MTA 6.1 - To Gild Refined Gold

Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
Uri B. Rom
“To Gild Refined Gold,” or What
Mozart Didn’t Want Us to Embellish
Abstract
The question of adding embellishments in music performance is generally regarded from a
primarily practical perspective. In this article I make a case for embellishments as an object of
music-theoretical inquiry in their own right. While exploring this question mainly in conjunction
with Mozart’s music for solo piano, I address the more fundamental question of what makes
a given moment in the music suitable for added ornamentation. Tolerance to embellishment
is defined as a quality of the melodic surface tantamount to the flexibility and exchangeability
of melodic formulations with variants. Thus defined, only some of the embellishments notated
by composers are indicative of a flexible melodic surface (optional embellishments), whereas
others are shown to be irreducible owing to their participation in substantive thematic processes
(obligatory embellishments). My investigation focuses on embellishments introduced in sonataform recapitulations and other types of recapitulatory restatements (e.g., the return of the refrain
in the rondo form). A movement’s form and tempo are shown to affect its amenability to added
ornamentation. At a local level, I draw on aspects of music perception and musical memory to
account for a correlation between a passage’s temporal position in the movement and its suitability
for added embellishments. I conclude by pointing to a Mozart-specific category of unembellishable
motives, demonstrably intended by the composer to be performed with no decoration. Engaging in
a dialogue with Robert Levin’s recorded embellished version of the slow movement of Mozart’s
Piano Concerto in A major, K. 488, this primarily theoretical discussion also leads to some tentative
practical implications for performance.
Keywords
Performance practice, music analysis, melodic surface, embellishment, Mozart, Haydn
music theory & analysis
International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory
volume 6, # i, april 2019, 50–86
© Uri B. Rom and Leuven University Press
https://doi.org/10.11116/MTA.6.1.2
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
“To Gild Refined Gold,” or What
Mozart Didn’t Want Us to Embellish
Uri B. Rom
1. i n t ro d u ct i o n
Should one add embellishments when performing Mozart’s music? The ongoing debate,
which has arisen in the last quarter of the previous century in connection with interest
in historical performance practice, concentrates mainly on improvised diminutions or
passaggi that embellish melody segments, rather than the graces to single notes. (The latter
are far less controversial and are often added also by performers outside the historical
movement.) Advocates of improvised embellishments rely on both numerous historical
sources and evidence of Mozart’s own improvisation practice. This position is strongly
supported by Robert Levin in both his writings and performances of Mozart’s music.1
Conversely, voices calling for moderation in ornamentation, such as Frederick Neumann
and Hellmuth Christian Wolff, point to statements attributed to Mozart according to
which the composer opposed adding ornaments and diminutions in his operas.2
One point that is often overlooked in the heat of the debate is that added ornaments
inevitably change the melodic surface and, as a result, may interfere with listeners’
perception of the coherence of the work. In this article I propose to release the question
1
2
This article is dedicated to the memory of my teacher Yizhak Sadai (1935–2019), with whom I had the privilege to
study in the early 1990s at Tel Aviv University, and to whose analytic penetration, originality, and uncompromisingly
inquisitive spirit I owe much of the way I conceive of musical structure, musical expression, and their interrelation.
I wish to thank the MTA editorial team for valuable feedback and suggestions that contributed significantly to
the evolution of this text. Several friends and colleagues, including Guy Deutscher, Uri Golomb, Inbal Guter, and
Benjamin Perl, gave valuable advice on the manuscript. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation
(Grant No. 480/17).
See, e.g., Robert D. Levin, “Instrumental Ornamentation, Improvisation and Cadenzas,” in: Performance Practice, ed.
Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan, 1989), 267–91; Levin, “Improvised Embellishments
in Mozart’s Keyboard Music,” Early Music 20/2 (1992): 221–33, https://doi.org/10.1093/earlyj/xx.2.221; and Levin,
“Improvising Mozart,” in Musical Improvisation: Art, Education, and Society, ed. Gabriel Solis and Bruno Nettl (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 2009), 143–49.
Frederick Neumann, Ornamentation and Improvisation in Mozart (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986, https://
doi.org/10.1515/9780691194684); and Hellmuth Christian Wolff, Original Vocal Improvisations: From the 16th–18th Centuries
(Cologne: A. Volk Verlag, 1972).
