme,
without the benefit of any other device.
It can be seen from the above discussion— summarized in
Table 3 in Appendix I— that first movements show a marginally greater
1^Durrenmatt includes this movement among the seventeen which

conclude the development in the dominant and begin the recapitulation
in the tonic. See Durrenmatt, Die Dorchfuhrung. p. 85.
tendency to divide into three sections than do either second or final
movements. Of the twenty-seven movements in three parts, there are
eleven first movements, and eight each of second and final movements,
dor do the first movements analyzed in this essay show any tendency to
use particular techniques different from those used in other movements,
other than a slight preference for third sections introduced by a
dominant pedal and beginning with material from the first theme.
These facts only emphasize once more the folly of taking the works of
Classical composers as a guide, and restricting one's analysis to the
first movements of Preclassical music.
Movements in Two Parts
Nineteen movements from the twenty symphonies appear to be
divisible only into two parts. The essential point is that none of
these nineteen has a strong articulation in the second half, so that
there is no interruption to the flow of the music. This impression of
a coherent and unified second half is much strengthened by the harmonic
and thematic content in each case. (See Table 4 in Appendix I.) For
instance, of these nineteen movements, thirteen return to the tonic key
shortly after the beginning of the second half. In eight of these

4-l_~. 1 ---------
- --_ 4 — — J 4.1 4 J _ ____4.1 ________ 4. . X* ^
W 14X J.’ U G O H j WHO iiH -i-H iu x jff X .'OU UttO HA O U iU O C WU WHO U U H 4 .V iU l’ WHO - L 'O S W W H O
movement, precluding any idea of a recapitulation, and producing what
amounts to a slightly varied run-through of the material of the
exposition, sometrmes wxth the addxtion of new material. Examples of
this are D4/i, D5/ii, Dn/ii, Ebl/ii, D4/f, Dll/f, Ebl/f, and G3/f.
In the other five movements, the immediate return to the tonic seems
53
to delay the appearance of any developmental procedures, and this and
new material begin late in the second half and continue almost to the
end of the movement. This occurs in Bb4/i» Dll/i, D4/ii, F3/ii, and
A3/f. The remaining six movements of the nineteen do not return to
the tonic until very close to the end of the movement, developmental and
new material having been introduced throughout the second half.
These are F2/i, Bb4/ii» ^7/ii, G3/ii, D3/f» and Eb3/f.
It is interesting to note that four of these nineteen movements
in two parts are first movements. A division into only two parts would
seem to indicate quite strongly that these four movements have little
or no relation to sonata form, yet Durrenmatt includes Bb4/i and D4/i
in his study of development sections.
■Ambiguous Movements
Twelve movements remain to be discussed. All of these twelve
cannot be described accurately as either two-part or three-part, even
though they resemble the other forty-six in their use of the harmonic
plan and thematic procedures discussed earlier in this chapter.
Nine movements of these twelve cannot be heard clearly as in either twe
or three parts because indications of both constructions are present.
(See Table 5 in. Aotsendix I.) The movement G3/i, the subject of the
previous chapter, is an example of this problem. The section which could
be called a recapitulation includes only material heard at the close of
the expositions ice. second theme and codetta. Just as on its first
appearance, this material seems closely related to the section before,
as a suitable cadence, and does not give the impression of a new idea
standing on its own. When combined with any confusion regarding
articulation, caused by several articulations as in G3/i, this material
becomes a separate section only by hindsight, and is rarely long enough,
to have any impact as a proper recapitulation. These observations
hold for Eb4/i, D2/ii, and Eb4/ii in addition to G3/i. The quasi
recapitulation section of D2/ii also contains new material, which
further destroys the sense of a section different in function from the
previous, development section.
Similar to the above four are F2/ii, D2/f, D5/f, and D7/f.
In all these, however, there is also the return to the tonic early
in the second half which was found to be typical of movements in two
parts. The second half of F2/ii begins in the tonic key on dominant
hamony, passes through some foreign keys, and ends with a highly
modified version of the modulatory, second, and closing themes. D2/f
is in the tonic key before a recapitulation of the second and closing
themes is articulated exactly as it was in the exposition, suggesting
a strong sense of continuity in this movement. The other two movements
use a dominant pedal to emphasize the articulation of the recapitulation
but the previous return to the tonic, the similarity of the articulation
to that heard at that point in the exposition, and the brevity of the
following section, all suggest that the dominant pedals here are only
devices to create excitement, not to articulate a formal structure.
The movement Bb3/i is somewhat individual, for a statement of
the principal theme beginning in measure 173 appears to articulate the
recapitulation most effectively. But the theme is immediately
modified by the omission of two measures which originally emphasized
the tonic, modulation returns in the phrase beginning in measure 195»
55
and the rest of the movement is an extended cadence in the tonic key
using the major chord built on the flattened sixth degree, exactly
as at the end of the first half. All this can be regarded either as a
compressed and highly modified recapitulation, or a suitable cadence
section to the second half similar to that for the first half.
The movements Ebl/i, Eb5/i, and F2/f have not been discussed.
These are three of the fifteen movements mentioned earlier in this
chapter which lack a double bar and repeat sign at the end of the
first half, and since this technique can make the end of the exposition
as ambiguous as the beginning of the recapitulation is found to be in
the movements just discussed, some further comments should be made on
all these fifteeen movements. Actually, however, no problems arise
for the other twelve, as they follow the same harmonic and thematic
procedures as are normally found in movements with repeat signs.
That is, for the nine movements D3/i> D4/i> Eb2/i, Eb4/i, F3/i, G2/i,
D3/ii, D3/f, and Ebl/f, the re-appearance of the first theme in the key
of the dominant clearly marks the beginning of the second section.
In the other three movements, D2/i, D5/i, and Eb2'/f» the procedure is
very similar, for the first material to be repeated in the new key is a
later part of the first theme. In D^/i, the beginning of the new
section is reinforced by the use of the link device as an articulation.
For E b l / i t Ebp/i, and F2/f, however, the lack of these techniques to
mark the end of the exposition, and a similar obscurity regarding any
recapitulation section, keep the listener in doubt about the form until
the end of the movement. For reasons which will become clear, it is
believed that these movements are more typical of Stamitz1 style than the
many examples of "sonata form" which have been studied by various
56
scholars. For this reason, these three movements will he examined
in some detail*
Three Movements: F2/f. Bbl/i. and Eb5/i
The final movement of symphony F2 consists of thirteen
periods averaging twenty measures in length. Although the general
plan is that of sonata form, the regular alternation of known and
new material creates an impression similar to that of a rondo, and
prevents the listener from grouping the work into large sections.
The first four periods, covering sixty-two measures, appear to be
regular. They present a first thane, two periods of modulatory
themes, and a second theme area in the dominant minor. However,
following this is a repetition of the first modulatory theme, now in
the dominant major, a section of cadential material, the first theme
in the dominant, and a long modulatory section returning to the tonic
key. The recapitulation expected at this point opens with a greatly
modified statanent of the first theme, followed by a new and extensive
modulatory section, and the second theme in tonic-minor. This is
again followed by the first modulatory theme in major, and the movement
is climaxed by the largest period, forty-three measures, in which short
phrases from various sections are presented in modified form juxtaposed
with more new material.
The lively effect made by this rapid flow of new and known
material is enhanced by certain devices. Putting the second theme into
the minor key is a startling effect, particularly in such a robust piece
57
11 /
of music. The time signature is 3/8, and such short measures tend to
group into twos, creating an impression of 6/8 time. However, in
three places, a measure is added or subtracted, giving the sense of
an odd measure of 9/8. Also, the musical material is of a simple
nature, using mostly chords and arpeggios, but the variations and
modifications to which this material is subjected are a constant delight
to the ear.
The movements Ebl/i and Eb5/i have a remarkable similarity to
each other. Unlike F2/f, these consist of a string of phrases
averaging six to seven measures, which can be combined into periods
and sections only by the theorist, not by the listener. For example,
three different phrases occur at least three times throughout the

12
course of each movement. Beyond the fact that each phrase appears,
broadly speaking, near the beginning, middle, and end of the movement,
no coherent pattern arises from this pervasive repetition. Yet all
of this material is striking in character, being highly repetitive
within the phrase, and therefore noticeable at each hearing. Nor is
this material usually varied to such an extent that it is not
immediately recognizable on its return.
^ T h e same device is used in D5/f, and several similar examples

can be found in the trio symphonies,
^*7Jo examples of the music under discussion have been given