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019 | 50–86
© Uri B. Rom and Leuven University Press | https://doi.org/10.11116/MTA.6.1.2
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
50
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
from its original performance-practice context and discuss in more general terms the
conditions of musical syntax and perception that make a certain work or passage amenable
to the addition of embellishments.
Most of the sources on ornamentation from the Renaissance to the Romantic period
are found in practical manuals for singers and instrumentalists. Some of the writings
involve substantive theoretical and aesthetic discussions (consider, for instance, C. P.
E. Bach’s comparison between the French and the Italian schools of ornamentation).3
Occasionally authors point to music in a particular style as less suitable for ornamentation.
For instance, in his School of Clavier Playing, Daniel Gottlob Türk warns that “especially in
compositions of sorrowful, painful, melancholy, serious, innocent, or naïve character […] an
ornament used at the wrong time drastically weakens the desired effect.”4 However, owing
to their predominantly prescriptive character, performance manuals are on the whole
rather limited in their theoretical and analytical concerns. When no ready-made rules are
available, the question of applying embellishments—like many other questions—is often
relegated to the realm of “good taste.”
More recent literature provides several attempts at a theory of melody.5 The relationship
between the melodic surface and underlying voice-leading schemata occupies a central
position in schema theory, propelled by a reawakened interest in historical music
pedagogy.6 However, these scholarly endeavors do not, strictly speaking, expressly address
the conditions under which given works or passages are suitable for the addition of
embellishments.7
Thus, overall neither earlier nor more recent discussions on ornamentation address
the issue as an object of theoretical inquiry in its own right. I believe, however, that the
question of what makes given works or passages suitable for added embellishments merits
a more thorough theoretical exploration. In particular, now that historical informedness
has become increasingly integrated in performance practice, the time seems ripe to consider
the question specifically from a music-theoretical angle. Notwithstanding this primarily
theoretical concern, the following discussion will also seek to present some tentative
practical implications for performance. While I will mainly draw on Mozart’s keyboard
3
4
5
6
7
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen, vol. 1 (Berlin: Author’s edition, 1753; 4th ed.,
Leipzig: Schwickert, 1787); and vol. 2 (Berlin: Author’s edition, 1762; 3rd ed., Leipzig: Schwickert, 1797), 1:43 f. Page
numbers here refer to the 1787 edition.
Daniel Gottlob Türk, Klavierschule (Leipzig & Halle: Schwickert, 1789), translated as School of Clavier Playing, ed.
Raymond H. Haggh (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982), 231 f.
E.g., Lars Ulrich Abraham and Carl Dahlhaus, Melodielehre (Cologne: Gerig, 1972).
See, e.g., Robert O. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
While schemata materialize in actual music almost invariably in some decorated form, schema theory is concerned
less with the possibilities of embellishing a given melody than with tracing all variants back to the basic background
structure, i.e., the voice-leading schema.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
51
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
music for the discussion, my aim is not to set particular rules for ornamenting Mozart,
but rather to use his music as a case study for the more general question of what makes
added embellishments acceptable in a given context.
In section 2 I begin by defining the central concept of “tolerance to embellishment”
with reference to philological aspects, stylistic considerations, and questions of musical
logic and consistency. In section 3 I will introduce the distinction between optional
and obligatory embellishments. As I will argue, of the two embellishment types only
the former represents true decoration, whereas the latter stands for elements that
superficially resemble embellishments but actually constitute an integral part of the
musical substance. In section 4 I will offer a miniature corpus study of some possible
correlations between a given piece’s tempo and formal layout, on the one hand, and
the employment of embellishments, on the other (this study will focus on a particular
category of “recapitulatory embellishments”). In section 5 I will call upon theories of
music perception and musical memory to account for an apparent correlation between a
passage’s exact temporal position in the piece and its suitability for added embellishments.
Finally, in section 6 I propose to show that Mozart’s use of certain melodic motives was
attached to their literal melodic surface only, in a way that makes any added ornamentation
contestable. This will lead to the conclusion that adding embellishments is ultimately
(also) a question of a composer’s personal style. (The same not-to-be-embellished motives
in Mozart are shown to be embellished by Haydn.)
I develop my argument in close dialogue with Robert Levin’s embellished version
of the second movement of Mozart’s Piano Concerto in A major, K. 488, recorded for
L’Oiseau-Lyre,8 a passage from which is transcribed in Example 1. I will seek to show at
which points Levin’s polished, historically and stylistically informed embellishments
accord with my tentative conclusions, and where, conversely, they appear to be at odds
with them.
2. towa r d a wo r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f to l e r a n c e to
embellishment
What makes a piece or passage suitable for added embellishments? This multifaceted
question involves, among many other aspects, historical conventions of notation and
improvisation, the philological status of individual scores, aspects of a composer’s personal
8
W. A. Mozart, Piano Concertos No. 22, K. 482 & No. 23, K. 488 (audio CD), with Robert Levin (piano) and the Academy of
Ancient Music, conducted by Christopher Hogwood, recorded March 1987 in London, St. John’s, Smith Square,
L’Oiseau-Lyre 452 052-2OH, 1999. Transcription supplied by the author.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
52
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 1: Mozart, Piano Concerto in A major, K. 488, ii, Adagio, mm. 53–64 (recapitulation of the A
section): original text by Mozart and embellished version by Robert D. Levin
style and creative process, and, last but not least, the essentially pragmatic question
of how much decoration a given piece seems to require (in terms of a minimum) or
tolerate (in terms of a maximum) in order to produce an effective interpretation. In
an attempt to untangle this array of questions, let us start by briefly considering one
seemingly straightforward case of suitability for embellishments in the music of the
Classical period—that of Eingang fermatas.
Eingänge are essentially improvisatory solo passages introducing a recapitulation or a
thematic (re)statement of some kind; they often occur before refrain repetitions in the
rondo form and in some other common constellations as well. Eingänge are indicated in
the score by a fermata at the position where they are to be played and, most typically,
nothing else, meaning that the soloist is entrusted with the task of improvising them.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
53
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 2a: Mozart, Piano Sonata in D major, K. 311 (284c), iii, Rondeau Allegro, mm. 172–173, with
Mozart’s Eingang
However, there are several exceptions of notated Eingänge in Mozart’s works. For the third
movement of the Piano Sonata in D major, K. 311, Mozart supplied an Eingang that is
seamlessly integrated into the preserved manuscript score (see Example 2a; typically for
Eingänge, the notation involves no additional partitioning through bar lines); for the finale
of Mozart’s last Piano Concerto, K. 595, one Eingang out of two has come down to us from
the composer’s hand, suggesting that the second fermata too should be furnished with an
improvisation similar in style and scope; exceptionally, for a couple of Eingänge in the final
movement of the Piano Concerto No. 9, K. 271 (“Jenamy”), there are no fewer than three
different versions, suggesting that this portion of the music went on evolving long after
Mozart had fixed all other aspects of the composition in the score.
From a philological point of view, these cases are all quite different, and one could
argue that they call for different realizations in actual performance. Although in a typical
Mozart piano-concerto finale soloists are required to supply their own Eingänge, in the
third movement of K. 595 they may consider complementing the missing Eingang along
the lines of the one that came down to us; in the third movement of K. 271 they apparently
have only to choose among the surviving versions without improvising a single note of
their own; and, finally, in the piano-sonata movement they simply need to go on playing
the score as is. (One should bear in mind that Mozart wrote down all these Eingänge for
pupils or performers who couldn’t—or couldn’t yet—improvise their own lead-in.)
However, Eingänge represent improvisatory elements regardless of whether one actually
improvises them. In all the above-mentioned cases, Mozart’s fermatas are suitable for
added embellishments not because the performer is necessarily called upon to supply
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
54
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
new embellishments, but because practically anything played at this point (as long as it
conforms with the stylistic norms) would make just as much sense. Some of Mozart’s
original Eingänge contain thematic references to the embedding movement (consider,
for instance, the boxed chain of sixteenth notes in Example 2a), but some do not, and
even the ones that do would arguably work perfectly well without these references.