since only the entire movement would make these comments clear. Both
Ebl and Eb5 are readily available in editions by Hugo Riemamn listed
in the Appendix. In this instance, the first appearances of the three
phrases in question in Bbl/i are at measures 11, 19, and 31, and in
Eb5/i at measures 21, 39, and 47*
58
The most remarkable feature of these phrases is that one
of them is used in each movement to effect a return to the tonic.
In both cases, the phrase is stated first in the established dominant
key, and immediately after in the tonic. But it is unusual that
in both movements this occurs almost exactly in the middle of the
movement, close after the first statement of what might be called a
second theme. This return to the tonic has been noted as character
istic of the beginning of the second half of several other movements.
By comparison then, what is heard at first as closing theme material
after the second theme in the exposition, becomes the opening material
of the second half.
This ambiguity is paralleled in two other places in each
movement. The treatment of first theme material in both
movements makes it difficult to identify the recapitulation.
The first theme of Ebl/i comes after four measures of introduction.
It consists of six meaures of which the first four are presented
over a tonic pedal. Its next appearance is at the end of the
modulation process to the dominant key, and here it functions as a
dpmi nqnt pedal to the new key. Its next and final appearance in
the movement is similar to the preceding, for it occurs at the end
of the modulation process returning to the tonic, as a dominant pedal
to that key. Therefore, the material heard near the beginning of the
movement and identified as first theme is heard in a new harmonic
function before the end of the exposition, and in the same function
at the end of the development, and never in its original form. The
first theme material of Eb5/i also appears after an introduction,
this time of eight measures. The only re-appearance of this theme
comes after the sudden return to the tonic noted above, where,
beginning in that key, it modulates to the dominant of C minor.
The other examples of an even more obvious attempt at
ambiguity occur at the phrase leading into the second theme in
both symphonies. The modulation section has been quite extensive
in both expositions, and has involved a number of superfluous repet
itions. When the second theme is now inevitable, and the listener’s
expectations are at their highest, there occurs a series of false
starts which pantomime a second theme which cannot get started.
In Ebl/i this occurs first in measures 47 to 50. Here, the cadence
measure of the previous phrase returns twice to interrupt the
oboe's attempt at a second theme, until a new melody is allowed
to continue. In Eb5/i» a similar example occurs in measures 75 to
80. This has been preceded by the arrival at the dominant of the new
key, and the six measures in question consist of a three-fold
statement of what sounds at first like a second theme but becomes,
by repetition, a cadential extension to the previous phrase.
These detailed examinations of small parts of the two
movements give only a hint of the general style. Like F2/f, there is
a strong sense of vitality and exuberance, but the robustness is
replaced by wit. E2/f depended upon period-length sections to make
its point; in Ebl/i and Eb5/i, the attention to detail is evident in
the succession of phrase-length sections. In treating these phrases
with techniques such as unexpected extension and fore-shortening,
incongruous juxtaposition, change of function upon repetition, and
meaningless repetition, Stamitz keeps his audience constantly
surprised, delighted, and, perhaps, pleasantly confused.
60
Conclusions
Having examined the various kinds of formal structures in
these fifty-eight movements, it is time to return to the problem of
their relation to sonata form. Analysis shows that all these movements
resemble sonata form to the extent that that form is described by
eighteenth-century theorists, and yet they display such a great deal
of variety in the handling of structures of large dimensions that less
than half of them resemble sonata form in this respect. Rather than
suggesting that only some of these movements should be considered
as examples of sonata form, these facts indicate that none of these
movements is an example of this form.
Sonata form is more than a convenient ordering of parts; it
is a principle of musical composition which is evidenced in part by
the harmonic conflict and thematic reworking which have been described.
In the works of the Classical era, movements in this form demand as much
intellectual involvement as the Baroque fugue. But the typical sonata-
form movement displays a control of space and time not associated with
the fugue. The use of the development and recapitulation of themes
not only demands that the listener concentrate throughout the movement,
but it also leaves him with an impression of the movement as a whole.
Since this involves a greater attention span that that of any other
form in common use, sonata form is normally found only in the first
movement, where the interest of the audience is presumably highest.
The search for early examples of sonata form should be for evidence of
this intellectual approach, and attempts to unify entire movements in
this way.
Certainly attempts to unify entire movements arc not apparent
in these twenty symphonies. It was noted in the analysis of G3/i
that Stamitz' formal process does not require the listener to conceive
of more than half the movement at once. This same process can he
observed in many of the other movements as well, for it is the result
of the use of binary form. Moreover, the detailed examinations of
F2/f, Ebl/i, and Eb5/i have shown that the ordering of the phrases and
periods seem to reflect a deliberate attempt on Stamitz' part to
confuse the structure of the whole movement. On the other hand, the
fact that Stamtiz does employ a similar harmonic formula in every
movement, yet obtains different structural results from this formula
in each movement, indicates that the large structures are the products
of the grouping of smaller structures, and not subdivisions of Stamitz'
concept of the whole movement. Thus, whether one tries to relate units
of small dimensions to the structure of the whole movement, or to
break down the movement into structures of large dimensions, one
encounters problems with the music. The conclusion must be made that
Stamitz was influenced by some other idea than the form of the entire
movement. This means that Stamitz could have had little direct effect
on the course of the history of sonata form.
Some explanation must still be found for the variety of
movements from the simplest binary form to the complexities of Ebl/i and
Eb5/i. If all these fifty-eight movements have something in common, it
is the energy and vitality that have been mentioned so often. As
suggested in the study of G3/i, this spirit is the result of the
structure of the movement at its smallest dimension. At this level, in
all these movements, a constant pattern of articulation may be found.
As explained at the end of Chapter IV 5 these articulations create a
62
tremendous flow of energy throughout the movement, yet their regularity
makes articulations of a higher order, as for periods and sections,
difficult to distinguish. Moreover, Stamitz goes to some pains to
ensure that each short unit or phrase is interesting in itself.
Thus, each is melodically and rhythmically distinct, and their
succession through the movement creates a kaleidoscope of new ideas.
The devices which Stamitz uses to make each phrase exciting
have "been catalogued by Hugo Riemann in his essay "Die Stil und die
13
Manieren der Mannheimer". The devices which he describes have since
become universally associated with the school of composers about
Stamitz, and thus one reads of the Mannheim rocket, the Mannheim
crescendo or steamroller, and the Mannheimer Vorhalt or sigh.
Equally common are the sudden contrasts of dynamics, and the virtuosic
writing for the violins. These devices are all apparent upon even the
most cursory examination of the music, but they do not have much effect
on twentieth-century ears. Ho one rises from his seat for a Mannheim
crescendo any more than for a Rossini crescendo. For Riemann, who
deals with these details quite separately from his discussion of the
form, the significant point was clearly the evolution of sonata form.
But if one includes among this catalogue of devices and effects the
surprising and ambiguous juxtapositions of phrases as seen in Ebl/i
ano. £*Dp/i, no & only does one have a more complete pxcture of the offsets
which make this style exciting, but also a picture which helps to
1-3in Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern, VIl/2, xv-xxv.
explain the form of these movements.
All of these devices exist in the music’s smallest dimensions:
only the Mannheim crescendo sometimes includes two phrases; the rest
never exceed one phrase. For example, one might point to Stamitz’
common practice of alternating loud and soft dynamics at half
measure intervals, as at the beginning of Eb3/i. Few of these
devices also exert any influence on surrounding phrases. Again, the
common exception is the crescendo, which often becomes strongly
connected to the phrases it follows and precedes. However, isolated
crescendos which are not related to surrounding phrases can be found,
and in the same category one could include the dominant pedals in
3>5/f and D7/f which, in the discussion of movements in two parts,
were found to be only devices to create excitement, not to introduce
a new section. Thus, these devices rarely contribute to the
structuring of the movement in larger dimensions. On the other hand,
by offering a constantly exciting series of events at the smaller
dimensions, they hold the listener’s attention, and do not encourage
him to try to appreciate the movement’s larger unity.
It seems Justifiable to conclude from these arguments that
Stamitz' compositional technique was directed at producing and refining
these devices, and not at any formal innovations. Instead, he relied
upon the use of a simple binary form, knowing that this would allow
him the greatest freedom to present a variety of effects at the
smallest dimensions. The small rhythmic units in which these effects
are presented combine into phrases of varying lengths, and, with
decreasing clarity, into structures of large dimensions. Thus, only
structures of small dimensions are always perceptible in these
symphonies. In considering the form of these works, therefore, only
the relation of these structures can be considered. And it is exactly
this relationship which should be considered, for it is here that the
form makes the same contribution to the style as do the many devices
involving melody, rhythm, anddynamics. While this style is evident in
all the movements discussed above, it is most evident in the three
movements F2/f, Ebl/i, and Eb5/i, where the form makes the most
complete contribution. It is for this reason that these three are
regarded as the most typical of Stamitz' style of all these symphonies.
In summary, evidence from the analysis of these twenty symphon
ies strongly suggests that Stamitz should be recognized for his
contributions to the symphony, not in the area of sonata form, but in
the number, variety, and effect of the devices and phrasing which
make his symphonies so interesting.
CHAPTER V I
HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
The analysis of twenty symphonies by Johann Stamitz has
produced the hypothesis that his style is one of variety and excitement
created by effects of dynamics, melody line, and form. While this
description appears to be an accurate assessment of his music based
on the present examination, it could be criticized as but one
more personal interpretation of these controversial works. Further
more, it does nothing to explain why the symphonies of Stamitz were
popular during and after the composer's lifetime. To merit this
attention, Stamitz must have brought something uniquely attractive
to the symphony of the second quarter of the eighteenth century.
Both of these questions can be answered by looking at the
historical facts surrounding Stamitz at the time he was composing his
symphonies. The comments of contemporary critics will show what some
people admired most about Stamitz* symphonies, inviting comparison
with the analysis in the previous chapters. Of far more significance,
however, will be a study of the influences affecting Stamitz and his
composition: his background, life in Mannheim, audience, and resources.
This will supply valuable clues to explain his choice of style, and
the popularity of that style. By this means, the conclusions reached
•?n Chapter V will be fully justified, and be seen to reflect the
6 5
eighteenth-century view of Johann Stamitz and the symphony.
Contemporary Criticism
One of the most valuable sources for criticism of eighteenth-
century style and taste is the writings of Dr. Charles Burney.
Author of one of the first histories of music in English, Burney made
two extensive tours of the continent in the 1770s, collecting and
examining old music, visiting celebrated composers and performers,
and hearing music everywhere he went. It is of some significance,
therefore, that his comments, as well as comments from German critics,
should all be directed towards the same aspect of Stamitz1 music.
Burney speaks of "the fire and genius of Stamitz1’, and, in the
symphonies, of ’’the variety, taste, spirit, and new effects produced

A
by contrast and the use of crescendo and diminuendo". In the journal
of his trip throuî Germany and Bohemia, Bimey calls the orchestra
of Mannheim ''an araay of generals", remarking not only on the size but
p
the discipline and ability displayed. At another point, he mentions
"the late celebrated Stamitz, from idiose fire and genius the present
style of Sinfonies, so full of effects, of light and shade, was in a
considerable degree derived".^ Again, Burney compares Stamitz’ use of
1Charles Burney, A General History of Ifctsic. ed. F. Mercer,

II, 945.
^Percy Scholes, ede, Dr, Burney’s Musical Tours in Europe. II,

35.
^Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney's Musical Tours. II, 34.
dynamics to the use of colours in painting,^- and elsewhere speaks of
15
this man whose "genius was truly original, bold, and nervous".
Schubarfc1s famous comment has been quoted in many articles. Speaking
of the performance ability of the Mannheim orchestra, he remarks,
"Their forte is a roll of thunder, their crescendo a cataract,
their diminuendo the receding murmur of a crystal-clear stream,
their piano a breath of spring."^ Reichardt praises the performance
of the orchestra in the same way, speaking particularly of their

7
ability to "swell and diminish on the long notes".1 Finally, the
BerLinisch-Musikalischer Zeitung described the Mannheim orchestra in
1794 in terms of the great number of virtuosos it contained, many of

g
whom were the pupils of Johann Stamitz.
From these remarks, it is clear that Stamitz was known in his
own time for the fire of his character as he revealed it, first, in
the exciting dynamic effects of his symphonies, and secondly,
^Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney*s Musical Tours. II, 35»

*5 1
^Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney s Musical Tours. II, 134*
^"Sein Forte ist ein Donner, sein Crescendo ein Katarakt,

sein Diminuendo ein in die F e m e hin platschemder Krystallfluss,
sein Piano ein Fruh 1 ingshauch.11
Quoted by Karl Nef in Geschfchte der Sinfonie und Suite, p. 1
^Quoted in Nef, Sinfonie. p. 1 1 7 .
0
Quoted by Hugo Riemann in Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern.
Ill/i, xiv.
in the perfection of the orchestra which he hai trained to play these
dynamics so well. It seems correct to conclude from this that
Stamitz1 contribution to the symphonic style of the eighteenth century
was in the area of expressive devices, not formal concepts. He created
a new vocabulary of effects which made his symphonies better than
concertos and opera overtures, "being more spirited than the one, and
o
more solid than the other".
Not only do these remarks correspond to the description
given in this essay, but the novelty which these authors ascribe
to this style indicates that this may well be the reason for
Stamitz1 fame. Moreover, since his fame seems to have been spread
mainly by his symphonies, the appearance of this style in that
medium mast have had a particularly strong effect upon the course of
development of a form which did not yet enjoy the widespread popularity
accorded to it in succeeding ages.
The Symphony in the Eighteenth Century
Scheibe and Mattheson* ^ list three categories of symphonies
in the first half of the eighteenth century. These are the symphonies
for the church, the theatre, and the chamber. The symphony for the
church, they say, must be written superbly, and be of a nature to
q
Burney, General History. II, 945•
i0
Their observations are gathered and translated in the
article by Ruth Halle Rowen, "Some Eighteenth-Century Classifications
of Musical Style", Musical Quarterl.v. XXXIII, 90-101.
attract the listener's attention, but not let him forget that he is
in church. In the demand for careful and learned writing, these
symphonies appear to be in the tradition which Bukofzer establishes
as being typical of the Baroque era . ^
On the other hand, the theatre symphony, the earliest type
and associated with the opera, was of no set nature. Even the number
of movements might vary according to the purpose of the symphony.
Used as music for both the intervals and the time preceding the
beginning of the play or opera, the main purpose of these symphonies
was to create some noise behind the audience's conversation. Although
no suggestion of chronology is intended by these remarks, these
symphonies might be considered as of the style galant or Rococo period
of music. Due both to the association with the operatic melodic
style, and to the purpose of the music as a crowd-pleaser, these
symphonies were essentially entertaining and unproblematic.
It is Burney who notes that Stamitz "first surpassed the
bounds of common opera overtures, which had hitherto only served in
the theatre as a kind of court cryer, with an '0 Yes.'' in order to
awaken attention and bespeak silence, at the entrance of the singers."
That is, in the terms of Mattheson and Scheibe, Stamitz was writing
11
Manfred Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era, pp. 9-16.
12
Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney's Musical Tours II, 35*
70
chamber symphonies. Scheibe says that, regarding the composition of
this kind of symphony, this depends on "the fire of the composer. . . .
His vivacity and genius for inventing, expounding, and animating a