Ultimately, Eingänge constitute moments where the principle of thematic development,
otherwise constantly at work, is temporarily suspended, making them highly variable
from a structural perspective. “Tolerance to embellishment” in this context is tantamount
to structural flexibility and interchangeability among different melodic formulations.
This may seem quite straightforward so far, but let us now proceed to a more challenging case among Mozart’s cadenzas. Cadenzas represent moments of solo improvisation
similar to Eingänge in many respects but different in their formal position and the chord
they embellish. Overall, Mozart’s preserved cadenzas are substantially longer than his
Eingänge and feature thematic allusions to the movements for which they were written.9
Though Mozart furnished cadenzas for many of his piano concertos (again, to help out
the less creative performers among his students), he most probably extemporized his own
cadenzas when performing these works himself. However, there is the intriguing case of
the cadenza in tempo in the last movement of the Quintet for Piano and Wind Instruments,
K. 452 (mm. 159–205). This extensive written-out cadenza starts on the cadential 6/4 chord
and ends with a trill over the dominant seventh chord—just like the normal Classical
cadenza; however, unlike solo cadenzas of the time, there is nothing improvisatory about
this passage, if only because no chamber ensemble, however accomplished, would be able
to improvise anything like that on the spot.
Does the cadenza in tempo in the third movement of K. 452 represent a token of “tolerance
to embellishment” in the sense discussed above? May it be additionally decorated? Replaced
by a wholly different passage (possibly preserving the original proportions)? Completely
eliminated with the exception of the final trill? Being a cadenza, the passage in question
stands outside the formal trajectory of the containing movement—the rondo’s layout will
suffer no loss (although listeners surely will) should this showcase cadenza be removed
or substituted by a short piano improvisation. In this sense, it represents a moment of
exchangeability and variability just like any other Classical cadenza, and the fact that it is
fully written out by Mozart as an integral part of the score makes no difference.
9
Notably, thematic references in Mozart’s cadenzas are occasionally quite scanty: for instance, in his cadenza for the
first movement of the Piano Concerto in A major, K. 488 Mozart alludes to two motives, none of which occupies a
prominent position in the movement.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
55
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 2b: Mozart, Quintet for Piano and Wind Instruments, K. 452, iii, Allegretto, mm. 169–176
(piano part only)
However, I would argue that musical logic and musical coherence are not engendered
by formal processes alone. Let us consider one rhythmic-textural aspect that, in my
opinion, makes this cadenza (or, at least, elements of it) essential to the entire movement’s
coherence and hence irreducible. In this rondo Mozart employs triplets (in the piano part
only) mainly in two types of texture: figurations based on broken chords in the right hand
(occurring, for the first time, in mm. 32 ff.), and “hollow” unison passages spread over
three octaves (this latter texture is introduced at a rather late stage, in mm. 103 ff., about
halfway into the rondo’s middle section). Although up to the middle section (beginning at
m. 88) the piano part breaks several times into triplets of the first type (in addition to
mm. 32 ff., there are sections with triplets in mm. 47 ff., 61 ff., and—in a somewhat varied
texture—67 ff.), subsequent to the middle section Mozart allows for only a single short
mention of the first type of triplet (mm. 124–125),10 and the movement closes with a sizable
coda (mm. 213ff.), largely based on the second, unison-based type (mm. 221 ff.). In other
words, without the extravaganza of triplets of the first type featured at the core of Mozart’s
cadenza in tempo (mm. 169 ff.; see Example 2b), this rhythmic-textural element, which plays
a conspicuous role in the rondo’s first half, would be palpably underrepresented in its
second half.
This extraordinary case serves to demonstrate the conceptual scope of tolerance
to embellishment (or, more generally, to any type of variant). Mozart’s remarkable
10 Note, however, that the triplets of the second type mutate into triplets of the first type in the course of the middle
section at mm. 112 ff.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
56
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
ensemble cadenza reveals itself as only partly tolerant to changes. Although on the one
hand the rondo’s formal coherence would suffer much of this cadenza to be removed
or recomposed, on the other, the sense of rhythmical and textural balance across the
entire movement would require at least its use of triplets to be preserved. This example illustrates the invariability of certain structural elements (rhythm, texture) in an
otherwise variable context (a cadenza); however, it admittedly stretches the concept
of tolerance to embellishment beyond what I will be using below, as my main concern will be melodic embellishments. I include this discussion because it demonstrates
the level of theoretical abstraction embodied by the concept of tolerance to embellishment: although Mozart’s cadenza in tempo obviously raises no philological difficulties
and does not invoke the need to add embellishments in performance, it nonetheless challenges our distinction between substance and decoration in a given piece of
music.