13
melody are the only guides he must follow."
When symphonies were divorced from their utilitarian connection
with theatre and church, the audience became more attentive to the
details of the music. The onus fell upon the composer to make these
symphonies as exciting and interesting as possible. It is this style
which led to the production of concert symphonies, and to the Classical,
Haydn-Mozart symphony; and the development of this style can be seen
in the choice of effects at different times. In the Preclassic,
certain obvious dynamic and melodic devices were sufficient; but by
the time of the High Classic, intellectual effects of form and
counterpoint made these symphonies inaccessible to all but true
connoisseurs.
This reasoning explains the importance of Stamitz1 stylistic
innovations in his own time, and explains his true significance in
the history of the symphony. One may now regard Stamitz as essential
to that history, yet disregard his concept of form. Thus Riemann was
correct in making the name of this composer prominent once more, but
not in linking it with the development of sonata form.
A further example of this argument comes from examination of
one movement of these symphonies so far overlooked in this essay: the
13
Quoted in Rowen, "Classifications", p. 100.
7 1
minuet. Riemann found that Stamitz was among the first symphonists
to include the minuet regularly as a fourth movement, i.e. between
the slow movement and the finale. He concluded that this early
example was the origin of the standard four-movement symphonic form
found in the Classic era.
In general descriptions of the symphony, the inclusion of a
dance in such serious surroundings is usually justified by referring to
the suitability of both the refined and graceful style and the clear
and symmetrical form of the minuet. However, Stamitz' contemporaries
did not share this opinion of the minuet. In the first place, its
nature as a dance was too well known to allow this movement to be part
of a church symphony.^ When included in a chamber symphony,
J.A. Hiller remarks that "the placing of a minuet and trio between
the larger movements gives the whole a certain air of gaiety which
certainly suits the symphony better than when one's art is displayed
15
unseasonably with canons in cancrizans and other harmonic effects."
These comments clearly indicate that the minuet suited the new symphony
because of its simple, even naive light-heartedness, not because of
any refinement or grace of style or form.
"*^The opinions of Burney and Scheibe on the minuet are quoted

iw Potow . **O i f i s s i f i o n s **y PP* 9^ 99*
15
"Die zwischen die grosseren Satze gestellten Menuette und
Trii geben dem Ganzen eine gewisse Miene der Lustigkeit, die sich
freilich zu sinfonien besser schickt, als wenn man seine Kunst zur
Unzeit mit krebsgangigen Kanonen und anderem harmonischem Spielwerk
zeigen wollte."
Quoted in Nef, Sinfonie, p. 120.
72
Hiller's comments on the minuet include criticism of intellectual
effects associated with the Baroque and the Classical eras. This desire
for simplicity and directness is a feature of Preclassicai music. Burney
takes the same line when he praises Stamitz' exciting musical dynamics
over the "dull and servile imitations of Corelli, Geminiani, and

1 £i
Handel". Thus Stamitz, in incorporating the "gay" minuet and
avoiding the subtle devices of counterpoint and formal design, was
making his chamber symphonies into the exciting concert symphonies
which caught the imagination of all who heard them.
Paris
The question of influences upon a composer is not often easy
to answer. For instance, some composes obviously wrote to please a
particular audience; others wrote for themselves and the music, and
sometimes never found an audience. But when one can define a composer
and his audience, it does not matter if an intent to please this audience
cannot be discovered. The nature of the audience, and its reason for
liking this music, can tell us much about the composer and his style.
Therefore, discovery and examination of Stamitz' audience is essential
to understanding his popularity.
^^Burney, General History, II, 945.
7 3
Stamitz was not of the "closely circumscribed circle held
together by unified views" which Blume describes as being typical
of Baroque musical society.17 Although he spent most of his career in
Mannheim, his fame spread to Paris, possibly the cultural centre of
eighteenth-century Europe. It is reported that in 1748, the private
orchestra of Jean de la Poupeliniere adopted the use of horns on the

18
advice of Stamitz. In 1751 a symphony by Stamitz was performed at
19
the Concert spirituel. in 1754, Stamitz himself visited Paris and
stayed there for a year, performing in person at the Concert spirituel

?f)
and taking the orchestra of la Poupeliniere under his direction. u
Of most significance, however, is the pamphlet written by

21
Baron Grimm in 1753, called Le petit prophete de Boehmischbroda.
The "prophet", Gabriel Joannes Nepomucenus Franciscus de Paula
Waldstorch, is identified by Gradenwitz^ as basically Stamitz,
although certain aspects refer to Gluck. This pamphlet, one item
in the Querelle des Bouffons, advocates the reform point of view.
17Friedrich Blume, Classic and Romantic Music, p. 86.
■^Peter Gradenwitz, Johann Stamitz: I. Das Leben, p. 42.
•^Gradenwitz, Leben, p. 41.
^Gradenwitz, Leben, pp. 41-48.
21
Available m Oliver strunK, source Readings m Music
History, IV, 45.
22
Peter Gradenwitz, "Johan [sic] Stamitz et le petit prophete
de Boehmischbroda", in La Revue Musicale XIX, 62-70.
74
The "prophet" expresses surprise at the foolish conventions of
traditional French opera, and he is used as a medium by the Voice
of Music to warn the French to adopt the modern fashion before they
lose their leadership in the world of art. Thus Stamitz, before
his visit to Paris, was well enough known, and his style was of
such a type, that he could servce as spokesman for the most modern
taste in this influential pamphlet.
The circle with which Stamitz can be identified in Paris,
both in the pamphlet and in his visit, is called by Gradenwitz

23
the "salon progressiste-bourgeois". Thus, the style of Stamitz
made its effect in the circles of the bourgeoisie, the emerging
class of the eighteenth century, who first made their influence
felt in France, and particularly in Paris. The bourgeoisie must
be understood as a new form of aristocracy, created, not by birth,
but by social achievement or appointment of the monarchy. The wealthy
family could purchase paterts of nobility, win them through their
importance as lawyers or educators, or have them conferred as a form
of patronage from the King: "By 1789 probably ninety-five per cent of
24
all nobles were of middle class origin." Elinor Barber studies the
formation of the bourgeoisie as a phenomenon of class mobility and
writes:
^Gradenwitz, "Le petit prophete", p. 62. Cf. Gradenwitz,

Leben, pp. 44-45.
24Will Durant and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization,

Vol. IX: The Age of Voltaire, p. 252.
The wealthy roturier could not only acquire some
of the functions of the nobleman and some of the
concomitant prestige, he could also attain a close
approximation of the noble way of life. By the
eighteenth century, many roturiers owned homes
like those of the nobility, dressed like the
nobility, imitated their recreational activities,
and, like the noblemen, felt it beneath their
dignity to work for a living. ^5
In this imitation of the aristocratic way of life and
particularly of the recreational activities becoming to a man of
leisure arose the bourgeois influence upon the arts. As Blume has
said, "The Classic period of music is at the same time its middle-
26
class period." Eberhard Preussner has carried out a study of German
bourgeois culture and its effect on music in the eighteenth century
in which he concludes that the rise of public concerts is a creation
of the bourgeoisie in imitation of the private concerts of the old
aristocracy. ^ The spread of the public concert then influenced the
creation of two new forms of music: the oratorio and the symphony.
According to Preussner, these became important items on the programs
of public concerts because of the influence of the burgerliche

28
Gesellschaft. That is, these particular forms came to be the main
^ E l i n o r G. Barber, The Bourgeoisie in Eighteenth-century

Fiance, p. 11.
26
Blume, Classic «nd Bomantic Music, p. 8 3 .
Êberhard Preussner, Die burgerliche Musikkultur. Significant

ly, one of the earliest examples of the public concert which Preussner
mentions is the same Concert spirituel with which Stamitz is associated
It began in Paris in 1725*
28
Preussner, Die burgerliche Musikkultur. pp. 72-76.
items at precisely those concerts attended by the German bourgeoisie.
Preussner relates these two facts, and points out that the rise of
municipal orchestras to perform these symphonies dates from this period

29
as well.
Unfortunately, in a discussion of the style of music demanded
by the bourgeoisie, Preussner has much less to say, although he does
mention the role of the virtuoso and virtuosity as a frequent
attraction at these concerts.^ One can guess from this fact, however,
and from the fact that the bourgeoisie would lack the accumulated
musical knowledge and taste of the aristocracy, that their choice
in music would run to the obvious and immediate effects described in
Stamitz' symphonies. In fact, Gradenwitz has attempted to define the
change of musical style in the eighteenth century, and his description
of the new, presumably bourgeois, style, agrees with the description

31
of Stamitz1 style developed in this essay. Paris was certainly
influenced by this change of style, for it was itself a centre for the
emerging bourgeois taste, and one can conclude that Stamtiz1 popularity
in that city was primarily the result of his appeal to the bourgeoisie.
29
Preussner, Die burgerliche Musikkultur, p. I43ff.
^Preussner, Die burgerliche Musikkultur. pp. 46-48 and

53-55*
^Gradenwitz, Leben. p. 45» and Peter Gradenwitz, "Mid-

Eighteenth-Century Transformations of Style", in Music and Letters.
XVIII, 265 275 - .
Mannheim
The court of the Elector Palatinate in Mannheim, where Stamitz
male his home for over fifteen years, was not situated in a large city
on the lines of Paris, Vienna, or Berlin, and thus may not have been
subject to the influences of the emerging bourgeoisie. As with most
German courts, however, it was strongly influenced by the French,
and particularly by the activities in Paris. Germany at this time was
still a collection of individual states, and the lack of any national
unity made the glamour and prestige of the court of Louis XV a model
for all the bitterly competitive German courts.
One of the lasting effects of the French influence was in
architecture, and a number of courts were built in imitation of
Versailles. Amalienburg palace, in the Nymphenburg near Munich, is
a lovely, and typical, example. Not only is it surrounded by ordered
gardens and natural woods, both on a grand scale, but the small
palace contains a Spiegelsaal as part of its lavish decorations.
Mannheim itself included an orangery that Burney described as being

32
"larger than that at Versailles". French was also the language of
the German aristocracy, Voltaire remarking that "German is for the
soldiers and the horses; it is needed only on the roa d . " ^ In
respect to manners, Ernst Rose says, "The nobility was bedazzled by
the brilliant art of Louis XXV, and was aping the French in language and
Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney’s Musical Tours. II, 36.
^^Voltaire, a letter of November 24, 1750» from Berlin, in

Durant, The Age of Voltaire, p. 400*
78
manners* The French wig and the French surcoat became the customary
dress of the eighteenth-century German. The trend of German thought
in this century was also strongly influenced by the friendship
between Voltaire and Frederick the Great.
The Palatinate itself had been an international centre,
?nd the scene of enlightened and progressive thinking since the
reign of Charles Lewis ( 1649-1680). After the Thirty Years War,
he invited the people of all nations to come to the Rhine and
settle in his state. He also restored the University of
Heidelburg and promoted Mannheim as a centre of commerce. In
the peace after the invasions of Louis XIV, Carl Philipp (1716~
1742) moved the court from Heidelburg to Mannheim, rebuilding
the city both to take advantage of its geographical location at
the confluence of the Heckar and the Rhine, and to place the
court at the centre of the city plan. The proximity of the French
border, the constant traffic on the Rhine between France and Holland,
and the friendship of Elector Carl Theodore (1742-1799) with Voltaire,
were of such strong influence that Schubart wrote in 1773, "The
Palatinate can be taken just as easily for a colony of Frenchmen as

35
a German province." ^ It seems reasonable to suppose that the artistic
tastes of Paris would be reflected in the music of Mannheim, providing
that the court took sufficient interest in the musical activities.
History of German Literature, p. 137*
^ " M a n konnte die Pfalzer ebenso leicht fur eine Kolonie von
Franzosen als von deutschen Provinzialen halten."
Quoted in Gradenwitz, Leben. p. 27•
Riemann notes that the orchestra of Mannheim was ,falready of
an imposing size” in 17?0 under Duke Carl Philipp, the father of Carl
Theodors.3^ At this time also, the College of Jesuits was established
in Mannheim. Gradenwitz attributes to this institution the strong
musical training evident in the educations of both Johann Stamitz

37
and Carl Theodore. This early cultivation of an interest in
■50
music results, according to Lang, in the large sums of money spent
upon the artistic life of this court, and most notably in the orchestra
for which the court remained famous until the death of Carl Theodore
in 1799* His patronage was not limited to music, either, but
displayed itself in the large number of painters, sculptors, and
architects employed by the court throughout the century. It is
characteristic of Burney that he should remark on the musicality of the
state of Mannheim, but also on the poverty of many of the inhabitants

39
as the result of this squandering on art. ' Thus one can conclude
that Stamitz worked in a progressive centre, and one where the arts
were cultivated to a high degree.
3^Riemann, DTB, III/ l , ix.
37
Gradenwitz, Leben. p. 28; and Gradenwitz, "Transformations
of Style", pp. 265-275.
38Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization, p. 608.
39
Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney's Musical Tours. II, 30.
The Mannheim Orchestra
Eighteenth-century travellers and theorists are full

of praise for the brilliant achievements of the
Mannheim School, but they invariably refer to the
style of conducting and playing and see in it a
school of virtuosi (particularly of
rather than of composers.40
Gradenwitz1 comments cannot be accepted in their entirety, for
Burney, at least, makes several references to the compositions;
but it will readily be seen that the Mannheim orchestra is the source
of much of the praise quoted at the beginning of this chapter.
Such a gathering of competent musicians as Burney describes in the
terms "an army of generals" must also have had a strong influence
on the development of Stamitz’ style.
Biemann notes that Stamitz is described as the Stammvater of
the German violin school by Wasielewski.4 ^ In reference to this
aspect of Stamitz’ musical life, there are records of his solo per
formances at Frankfurt o/^l in 1742, and Paris in 1754»4 ^ Yet, despite
his reputation as a string virtuoso, Stamitz published relatively
few concertos. Almost half of his total output consists of symphonies,
and the rest includes chamber music, church music, and several
concertos for other instruments besides the violin. Although it
4°Peter Gradenwitz, "Mannheim School", in Grove's Dictionary

of Music and Musicians, V, 553»
4 Biemann, DTB. IIl/l, xxii.
4^Gradenwitz, Leben. pp. 24 and 42.
8 1
was common for an eighteenth-century virtuoso to provide many concertos
for his instrument, Stamitz appears to be an exception to this custom.
A solution to this apparent paradox may lie in the virtuosity
which is part of the style of Stamitz1 symphonies. Arnold Schering,
in his history of the concerto, remarks that the Mannheim school is
notable for its application of solo style to the writing of symphonies,
and that many effects common to the concerto can be found in the
Mannheim symphonies.^ Indeed, upon examination of the score, it is
evident that the notes and melodic lines make some demands for
virtuosity. All the string parts, but particularly the violins, are
given difficult figuration and fast scales.^ Typical difficulties
for the strings include wide leaps across the strings, in which the
aural effect is of great virtuosity as well. Similarly, the solo lines
given to the horns and the woodwind, particularly in the trios to
the minuets, make demands which were not always found in the symphony
at this time.
Burney's comments about the "violins” indicate that a new
style of string playing appears at this time. In discussing the
Tart ini school of violin playing, which was influential throughout
the first half of the eighteenth century, he says that "it seems as if
that energy, fire, and freedom of bow, which m o d e m symphonies and
^ A r n o l d Schering, Geschichte des Instrumentalkonzert.

pp. 127=128.
AA
‘T~rA good example of the kind of virtuosity required of the
lower strings can be found in measures 50 to 56 in G3/i in
Appendix II.
A5
orchestra-playing require, were wanting.,r^ At another point he
remarks that a violinist had "more fire than is usual, in one of the
Tart ini school".^ Burney also notes that Germany in particular
begins to show a special interest in the violin in the eighteenth

A7
century, and soon becomes known for the excellence of its
A ft
instrumental music in general in that century.
Kenneth Skeaping suggests that the spread of a new style of
string playing in the eighteenth century was making such demands upon
the violin as an instrument that this is reflected in changes in
design and construction at this t i m e . ^ The total effect of these
changes was to create more tension upon the whole instrument. Like
the "solo" tuning still employed by the string bass and a common
feature of violin virtuosos of the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, the effect of this tension is to make the instrument
louder and more penetrating. It also allows more pressure to be
exerted by the bow, and thus the bow designed by Tourte came into
^Burney, General History. II, 449*
^Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney's Musical Tours. II, 61.
^Burney, General History. II, 401*
^®Bumey, General History. II, 463; and Scholes, ed.,

nin^niiT^ney 1s M^sic0*! To ,,,t*S; II, vi—v i i , and. 244=
49
Kenneth Skeaping, "Some Speculations on a Crisis in the
History of the Violin", Gainin Society Journal9 VIII, 3-12. Note
that these alterations made the violins of Stradivarius more popular
than those of Stainer for the first time.
8 3
existence at this time as well, for it allows the right hand to press
more firmly upon the strings throughout the entire bow stroke. By
making the instrument more responsive in this way, the range of
dynamics which the instrument could produce was increased* These
acoustical alterations, made in most violins by the end of the
eighteenth century, gave the stringed instruments the power to become
the basis of the orchestra. Stamitz, as a violinist, appears to have
made full use of the possibilities of his instrument by writing
symphonies, just as another violinist would have done by writing
concertos.
It is especially in ensemble playing, however, the perfection
of which was a speciality of the Mannheimers even in Mozart's time,
that the virtuosity of Stamitz1 orchestra was displayed. In this
category lies the great amount of measured tremolo which is a
characteristic of the string parts. Of far greater significance is
the amount of dynamic shading demanded from the entire ensemble. A
m o d e m performance would take this for granted, but the difficulty
of obtaining the right effect at the time is indicated by this comment
from Beichardt:
Most orchestras know and use only forte and piano

without concerning themselves about the finer
degrees, or the full range of dynamics . . . . It
is difficult, exceedingly difficult, to do with the
full orchestra what one virtuoso alone does even
with so much effort. Yet it is possible; this is
what was done in Mannheim and Stuttgart.50
50
J "Die mehresten Orchester kennen und uben nur das forte und
piano aus, ohne sich um die feineren Grade, um die ganze Schattierung
zu ’
bekummern. ... Schwer ists, ungeheuer schwer, mit einem ganzem
Orchester das zu thun, was einem einzelnen Virtuosen schon so viel
uiUiio HicvCxil#•
84
It would seem from all these comments that Stamitz transferred the
virtuosity normally associated with solo performance from the
concerto to the symphony, and from the soloist to the whole orchestra.
Stamitz experimented with his orchestra in more fields than
just string virtuosity and ensemble playing, however. His desire for
effects is displayed also in his approach to orchestration; especially,
his choice of instruments in addition to the strings. The variety
of practices in this regard can be seen by examining the
instrumentation of many well-known orchestras of this period, as

51
given by Adam Carse. Stamitz appears to have encouraged the
widespread use of two instruments which shortly afterwards became
standard in all orchestras. These are the clarinet and the French
horn.
Stamitz1 use of the horn could be attributed to his Bohemian
tastes, for apparently the waldhorn could be considered the national

52
instrument of his homeland at this time. However, Alfred Heuss
notes that the horns are particularly capable of creating the long
crescendo on a single note which is so much a part of the Mannheim

53
style. It would seem that the inclusion of this instrument reflects
Stuttgart gehort."
Quoted from tTber die Pflichten des Hipien-Violinisten (1760),
m Rremam, III/^., xx.
51
Adam Carse, The Orchestra in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 16-27-
52
Gradenwitz, Leben, p. 2On.
53Alfred Heuss, "Hber due Bynamik der Mannhexmer ocnule*',
in Riemann Festschrift, pp. 433-455*
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ith o u t perm ission.
8 5
a conscious effort by Stamitz to make the dynamic effects of his
symphonies as exciting as possible. Stamitz' use of the clarinet,

54
described by Gradenwitz, may also have been the result of his desire
to experiment with tone colour and dynamic effects. Certainly this
instrument was not in wide use before Stamitz' time, and its rich tone
colour and wide dynamic range would have appealed to Stamitz,
Stamitz1 Bohemian Background
When Riemann made his dramatic pronouncement that Stamitz
was the Vorgangers Haydn, he followed it with the statement, "We wish
it did not grieve us, on this account, that we must grant this laurel
55
to a Bohemian and not a German." Burney gives us a less prejudiced
view of the people of Bohemia: "I had frequently been told, that the
Bohemians were the most musical people of Germany, or, perhaps, of
all Europe; and an eminent German composer, now in London, had
declared to me, that if they enjoyed the same advantages as the
Italians, they would excel t h e m . B u r n e y describes not only the
apparent musicality of the people, but also the higfr quality of their
education system in music. The same thing is also attested to by
^ P e t e r Gradenwitz, "The Beginnings of Clarinet Literature",

in Music and Letters. XVII, 145-150*
55irîr wollen uns nicht darum gramen, dass es ein Bohme und
nicht ein Deutscher ist, denn wir diesen Lorbeer reichen nriissen."
Riemann, STB, IIl/l, zxiv.
56
J Scholes, ed., Sr. Burney's Musical Tours. II, 131.
57
Gradenwitz. He points out that Stamitz enjoyed the benefits of
a musical home, a musical country, and, as the son of a relatively
wealthy family, an education by the Jesuits. Thus, the native
musicality of the young Stamitz was channelled by the more traditional
training of the Italians.
It may have been Stamitz1 Bohemian background, however,
which accounted for his popularity with the bourgeoisie. In an
article on the Bohemian influence of the music of the eighteenth
century, Paul Nettl describes the typical Bohemian style as closer

58
to folk origins. In particular, he comments on the rhythmic
vitality which pervades the music as it pervades their speech. He
relates the vitality found here to the vitality shown by the use of
dynamics in the compositions of the Bohemian symphonists, particularly
those who found their way to Mannheim. He compares this style to the
demands made by the bourgeois audiences of Paris and rinds that the
style of the Bohemians would have suited the needs exactly.
Summary
This survey of the historical facts surrounding the composition
of Stamitz* symphonies has vindicated the conclusions drawn from the
analysis in Chapter Y. Even though the type of symphony which he was
57
Gradenwitz, Leben, pp. 20-21.
•^Paul Nettl, ’’The Czechs in Eighteenth-Century Music”,