With this complexity in mind, let us now proceed to a working definition of tolerance to
embellishment as the aptitude of a given melody—or specific elements of a melody—to take on variants
(elaborations, substitutions, etc.) without impairing the sense of musical logic and coherence as inferred
by the listener. Intolerance to embellishment, conversely, refers to constellations where
these premises are not fulfilled and no variants may be admitted. As discussed above with
regard to the cadenza in tempo in the finale of Mozart’s Quintet for Winds and Piano, there
seems to be a point in defining tolerance to embellishment not as a binary quality, but as a
graded one, encompassing varying degrees of susceptibility to variants. In addition, the
current definition allows not only for the common concept of embellishment in the sense
of melodic elaboration, but also for constellations where the surface complexity is reduced
rather than enhanced.
The above definition further embraces a perceptual-empirical component: the implied
listener’s experience of musical logic and coherence. Ultimately, every listener is likely
to experience musical logic and tolerance to variants in a different way; consequently,
analytical discussions such as the present one need to construct an idealized listener to
account for the way certain structural phenomena are heard and understood. In fact, the
ongoing discourse regarding added ornamentation most typically assumes none other
than the composer as the “number 1 listener” supervising the adequacy of interpretations
of his or her own music. However, as opposed to that of present-day listeners, from whom
we may obtain listening impressions and aesthetic judgments, Mozart’s approval or
rejection of certain variants can only be a matter for speculation. In parts of the following
investigation I adopt such a speculative composer-oriented perspective, piecing together
various evidence to infer what for Mozart were such constellations that called for (or,
conversely, hindered) added improvised embellishments.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
57
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Impairment of the sense of musical coherence and logic may occur at different levels
of the musical structure, from obscuring the thematic identity of a local element to
interfering with large-scale formal processes. In section 4 I will argue that pieces in a
certain form or in a certain tempo are, on the whole, more suitable than others to the
addition of embellishments. In section 5, on the other hand, I will consider constellations
where even small variants introduced at the wrong moment are liable to interfere with
listeners’ perception of the musical form. In the final section of the article, I will examine
a particular case that is indicative of a surprisingly high degree of sensitivity to variation
on Mozart’s part, my point being that with regard to certain motives, Mozart appears to
have considered any decorations whatsoever as interfering with his musical intentions.
Considered from the perspective of the current discussion, Levin’s embellished version
in Example 1 appears to treat the entire passage in question as representing an essentially
uniform, high level of tolerance to embellishment throughout. Although Levin leaves a
few bits of the original melody unadorned, nine of the twelve measures shown in the
example are densely decorated, at times to the extent of practically obscuring Mozart’s
original (e.g., m. 59). One of my main points below will be that tolerance to embellishment
is highly sensitive to local context. Accordingly, I claim that the passage at hand is, in fact,
far from uniform, rather embodying several different levels of amenability to decoration
in a way that requires a more fine-grained differentiation among bits that may and bits
that may not be embellished than is represented by Levin’s version.
3. to l e r a n c e to e m b e l l i s h m e n t a n d t h e m at i c p roc es s es:
o b l i gato ry v e r s u s o pt i o na l e m b e l l i s h m e n ts
A major obstacle to our discussion is the paucity of direct evidence. Lacking sound
recordings, we cannot know for sure what Mozart played in live performances of his works.
Mozart’s surviving sketches bear testimony to a concentrated effort to solve compositional
problems and improve details of his works;11 however, sketches are not on a par with
Mozart’s final choices and hence do not count as variants in the sense defined above. It is
true that in addition to the Eingänge and cadenzas already mentioned, in several cases
Mozart supplied extra versions with décor for undecorated (or less decorated) passages
that have come down to us separately: see, for instance, the skeletal passage in the second
movement of the Piano Concerto in D major, K. 451, an ornamented version of which
Mozart sent to his sister; and for two piano-sonata slow movements there exist—beside
11 See the discussion of Mozart’s sketches in Ulrich Konrad, Mozarts Schaffensweise: Studien zu den Werkautographen, Skizzen
und Entwürfen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
58
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
the complete manuscript scores—diverging, more ornate readings of specific passages.