Music and Letters, XXI, 362-370. See also Gradenwitz, Leben. p. 49*
writing commonly employed such effects, music critics of the time
comment that Stamitz' use of these effects was particularly novel
and. exciting= An investigation of Stamitz' popularity shows that this
appears to be connected with the rise of bourgeois influence upon
music, and particularly the development of the public concert.
Stamitz' style, based upon rather obvious effects, not intellectual
devices, are those that would probably have appealed to a bourgeois
audience, such as one would find in Paris in the 1750s. The influence
of Paris society would be felt in the musically active court of
Mannheim, especially since this court had close relations with the
French at this time. Stamitz may have been tempted to write for this
audience, but is likely that circumstances would have led him to this
style anyway, for it seems to be the product partly of his Bohemian
background, and partly of his realization of the full possibilities
at hand in the Mannheim orchestra. The fact that this style was
very attractive to the bourgeoisie may have been, for Stamitz, a
lucky coincidence.
CHAPTER V I I
CONCLUSION
The persistence that some scholars have shown in analyzing
the symphonies of Johann Stamitz as examples of sonata form, despite
the warnings suggested by the writings of other scholars, provided
some of the initial stimulus for this essay* Having established that
these warnings were well founded, it is interesting to compare the
results of the three studies which have also analyzed these symphonies
in detail.
Of the many symphonies analyzed in the studies by Stedman,
de Stwolinski, and Diirrenmatt (see the list of Works Consulted),
only five by Stamitz are common to all three. Since these analysts
were concerned only with the first movements of each symphony, the
five movements in question are D2/i, D5/i, Ebl/i, Eb5/i» and G2/i.
These symphonies were all edited by Hugo Riemann for the Denkmaler der
Tonknnst in Bayern series, and are available there or in the reprint
issued as Mannheim Symphonists. both listed in the Works Consulted.
One or the other of these editions was used in the above studies.
It was stated in Chapter V, as the conclusion to extensive
analysis, that Stamitz could hardly have been concerned with the form
of the whole movement in the way that one assumes must be the case with
sonata form. For this reason, attempts to analyze this music in terms
of sonata fors may run into serious difficulties« None of these
8 9
studies comments upon any difficulties encountered, however. The
results of their analyses are given in Table 6 in Appendix I in the
f o m of measure counts for each of the three sections; exposition,
development, and recapitulation.
It is immediately apparent that the results are not the same
for any of the five movements. A difference of only one measure, as
shown for D2/i and G2/i, indicates two judgements regarding the length
of the phrase in these movements. As there are no double bars in the
other three movements, wider discrepancies occur. For example, in
D5/i, de Stwolinski has decided that the development begins with the
first appearance of new material rather than with the re-appearance of
first-theme material in the key of the dominant. The other two
movements were discussed in some detail at the end of Chapter V, for
it was found that both are examples of a highly confusing and ambiguous
formal structure. It is not surprising, on that account, to find,
that all three analyses differ in judging the articulation between
exposition and development in Eb5/i, and that none of these analyses
agrees in the judgement of the lengths of any of the sections in
Ebl/i.
This effort to impose a tripartite structure on a composition
which does not lend itself to such analysis indicates either a
dangerous disregard for the composer's intent, or a blinkered approach
which refuses to see things as they are but prefers to see things as they
ought to be. Nor are these the only examples of such methods.
Durrenmatt has analyzed both D4 /1 and Bb4/i as three-part, although
analysis in this essay has led to the conclusion that these two are
in two parts. Similarly, both Stedman and de Stwolinski take Bb3/i to
90
be in three parts, although it seems more properly to be very ambiguous
in this respect. This can only be taken as further proof of the
statements in Chapters I and III regarding the importance of the method

1
of analysis.
On the other hand, in discussing an example of Stamitz'
music which shows a particular variety of dynamic effects in a short
space (from Eb5/f» which is especially full of these effects),
Alfred Heuss has said, "Whoever would use dynamic shading in this way
2
is either unmusical or totally preoccupied with a style." This
accurate assessment of an essential feature of Stamitz' music came in
the same decade as .Riemann*s statements regarding Stamitz' contributions
to the history of sonata form. Obviously, Heuss brought no preconcept
ions to his study of Stamitz; his conclusion is based only on his
musical insight and his understanding of Stamitz' intentions.
If the whole matter of the definition of these parts is

suspect, how much more suspect are the conclusions drawn from the
measure counts of the sections? Durrenmatt, Die Durchfuhrung bei
Johann Stamitz. pp. 112-115> gives tables and charts of the relation
of the lengths of the three sections of each symphony. In a similar
study for this essay, no uniformity can be found. The two halves of
A4/i, G3/i, A2/ii, A3/ii, A4/ii, Bb4/ii, G3/ii, A3/f, Dy/f, and Eb3/f
are all approximately equal, and the same is true for the three parts
of A3/i, G2/i, Eb3/ii, and Eb4/ii. Yet, in Eb3/f, the second half is
smaller than the first; and in Eb4/i and Eb5/f» the second section of
the three is larger than the first. While no criteria have been
established for the measure counts in sonata form, these results do
not seem to indicate the use of this form by Stamitz.
2
"Wer in dieser Art dynamisch schattiert, ist entweder
unmusikalisch oder total von einen Manier befangen."
Alfred Heuss, "Zum Thema: 'Mannheimer Verbalt'", in
Zeitschrift der Intemationalen Musikgesellschaft, IX, 276.
91
In the same vein, much has been made of Stamitz1 influence upon
the composers of the Classical era. This possibility seems quite
strong when one considers his fame in the years following 1750,
continuing at least until the time of Burney's publications. But the
nature of this influence has been assumed to be in the area of
musical form, and efforts have been directed to prove this point.
While these efforts have not met with great success, other scholars
have shown that Stamitz did exercise some influence in other,
equally important aspects of style.
Although links between the Mannheim school and either Haydn or
Beethoven are difficult to prove, the link with Mozart is relatively
clear. Mozart and his mother stayed in Mannheim through the winter of
1777-1778, and Mozart came under the influence of the elderly
Holzbauer. It is to be presumed that the Mannheim style which Mozart
heard at this time still bore the mark of the founding father, Stamitz.
Writing about Sonata K. 309, which his son had written for Christian
Cannabich's eldest daughter, Leopold Mozart criticized it for having

3
"something in it of the rather artificial Mannheim style". Heuss
has correctly pointed out that the change of style in this sonata is a
4
matter of the dynamics. Similarly, in connection with the orchestral
3
Emily Anderson, The Letters of Mozart and his Family, p. 417.
^Heuss, "'Mannheimer Vorhalt'", 278-279. Mozart himself said

of the Andante of this sonata that it was "full of expression and must
be played accurately and with the exact shades of forte and piano,
precisely as they are marked". (Anderson, Letters of Mozart, p. 374)
92
works written immediately after Mozart’s departure from Mannheim,
Adam Carse notes that, "of the more resourceful treatment of the
instruments employed, and in the keener feeling for colour and effect
shown in the Paris Symphony. as compared with the pre-Mannheim works,

5
there can be no question." If there is any suggestion that Stamitz
had any influence on Mozart, it could only be in the related area
of dynamic effects and techniques of orchestration.
This Mannheim style, the style of Johann Stamitz, has been
linked with the bourgeois society of the eighteenth century.
Biographical details of Stamitz1 early life and education indicate his
upbringing in the life style of the comfortable burgher. Thus, at an
early age he acquired that understanding of bourgeois tastes which,
reflected in his symphonic style, becomes his main contribution to the
history of the symphony. It accounts for his almost unmusical attention
to obvious and showy effects of dynamics and virtuosity, and also
explains his apparent lack of concern for the f o m of symphonic
movements. 'While his devotion to a particular style may account for his
popularity in his own time, the lack of more careful attention to the
musical form may have contributed to the rapid decline of his fame. No
one can say what the lasting qualities of music are, but Burney noted
that the Mannheim style was found by some people to be "manierees. and
tiresome to such as continue there jkannheimj any time, being almost
all of one cast".^ This was in 1772, and thus Stamitz' star was in the
5
Adam Carse, The History of Orchestration, p. 187*
^Percy Scholes, ed., Dr. Burney's Musical Tours in SSirope.

TT f7*7 .
a x , Iin.
decline only shortly after Hiller had written, "The name of this
7
man should be hailed through all time."
"Zu alien Zeiten soli der Name des Mannes heilig sein."
Quoted from vTochentliche Nachrichten (17^8), in Hugo Biemann,
Denkmdler der Tonkunst in Bayern. Ill A , xxiv.
APPENDIX I
TABLES
Table *i: Catalogue of the Sjauphonfes
Table 1 lists the symphonies of Stamitz used in this essay.
The first column lists the designations given to these symphonies by
Hugo Biemann in Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern. Ill/1, xxxix and xl,
and Vll/2, xxlx. Since these designations were given by Riemann in
connection with his thematic catalogue of Stamitz1 symphonies, refer
ence to that catalogue provides a more accurate definition of these
works than any reference to opus numbers alone. The use of these
designations has been explained in Chapter II. A small change
has been made in these designations in that the German terms "B" and
"Es" have been altered to "Bb" and "Eb" respectively.
The second column gives the opus number assigned to these
works in eighteenth-century publications, and the third column nam es
some of the publishers who issued these symphonies in the eighteenth
century. Where the edition used in this essay is a transcription of
only one eighteenth-century publication, that publisher's name is under
lined. The fourth column gives the name of the person responsible for
the edition used for this essay. These editions have been discussed
in Chapter II.
Finally, the last two columns give the number of movements in
each symphony: first the number available in the edition at hand;
and, secondly, the number which, for reasons explained in the footnotes,
were actually used in this essay.
y 4
95
TABLE 1
Number of
Desig Opus Movements
nation number Publisher Editor Available Usee
A2 3/5 Huberti Charters 3 11

A3 - - Hoffmann 3 3
A4 - - Sondheimer 4 4
Bb3 8/5 Chevardiere Biemann 3 3
Walsh
Bb4 - - Hoffmann 3 3
D2 11/1 Bayard Biemann 4 4
D3 3/2 Huberti Biemann 4 4
D4 4/5 Huberti Charters 4 4
Hummel
Bremner
D5 5/2 Huberti Biemann 4 4
Hummel
Bremner
D7 7/6 Chevardiere Sondheimer 4 4
Walsh
D11 - Huberti Charters 4 4
Welcher
Ebl 11/3 Bayard Biemann 4 4
Bremner
Hummel
Eb2 11/5 Bayard Hoffmann- 2 32
Venier Erbrecht
Eb2* - Napier Charters 4 13
Hamilton
Eb3 3/4 Huberti Charters 3 3
Eb4 4/2 Huberti Charters 4 4
Hummel
Bremner
Eb5 4/6 Huberti Biemann 4 4
Hummel
96
TABLE I - Continued
Number of
Besig- Opus Movements
nation number Publisher_________ Editor_________ Available Used
F2 3/6 Huberti Charters 3 3

Bremner
F3 4/1 Huberti Charters 4 4
Hummel
Bremner
G2 3/1 Huberti Riemann 4 4
Bremner
Si . . . .....3/3 Huberti Charters 3 3
Â2/ii and A2/f are the same as A4/ii and A4/f •
Sb2'/ii is incorporated with Eb2 for this essay.
^Since Eb2'/i is the same as Eb2/i, and Eb2'/mt is the

same as Eb5/mt, only the finale is used here.
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the copyright owner. F urther reproduction prohibited w ith o u t perm ission.
9 7
Table 2; Formal Analysis
Table 2 lists the results of formal analysis of fifty-eight
movements from twenty symphonies by Johann Stamitz.- For convenience}
this table has been split into three parts; part A listing the
results for all first movements, part B for all slow movements, and
part C for all finales.
The results are given in terms of measure counts. In the
first column is given the total number of measures in each movement,
in the next three columns for the three main sections of the movement
(called A, B, and G, corresponding to exposition, development, and
recapitulation), and in the last column for the two last sections
(B and C) combined, since this comprises the second half of the
movement.
When the columns giving the measure counts of sections
B and C are left blank, this indicates that the movement is not
divisible into three parts, and the results given are for the
two halves only. An asterisk placed after the number in the last
column indicates that the division of all the movement into three
parts is very questionable. In all cases this division has been
indicated, but the figures provided in such cases should be regarded
as mere guides to the general extent of areas of similar function, or
to likely points of articulation for new sections. These matters are
discussed in detail in Chapter V.
98
TABLE 2A
mnSffAT oATVTATVOTq
xviu'uiu . xi^xj-»x Q j-G ATI
ur TTT‘ DCGJfT
x*-lai xI T
,fATTCn/fCn.TTHC*
luuviûmtxu
Measure counts
Symphony Total A B C B+C
A2 74 34 13 27 40
A3 72 25 21 26 47
M 102 49 25i 27i 53
Bb3 240 90 82 68 150*
Bb4 112 40 - - 72
D2 137 57 24 56 80
D3 125 52 34 39 73
D4 143 65 - - 78
D5 127 52 28 47 75
D7 189 77 68 44 112
D11 87 39 - - 48
Ebl 144 74 37 33 70*
Eb2 146 67 30 49 79
Eb3 102 42 33 27 60
Eb4 76 27 32ir 16|- 49*
Eb5 198 96 42 60 102*
F2 199 78 m
m - 121
F3 132 52 44 36 80
G2 120 41 36 43 79
G3 81 40 22 19 41*
TABLE 2B
Ty
XV*\*CAT nr»TVOTQ
punnifti..' ^11 iu x o
A*CT f
ur
s w iA ir n
cJXJW\ j i \ u ?ffATT lurf L^Jn IO
uiw v ijnu ni 2.Kf
Measure counts
A3 54 27 9 18 27
M 88 42 27 19 46
Bb3 59 22 20 17 37
Bb4 37 17 - - 20
L2 68 30 192 18^ 38*
D3 62 29 14 19 33
7\J *1 r \
26 -
tv - 44
D5 76 34 = - 42
D7 68 31 - - 37
D 11 51 24 - - 27
Ebl An cC
i ^ j n i s'*
Eb2 65 29 14 22 36
Eb3 47 18 15 14 29
Eb4 66 24 24 18 42*
Eb5 72 32 18 22 40
F2 98 43 27 28 55*
P3 134 58 - - 76
G2 89 38 25 26 51
G3 50 23 am
27
TABLE 2C
FORMAL ANALYSIS OF FINAL MOVEMENTS
Measure counts
A3 98 48 - - 50
A4 140 62 44 34 78
Bb4 75 34 23 18 41
D2 204 96 56 52 108*
D3 187 66 - - 121
D4 96 41 - - 55
D5 196 84 77 35 112*
D7 116 56 32 28 60*
TH1A1
— A AO
1iw - = Co
ou
50
Ebl 213 94 - = 119
Eb2 114 43 42 29 71
Eb21 189 78 54 57 m
Eb3 An o = CA
iw 57 = J »
Eb4 120 46 44 30 74
100
Symphony____________ Total___________A__________B__________ C_________B+C

Eb5 223 81 95 47 142
F2 263 - - - -
F3 182 78 44 60 104*
G2 146 68 40 38 78
G3 105 45 - - 60
Tables 3. 4. and 5: Analysis of the large
structures in all fifty-eight movements
The following three tables summarize the discussion of
analysis found in Chapter V. Each table is meant to be read as a
series of complete sentences, each one beginning with the particular
characteristics under discussion and ending with a list of the
movements displaying these processes.
102
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OP MOVEMENTS IN THREE PARTS
Movements begin the new and end the pre=

which use section with vious section with are:
the GEP or first theme a full cadence, A2/i,

link, material. Eb 3/2.5
Eb3/ii.
a half cadence, A3/ii,

G2/ii,
Bb4/f.
second theme a dominant pedal, D3/i,

material, Eb2/i,
?3/i,
D3/ii,
G2/f.
a false D7/i,
recapitulation, Eb5/f,
Eb2 '/f.
other known no special device, Eb2/ii,

material, Eb5/ii,
Eb2/f,
Eb4/f,
F3/f.
new material, no special device, M/i,

Bb3/ii.
no GEP or first theme a false G2/i,

link, material, recapitulation, M/f.
second theme a false M/ii*

material, recapitulation,
other known a false D5/i-

maêriaa, recapitulation,
harmonically a dominant pedal, A3/i.

altered first
theme material,
part of the no special device, L2/i.

first theme,
10 3
TABLE 4
AWITVCTG OP MOVEMENTS IN TWO PASTS

A l l O U l U X M
Movements in which
the second half
returns to the tonic and ares
PUVJ. VXJ cu4*4wCi.

^ '<5 V11V ■ n a r w o i y>c?
IH/i? U5/ii.
"beginning, that key through Dll/ii/Ebl/ii,
out, D4/f Dn / f ,
Ebl/f, G3/f.
introduces new Bb4/i, Dll/i,

harmonies and D4/ii, P3/ii,
development only A3/f.
near the end,
only near the end consists mainly P2/i, Bb4/ii,

of the movement, of developed and D7/ii, G3/ii,
new material D3/f, Eb3/f.
throughout,
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OP AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENTS
Movements which containing are:

G3/i, Eb4/i,
have a recapitula the final period
tion only one of the exposition, Eb4/ii«
period long, but in the tonic,
familiar and new D2/ii.

material,
further develop Bb3/i.

ment of familiar
material,
have a development an early return F2/ii, D2/f,

section to the tonic, D5/f, D7/f.
are special cases, no repeat signs, Ebl/i, Eb5/i,

P2/f.
Table 6 s A Comparison of Analyses
Table 6 lists the results of formal analysis of five movements
from symphonies by Johann Stamitz, as provided in the following
sources: V,P; Sted.Tn.an, "Form and Orchestration in the Preclassical
Symphony*1, pp. 191-197; G.B. de Stwolinski, "The Mannheim Symphonists:
Their Contributions to the Technique of Thematic Development", II,
1-13} and Hans-Eudolph Durrenmatt, Die Purchfuhrung bei Johara Stamitz.
p. 113.
These results are given in terms of measure counts for the
three main sections of each work. The total number of measures
in each movement can be found in Table 2A. Since the totals of
the measure counts as given in the above studies did not always
agree with the totals as given here, although the same editions
were used, the figures given have been corrected as seemed most
appropriate. The original figures appear in the footnotes. This
table is discussed in Chapter VII.
10 5
TABLE 6
A COMP AEI SON OP ANALYSES IN THE STUDIES BY STEDMAN,
DE ST7TOLINSKI, AND DUEEENMAPT
Symphony Stedman de Stwol inski Ddrrenmatt
_________ A B C ______ A B C ______A B C
D2/i 57 24 56 56 25 561 56 25 56
D5/i 52 28 47 52 28 47 60 20 47
Ebl/i 66 33 45 65 26 53 70 37 37
Eb5/i 74 58 66 92 40 662 88 44 663
G2/i 41 37 42 41 37 42 41 36 434
Ôriginally 55 25 56-
Ôriginally 102 50 56.
Ôriginally 88 44 6 1 .
Ôriginally 41 36 47*
APPENDIX II
TRAHSCBIPTIOtf OP G3/i
The source of this transcription is the set of symphonies
entitled "Six Synqphonies a Quatre Parties obligees, avec les Cors
de Chasses ad libitum . . . Mises au jour par Mr. Huberti. Oeuvre
III? Chez l'Editeur: Paris."
These symphonies were obtained from the British Museum,
where they are kept under the shelf-number g.98. (2 .).
Opus 3 was published by Huberti in or around 1762, according
to the Catalogue of Printed Music published between 1487 and 1800
now in the British Museum. Symphony G3 is the third one of this
set, and only the first movement is included here.
The transcription consists of the scoring of the six separate
parts as published by Huberti. In the course of creating this
score, certain obvious printing errors were corrected, but the
original is given here in footnotes to the score for the purposes of
comparison.
1 06
1 ^4//e.9 /~o
^ 4 -------------- ! - n J T n 1
1 /s /^
? o' & //\v/0 • in r
(jt ---------A_--------- ---- ------- r
r_J
\ ^
1 r*
-11_ P ■r~s■
1/f /1 u
r\! 1 a/
z. //v 2r A r
y Q# - - ^ c r -' j g r
-A4-- 4--- ----- 1------- --------- —
\f IIf
UtL! JflM
\l 1T1T ,rr » fry* "J • ------ s- r
LE£f ^ J f f l ---r
—J—F-i-I-— •
5*
\\I/ /
tUD Lt /A
/ k 1 ... -
s r- AX
J ... Ssdj ■ 4 f-------
p/f/|i—f ijr " 4 ^ -------

---- 1 t^s"—1------x~ f
1—
— ^4 4
3 JT“
■J 3
J J- f -
mm- J
i- _ ... V' f -Ji-f5S------rn—
-------------------------p
P= r - H , p - 1— *- 1=
4
• ■«
.. A
* -Jr yTJ
* 3 =— — T- $ ^ = h -Lj-
ms________
X J :t fr m j = t = ^ i
r tr—--- r-—1
rA- -r------- •
i f ■ it
1 u
i- •jf
v "r
rv■V •r -■ r™;|5- f v
J— =------ AY"- nJ---- * -i «■* >
^
—
J ---.
h ml1 -A. J—-41 -cA-
gy y r .
I—
f
--------------------
/A f r V-J*
t r J r
J \■'NJr—- /r
A'
7— ^
1 08
4 1
JT— 7 I •* *
$ m
p 6 p ^ g i
t
e r a ra g e K &
fce
§ £ f £
£
. j a m
ra
i f c j t
ZrTJ
£
p P f c r #
is
E l
\ f ^ -0
S S
rl4 Jtjpfcijr^^g
JO---------- f
I— fcfcfl
'■i ?=■ EE
e £ IE
10 <
\z
1
-± . =2:
d t
H rf W r
3
/
i r ! "~T
mr
/- £
-5i
-* i
fe-
s 1
s
a it = £
-C c j f S ip i g
IS
-t^t -
S S S
WL.
7 m 5i s $
3 5 3 Ie3 2 _ S
&U5
£ £
e
P= -rrP s
v
4— ^ -t=fe=y
o r |
- <
-----;
----------------------------*------ U«4-^ JC LuriP n o r n a >

, c/ d c v c .
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
- J
r --------- s -
J
4 * -------- s —
kb f - _ . e::v i X J1------i -f — —
t ■ ■ 1
—-h
------ t~ T t
r 1- >r y •»i T f r
¥ U-- ■^ 5 -
Y --------- m
„ J.. *—*
i
4 ^ -----
“| * J > S*- ' ~ W :*“ 3s P*
V
*
“'r
r-=t-
H F :
F % ty=N M
<
f t e = = f *
k- l = - ■ --
i F
t
J A ------ 4
FffFFP ■4w. 1^.
-i-
T
+—
t =tp = =
-
z
-ft—5 — l*U -------- J... __J_. _
^ »-------- ---------
m ~ u —|p»
—
F ------- h 1
w t-T C r -ybr-'I- T r;*