Doubtless this is valuable evidence, but there is not much of it.
And yet, in the most basic sense of the word, Mozart’s works are replete with
embellishments. Theoretically, any repetition of an already-heard melodic element with
some modification at the surface level can be construed as embellishment. What can
such compositionally integrated embellishments teach us about the tolerance to added
embellishment of specific movements and passages? Obviously, embellishments not
present in the score but added later in performance are optional; but I argue that also some
of the embellishments notated by the composer may be considered optional in the sense
that replacing them with their unembellished original or exchanging them against other
embellishments does not interfere with the music’s logic and coherence. The presence
of such optional embellishments may thus serve as an indication of a movement’s or
passage’s tolerance to embellishment.
On the other hand, I argue that some composer-notated embellishments (in the sense
of varied melodic repetitions) are obligatory, meaning that they may not be reduced or
modified but in fact represent unalterable elements of the piece’s thematic substance.
Accordingly, such embellishments cannot be construed as decorative in the first place,
and their presence in the score does not indicate any flexibility of the melodic surface. As
proposed in the previous section, the concept of tolerance to embellishment requires that
embellishments not interfere with a piece’s logic; however, in the current discussion I will
seek to show that obligatory embellishments do more than just interfere: they literally
shape this logic in the sense that composers employ them as a crucial device of thematic
development. Let us turn to a concrete example.
Consider the added sixteenth notes in m. 5 of the first movement of the “Hunt” Quartet,
K. 458 (Example 3a). At first sight, this written-out embellishment seems optional in the
sense described above, because it does not contribute to thematic coherence and appears to
be reducible. Construing the first eight measures of the movement as a miniature periodlike structure, the sixteenth notes in m. 5 in fact create a mismatch between the period’s
antecedent (mm. 1–4) and its consequent (mm. 5–8). Thus, replacing the embellished
figure with the plain version adopted from m. 1 (as in Example 3b) is expected, if anything,
to strengthen the thematic coherence.
But later on in the movement, in the transition section (mm. 42 ff.; Example 3c), the
compositional role of the added upper neighbors in m. 5 becomes evident. Here the earlier
three-note figure evolves into a five-note trill circulating among all instruments fifteen
times in close succession.12 When the secondary theme finally appears (mm. 54 ff.), it
12 Notably, another juxtaposition of non-embellished and embellished figures occurs at a somewhat earlier position in
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
59
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 3a: Mozart, String Quartet in B♭ major, K. 458 (“Hunt”), i, Allegro vivace assai, mm. 1–8
Example 3b: Recomposed version of mm. 1–8 suppressing upper neighbors in m. 5
consists of essentially the same trill figures. So what at first appears to be an optional
decoration in m. 5 is understood in retrospect as motivic mortar that holds the entire
the theme’s restatement that launches the transition section in mm. 26–30. This passage seems to mediate between
the primary theme’s beginning, where the trill figure has not yet made its appearance, and the secondary theme,
which is based largely on this figure.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
60
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 3c: Mozart, String Quartet in B♭ major, K. 458, i, mm. 42–54
exposition together: if eliminated from m. 5 (as in Example 3b), the later upper-neighbor
figures in mm. 42 ff. would sound unprepared and hence inconsistent, and a crucial aspect
of the movement’s thematic plot would be lost. Considered from a larger perspective,
the added diminutions in m. 5 are revealed as obligatory elements in the sense that
they cannot be altered or omitted without harming the movement’s thematic coherence.