-ri" > 7-^
r
L=
J L U■A*b* v7 j Jj - = fr f3 -r—£3- :J 7-JJJjp XtJ^jj
7
r 4 -
I
i ^ ------- -p- “"fT 13 f=id ~ r = F — j
j
p= =F---------- -4— F4
i
I
I
F*f-=fq=-r-- .— ■f=F=F-t11- -j -J
4 - 1 -U .f Jjz, . , . _ Jt , ■_, .4 : _...J
I
i
i
111
p — ^ — * - s -------------------- — ----------------- -------------------- 5 — r U *

fe e -x— ---------- — I-
' i * i
r - ---
m » " r r . - . r F r
■^-4
^ [/ t a -
r i > - r *-
j?
y = y * = -f— L j JJ
r -
r ‘f -
-fir m
i — 1 F L TL I
■t—
I
F & r . T
/ . ^j -p—-} f1 =■■ m t-HE1F
—tI
^ = H k r -y P-
____ -A
>P-- 1■M .i 'J ...
¥ ~ U = -------r^-z .-- ■ — -I := M =
P —
tx
^
f r r-rG if# i... «A

p F J S' -I
tx
r t f J - j- r t i m .
v
_A
H P ^ = B ^—
P*
l i e •"•••• >-* ------- f<•——
— tI-------- I I= # p
W f=-i F-----------1
p - — =W=^= — L-*-
--- 1 _ - --ff------------ - 4 ---------------- t- = £ *. !-* ®— _ ^ «»

\l
JI _ 7 ;
f^ —
t3 -------- { p ^ 1 -
j H
1 1 2
^
i..
’
".
J S _..l X -j-5-_j ^
. .
-r
1-S ^n- . .
£'oi
c— .-s-n1 f^= — —
--S—r1 x-i i® ^ -- x-■f ■

— -
I
----------------------
~p r rrrr F m T
"J«
g^p
p % '
~TT1 _ _ —
\f -iJJ JJ-1=3:-- pa —
te==== •
t
# p F = —
-------------------------- — —
tfr-n 1-rl^FT Y m ' ^ w *r *f* Pk

p p ^— ? <jj /
=yfc:--- ^-- ;----v— V >C^ —
n -
A r ^ - _l
i 1
-5z
m
i zf? &
ECr-jr^J-0 ■F 1
? £
P
t e
« = £
s a p
-Pfr
to T l X ^ 3 ~
1 1 3
ft - - - .......- i
J_ #J -M h —
-M J ^ SL
■p e
t
1 1 — — r -
1
►
- tr
1 1 — r
\jr
- 4-
• I*
I ft# F.L
= £ *= M =
tot?? t^-2— 1®>*----- ■............. <K-
^...... t *----
*= & = vr ........
jO'
•tft- b ^ = H
M = — 7-U-
t=ihr ■P-H = ^=f ^

" ■1 '
V I ■"
\]
i
I
V'J r* -1 -1 J
9r~~~r -t— ' r- ■■" r :
r - V”
A —
r r r r J-. -..-..... -. - - .
k rP rr-n I V- — ---- 1
— T^r
rr J J ^
nW-f--- ^—p- tr* == •* A * ^ w
H=N F
--
— 51..... - - 1 vf-
r*---- - p -x “■ h-TT-t*S i- s-'
■in kr i 1
i
114
_____.S—J
— xw y—- i .. — x — t r r r ---- -
‘-y-fi 5- Ti - — f - -----—1- X 7 1 1-----
i
r ^ - ------7^— --ff------ T- ^ r i-'r T
i/ J r|r: _-. - T ip S E
-M—J----- -ji— ----^ i---- -------- 1

----
1----- 7 t -£•* \ LJ i i l l f e »** r
- % Ip L
M =y
m_ ji► p |».. -pr-pi
:$ s f = ^ ::J-------
£ = i-----— —t - A
rS >
m
=4* »rT7~ <-< s -----

--- i V - U j J 1- A- J |
xf — ^
.J r>' J = f= M = ^ U - J M J )
— Sz=p - - -rw | h z.
— h
f^ 4 f Ffl-----------
i* v * ^
71*J—'I■ W g w-T
-* - v — «■M U L -T ^ . \ U
•
— fi-f 7~r^rlt M t •Tf fr r fFrT-1
:— Z j e - . '7 ffH S '
=p±^
w -
A
<j... _ . _ j ------- - ~
m ►
m r ^ ------------*=2-------
---r-
ilR -LLJ--' — xl— ^
* v ^
--------- — _ z?h M
5 1
115
ln J ÎJ- - J- X - ,- 57xti—
35"— — *—
------------5-H—
~ T ... t M c n —
■f*
F t f - ______ *■
r
,.r r _ r
-
y=£ ^ ----- —Ip^-------w =
(• 6-—=t- i/tii* v /
jp-r J ' V *=iL^-h- —+-F
_~r -■ 1 >»lr JF'-r-i

I 1
,HH r f
„. .jj .
C-\ ---
[■-t—
-------- -- ....
/t= --------H----- (r —1 --L __
■
■■ f" .,r r —------Ki— ---------
— J-^r[
.1 t > _
/- - p _J 1■ ^ t
1 16
T~
fc a t 2=
4 r
ii 5 ?F
UJJJs!
R P
f E f f f P- r- ^ £:
ids # S - ^ '
B 1
1 17
J i H
B « 4 fU ? = f J -f-----
i
*\
-------------- r-$r-
=e^
J \r
m-r~T v* ■cs
--- AS J P' f144 =i------ n>-
m
—
■± ~ 6 u J—
J—-
*■
pi~
T
d mT ~r
i 1m —
^
A T5--------®------
— _J.ii A
V
*fr— . -L . . .
1 J frir
=1—MH-I— 7- i
4 ^ d=f = ^ =<
&3„ |
t r ----- x "7 -» s----- Z ~T^ I f T ... ^ .. 1
fe f- * 7 f X 7r ] 3.-
---- V • _ >.
\pcs--------------- &-------------- r-3 T rh^ - ± -
T -E
P*f} | r (jFff? •
■ft----- ---- m T5tfffl 7 t " h
rJ^ry
_ ----- & y d *
o-
>tt-
■
-------- —r~r^~ -------
-L U J J
g r f f d r - T r; =fc==a===
/ -fcktS bar o-f t-nusic. w as a mitf-g-ct
jJ,-----------------------------------------------------------------
l-H-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ ---- :
------- ^— — — ~~. — ----------
1 1 8
Lk
£
J 0 3
^~r~r= t
SV- £=£ -s-
M / U
tit
-*«=-
*
r r £ f
i
4 & ~ k ---------- n = ----- Pi —
£ i l - J - J f -C
t M t S 7[J
$
PT *sT
|g b I i*i» , rI
f* f»
e= p! I S
± £Q =X
3:
tn
r
£ & * ' ■= ^ i
p Q J p j:.: 1
1 ^ - , - ^
■p - ..^ J J - JJ; =
f e s
ga M M '
p "cl—
£
m
i &
|
J
J -J J
—
i
-jff te£d-
}II
m -% f—Trf— S
. -----
JJJ —ff 4\
J
n p —
m i. _ KK
..'-
|¥| y s1 ff f lr 'r r -Jmm
f
n ig Qj dj—
^
■■■V . - j/ r— p= -
________1—1 - y H j y -y—
r
S' r~ y t 1----^—J
- I■
J—J
s1
1
—#1
P=:— l i * 14-J it
J
*--
r t< i------r -rfW-i^
tit i*— 1X
-■ _ ^__ F
1 ■-1 L
J
J v"
*• -t -— —-
B
1 20
H J= - 4 y= £L= l= i — •
A I
■w— --- j
«.
3: t -
— V •S -_p
-
----
tni t rr r
1'T 111
^ .. =t±==;
r-—
ytri<3 —
-Tt-£
& FTT
--------------= _ = =
------------- A
JWty+=
r° •
^ A _____ — X
•F - -
C\.Y.<-- !—
J
(-■
r-r.[..Ij
f P. ilr• H T r f f . w ♦
'' ~
r - K fttr A . - .:___A . :
WORKS CONSULTED
For the sake ox convenience, all works to which reference
has been mane in the course of this essay are included in this list,
together with all material consulted and found relevant to the

j _
•— j -•-------------— j xi _
___
_, x m-u _ — i ~t* x-ua ~
uupico ux&vsussocu uiixvuîiuixu • xiicr uixxjr Qiaooxxxuavxuu \j±. ui i x o xxo v
is the separation of all musical sources from the main body of
literature. These are given first, unedited works followed by
edited.
Musical Sources
Stamitz, Johann Wenzel Anton. Six Symphonies a Quatre Parties

obligees. . . . Mises an .jour par Mr. Huberti.
Oeuvre Ille. Chez l'Editeur: Paris [1762?3«
_. Six simphonies . . . Les meilleures de la composition

du Sr. St amity.. J.J. Hummel: Amsterdam; A. Hummel:
London " p T m f .
_. Symphonia a piu stromenti obligati . . . No. 2.

Mise au .jour par Mr. Huberty. Chez l'Editeur: Paris
[1761?3.
_. An Overture by Stamitz Sen. No. II.

printed by A. Hamilton, London [17953-
Hoffmann, Adolf, ed. Johann Stamitz: Drei Mannheimer Sinfonien.

Corona Werkreihe fur Kammerorchester, Nr. 38.
Wolfeributtel: Moseler Verlag, 1956.
Hoffmann-Erbrecht, Lothar, ed. (Two Movements from a Symphony

by Johann Stamitz.) The Symphony. Vol. XXIX of
Anthology of Music. Edited by Karl Fellerer. Koln:
A m o Volk, 1967.
Riemann, Hugo, ed. Sinfonien der Pfalzbayerischen Schule

(Mannheimer Symphoniker) I . Vol. III/1 of Denkmaier der
Tonkunst in B a v e m . Edited by A. Sandberger.
Leipzig: Breitkopf und HSrtel, 1902.
12 2
________ , ed. Sinfonien der Pfalzbayerischen Schule (Mannheimer

Symphoniker) II. 1. Vol. VIl/2 of Denkmaler der Tonkunst in
Bayern. Edited by A. Sandberger. Leipzig: Breitkopf 11ml
o t n jk r \ r \ f
H
________ , ed. Mannheim S.ymphonists: A Collection of Twenty-four

Orchestral Works^ New York: Broude Brothers, n.d.
Sondheimer, Bobert, ed. Sinfonie, A dur, Fruhlingssinfonie.

J A © T _ 1---1------- J _ _ _ L * - -
• • • A U .O U.C711L |U « tJ c U l X 'H U - L L U . C i '0 • HU * C. { • X J 0 i7 J -iil5
Edition Bernoulli, 09333*
________ , ed. Sinfonie, D dur, Reitersinfonie. . . . Werke

aus dem 18. Jahrhundert. No. 28. Berlin: Edition
Bernoulli, 09333-
12 3
Books and Articles
Allen, Warren Dwight. Philosophies of Music History: A Study

of General Histories of Music 1600-1960. New York:
Dover Publications, 1962.
Anderson, Emily, ed. The Letters of Mozart and his Family.

2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1966.
Barber, Elinor G. The Bourgeoisie in 18th Century Prance.

Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press, 1955*
Barford, Philip T. "The Sonata Principle: a Study of Musical

Thought in the Eighteenth Century". Music Review,
XIII (1952), 255-263.
Blume, Friedrich. Classic and Romantic Music: A Comprehensive

Survey. Translated by M. D. Herter Norton. New York:
W. W. Norton, 1970.
Bosseribrook, William J. The Geaaan Mind. Detroit: Wayne State

University Press, 1961.
Boyden, David D. "The Violin and its Technique in the Eighteenth

Century". Musical Quarterly. XXXVI (1950), 9-38*
Burney, Charles. A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages

to the Present Period (1789). Edited by Frank Mercer.
New York: Dover Publications, 1957*
_. The Present State of Music in Germany, the Netherlands.

and the United Provinces. 2nd ed. London: 1775*
(See also under Scholes, Percy A.)
Carse, Adam. Eighteenth-Century Symphonies. London: Augener, 1951'
_. The History of Orchestration. New York: Dover

Publications, 1964*
. The Orchestra in the Eighteenth Century. 2nd ed.

Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1950.
Churgin, Bathia. "Francesco Galeazzi's Description (1796) of

Sonata Form". Journal of the American Musicological Society.
XXI (1968), 181-199.
Dent, Edward J. "Binary and Ternary Forms". Music and Letters.

XVII (1936), 309-321=
Durrenmatt, Hans-Rudolph. Die Durchfiihrung bei J. Stamitz:
Beitrage zum Problem des DurchfQhrung und analytische
Untersuchung von ersten Sinfonies&tzen. Schweizerische
Musikforschende Gesellschaft Publikation, Series 2,
Vol. XIX. Bern: P. Haupt, (c. 1969)*
Durant, Will, and Durant, Ariel. The Story of Civilization. Vol. IX

The Age of Voltaire. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965*
Fischer, Wilhelm. "Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wiener kiassic'nen

Stils". Studien zur Musikwissenschaft. Ill (l915)* 24-84*
Friedheim, Philip. "The Relationship between Tonality and Musical

Structure". Music Review, XXVII (1966), 44-53*
Gradenwitz, Peter. "Der Feuergeist aus Bohmen". Musica, XI (l957)i

131-133*
. "Die Steinmetz-Manuskripte der Landes- und Hochschul-

bibliothek Darmstadt". Die Musikforschung. XIV (l96l), 214*
. Johann Stamitz: I. Das Leben. Brtinn: R. M. Rohrer,

1936.
________ . "Johann Stamitz als Kirchenkomponist". Die Musikforschung

XI (1958), 2-15*
. "Johan Stamitz et le petit proph&te de Boehmischbroda".

La Revue Musicals, XIX (1938), 62-70*
. "Mannheim School". Grove’s Dictionaryof Music and

Musicians. 5th ed. Vol. V.
________ . "Mid-Eighteenth-Century Transformations of Style".

Music and Letters. XVIII (l937)* 265-275*
. "Stamitz". Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians.

5th ed. Vol. VIII.
. "The Stamitz Family: Some Errors, Omissions, and

Falsifications Corrected". Notes, VII (l949)» 54-64*
________ . "The Symphonies of Johann Stamitz". Music Review, I

(1940), 354-363*
________ , and Kaiser, Fritz. "Stamitz". Die Musik in Geschichte

und Gegenwart. Vol. XII.
1 25
Grimm, Baron Friedrich von. "The little Prophet of Boehmischbroda".

Source Headings in Music History. Vol. IV: The Classic Bra.
Ehited and translated by Oliver J. Strunk. New York:
W. W. Norton, 196$.
Hertz, Frederick 0. The Development of the German Public Mind:

A Social History of German Political Sentiments.
Aspirations, and Ideas. London: Allen and Unwin, 1957*
Keuss, Alfred. "Tiber die Lynamik der Mannheimer 3chuie::.

Riemann Festschrift. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1965.
________ . "Zum Thema: 'Mannheimer Vorhalt'". Zeitschrift der

Intemationalen Musikgesellschaft. IX (1 907-8), 273-277.
Hoffmann-Erbrecht, Lothar. The Symphony. Translated by Robert

Kblben. Vol. XXIX of The Anthology of Music. Edited by
K.G. Fellerer. Koln: A m o Volk Verlag, 1967*
Kbrte, Werner. "Darstellung eines Satzes von Johann Stamitz:

zur Musikgeschichte als Kunstwissenschaft". Festschrift
Karl Gustav Fellerer. Edited by Heinrich Huschen.
Regensburg: Gustav Basse, 1962.
Lang, Paul Henry. Music in Western Civilization. New York:

W. W. Norton, 1941»
Larsen, Jens Peter. "Sonatenfoxm-Probleme". Festschrift

Friedrich Blume. Biited by A. A. Abert. Kassel:
Barenreiter, 1963.
. "Zur Bedeutung der 'Mannheimer Schule'". Festschrift

Karl Gustav Fellerer. Shited by Heinrich Huschen.
Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1962.
LaRue, Jan. Guidelines for Style Analysis. New York:

W. W. Norton, 1970*
. "Major and Minor Mysteries of Identification in the

Eighteenth-Century Symphony". Journal of the American
Musicological Society, XIII (i960), 181-196.
________ . "Symphonie: B. Die Entwicklung der Symphonie im 18.

Jahrhundert: I. Italien; II. Wien; III. Mannheim".
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Vol. XII.
________ . "A System of Symbols for Formal Analysis". Journal of

the American Musicological Society, X (l957)» 25-28.
________ , and. Blume, Friedrich. "Symphonie: A. Allgemeines".
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. XII.
________ , and Holland, Jeanette B. "St elinnetz". Die Musik in

Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. XII.
Kef, Karl. Geschichte der Sinfonie und Suite. Leipzig: Breitkopf

und HSrtel, 1921.
Nettl, Paul. "The Czechs in Eighteenth-Century Music".

Music and Letters. XXI (1940), 362=370*
________ . "Johann Stamitz: Zum 200. Todestag (27* Marz)".

Schweizerische Musikzeitung. XCVII (l957)> 86-89.
Newman, William S, "The Recognition of Sonata Form by Theorists

of the 18th and 19th Centuries". Papers of the American
Musicological Society, (1941» printed 1946), 21-29*
Noack, Friedrich. "Die Steinmetz-Manuskripte der Landes- und

Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt". Die Musikforschung,
XIII (i960), 314-317*
Preussner, Eberhard. Die burgerliche Musikkultur: Ein Be it rag

zur deutschen Musikgeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts. 2nd ed.
Kassel: B&renreiter, 1950.
Eatner, Leonard G. "Eighteenth-Century Theories of Musical Period

Structure". Musical Quarterly. XLII (1956), 439-454*
. "Harmonic Aspects of Classic Form". Journal of the

American Musicological Society. II (l949)» 159-168.
Hiemann, Hugo. "Die Mannheim Schule". Sinfonien der Pfalzbayerischen

Schule. Vol. IIl/l of Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Bayern.
Edited by A. Sandberger. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1902.
. "Der Stil und die Manieren der Mannheimer". Sinfonien der

Pfalzbayerischen Schule. Vol. VIl/2 of Denkmaler der
Tonkunst in Bayern. Edited by A. Sandberger. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Hartel, 1906.
________ . "Johann Stamitzs Melodik". Neue Musikzeitung, XXXI (1910),

389-392 and 429-432.
Rose, Ernst. A History of German Literature. Hew York: New York

University Press, i960.
Rowen, Ruth Halle. "Some Siîteenth-Century Classifications of

Musical Style". Musical Quarterly, XXXIII (1947)» 90-101.
1 27
Schering, Arnold. Geschichte des Instrumentalkonzert bis anf

Gegenwart. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf und H&rtel, 1927*
Scholes, Percy A . , ed. Dr. Burney's Musical Tours in Barone.

London: Oxford University Press, 1959*
Shera, Prank H. "Symphony". Grove's Dictionary of Music and

Musicians. 5th ed. Vol. VIII.
Skeaping, Kenneth. "Some Speculations on a Crisis in the History

of the Violin". Galuin Society Journal. VIII (l955)» 3-12.
Sondheimer, Robert. "Die formale Entwicklung der vorklassichen

Sinfonie". Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft. IV (1922), 85-99*
. Die Theorie der Sinfonie. Leipzig: Breitkopf und HSrtel,

1925*
Stangl, Kurt. "Bohmen und MShren". Die Musik in Geschichte und

Gegenwart. Vol. II.
Stedman, William P. "Form and Orchestration in the Preclassical

Symphony". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Rochester, 1953.
Stwolinski, Gail Boyd de. "The Mannheim Symphonists: Their

Contributions to the Technique of Thematic Development".
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1966.
TIT.
NAME: Murray Ross Charters
PLACE AND YEAS OP BIRTH: Toronto, Ontario, 1943
EDUCATION:
PRIMARY Prospect Avenae Public School

Cliffside Public School
SECONDAST B. E. King Collegiate Institute
UNIVEHSITY University of Toronto,

Toronto, Ontario,
Mus.B., 1962-1966
University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario,
College of Education,
1966-1967
University of Western Ontario,

London, Ontario,
M.A. (Musicology), 1969-1972
King's College,
University of London,
London, England,
M.Phil. (Music), 1971—
EXPERIENCE: Secondary School Teacher,

Borough of North York,
1967-1969
Part-time Instructor,
university of Western Ontario,
1969-1971
AWARDS: Ontario Graduate Fellowship,

1969-1971
12 8

Johann Stamitz and The Symphon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Johann Stamitz and The Symphon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johann Stamitz and The Symphon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N A T IO N A L LIB R A R Y BIBLIOTHEiQUE NATIONALE

Murray Ross Charters

Permission is hereby granted to THE NATIONAL LIBRARY

OF CANADA to microfilm this thesis and to lend or sell copies

The author reserves other publication rights, and

neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be

printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s

DATED. /.?.y . ... 19 7 * .

Murray Ross Charters

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Faculty of Graduate Studies

The University of Western Ontario

@ Murray Ross Charters 1972

Approved for the Faculty of

hairman of Examinina Board

Date: April 10, 1972

The symphonies of Johann Stamitz are generally regarded as

significant stepping-stones on the road of the Predassical symphony

from the overture to the concert symphony. Hugo Riemann considered

the form of these works to he so close to the ideals of the Classical

era, that he called Stamitz the forefather of Haydn. Recently, this

a re-examination of the history of the period. Despite this, major

studies of Stamitz1 symphonies, based on Riemann!s conceptions,

In an attempt to reach some conclusion to this controversy,

the present study offers an examination of methods of analysis,

analysis of twenty symphonies by Stamitz, and a survey of the

influences affecting Stamitz* composition.

The method of analysis used for this essay is demonstrated

in a detailed description of one movement. This method is applied to

relevant aspects of all the movements from twenty symphonies. (These

include all available m o d e m editions and all complete symphonies in

the Department of Printed Books of the British Museum, with the

exception of the ten Orchestral Trios.)

Analysis shows that, while Stamitz appears to use the same

structure is different in every movement. This formal process does

to certain stylistic features. Examination of the historical facts

particularly appealed to the emerging bourgeois audience. In

developing this style, he benefitted from the unique advantages of

Mannheim, developments in the violin at this time, and his Bohemian

Two items in the text of this essay require some explanation.

The first is the use of the term "development section" to designate

the central portion of a movement in sonata form or quasi-sonata form.

Taken literally, this term implies a section which is defined by the

prevalent use of specific musical techniques. However, "development

section" is the term most commonly used in general, English-language

descriptions of sonata fonn to mean the section following the

exposition, regardless of the literal accuracy of the term for each

specific example. Moreover, the analyses and discussions in this essay

sections within movements, and only secondarily with the contents of

such sections. Therefore, "development section" has been used through­

section including procedures of development". For the same reasons,

the German term "Durchfuhrung" has been translated consistently as

Secondly, all materials referred to in the footnotes of the

essay are included in the section Works Consulted. Therefore, no

details of publication are included in the footnotes unless this is

useful to the discussion at hand.

Finally, I must acknowledge my debt to the Government of

such sections. Therefore, "development section" has been used through

j • j ______ - _j _j v. j ____ -j j .• „ ni _x t t