This discussion might remind the reader of older organicist approaches to musical
composition, such as Schoenberg’s concept of developing variation,13 according to which
all thematic material in a composition ought to be derived solely from transformations of
a single motive, or at most a few motives. From a performer’s point of view, the organicist
standpoint is a purist one, strictly abiding by the musical text as laid down by the composer
and rejecting any ad hoc additions or modifications. However, performance-practice purism
13 Schoenberg refers to the compositional principle of developing variation, to which he attached great importance, at
various points in his writings without supplying a full discussion. The definition proposed above freely paraphrases
his discussion in Style and Idea, ed. Leonard Stein (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975), 397.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
61
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 3d: Recomposed version of the “Hunt” Quartet, i, mm. 1–8, with additional embellishments
is not at all a position I wish to argue for here. Instead, although in many styles the written
score may be construed as a point of departure for elaboration and ornamentation, there
will be in every piece of music certain moments that will not tolerate modification. One
such case is, as suggested above, due to ongoing thematic processes whose coherence
would be jeopardized by any changes to the melodic surface.
To illustrate this claim even more pointedly, consider the hypothetical embellished
version of the quartet’s beginning in Example 3d. Though the Classical string quartet
is among the least likely genres for improvised embellishments, this heavily decorated
variant—which, however, preserves Mozart’s added sixteenth notes in m. 5—proves less
harmful to the thematic process described above than the plain version shown in Example
3b, where these sixteenth notes are omitted from Mozart’s original while everything else
is kept unchanged. Using the ornate version in Example 3d, say, to vary the exposition’s
repeat would leave this crucial process intact.14 Paradoxically, much of the theme thus
appears to be more tolerant to embellishment than the bit in m. 5 that actually looks like
an embellishment.
Turning again to Levin’s embellished version (see again Example 1), there is no
substantive evidence that it essentially impairs any thematic processes permeating
Mozart’s movement. Given that the dotted siciliano figure launching the theme is
its most salient feature, one could argue that the use of melodic diminutions in the
fifth measure of the example to substitute for two such figures in Mozart’s original
runs the risk of harming the theme’s unity. However, merely re-invoking the same
rhythmic figure again and again should not be confused with a thematic process; thus,
eliminating some of these repetitions for the sake of melodic diminutions is by no means
objectionable from the point of view of the music’s coherence. Notably, Mozart himself
embellishes a similar siciliano figure that launches the Rondo for Piano in A minor, K. 511,
14 Obviously, this version interferes with other aspects of the primary theme’s inner structure and character, such as the
insistent, unvaried quadruple repetition of the dyad B♭–D in mm. 2, 4, 6, and 8, giving it an “obstinate,” even “folksy”
undertone.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
62
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
in such a way that the dotted rhythm is completely obscured in some of the motive’s later
recurrences (see Figure 1 below).
To resume, embellishments as recorded by the composer in the score may be misleading
in both directions: on the one hand, what seems to be merely decorative elements may
turn out to represent obligatory tokens of motivic growth (as in the case of the “Hunt”
Quartet, discussed above); on the other hand, genuinely optional embellishments (in the
sense that omitting or modifying them would leave the piece’s coherence intact) that
are supplied by the composer may delude performers into mistaking them for the only
possible way to embellish a given work, whereas in many styles (including Mozart’s) solo
parts are demonstrably meant to be performed with more decoration than is notated by
the composer.
Is there a more general rule by which to distinguish between obligatory and optional
embellishments in a given score? As I suggested earlier in the case of K. 458’s first
movement, it is less the structure of the embellishments themselves and more the role they
play in their context that determines whether they are obligatory or optional. Arguably,
embellishments that create local differences among adjacent thematic repetitions are
likely to be involved in ongoing thematic processes (consider, again, the added sixteenth
notes in m. 5 of K. 458, i), and are thus mostly expected to represent the obligatory type.15
Conversely, embellishments occurring across more distant thematic repetitions are less
likely to be part of ongoing thematic processes; in such cases we may generally assume
embellishments to fulfill a primarily decorative function and be of the optional type.
The latter case is most typically represented by embellishments that occur in thematic
recapitulations. Recapitulation sections (as opposed to other elements of the musical
form), which are expected to repeat the corresponding exposition sections in only a
slightly varied fashion, as a rule engender listening for recurrence.16 Transformation and
elaboration processes occurring throughout a sonata form’s development section are, as it
15 Note, however, that embellishments across short distances do not automatically participate in thematic processes and
hence are not always representative of the obligatory type. Among Mozart’s rondo movements—as opposed to his
sonata-form movements—there are several period-like refrains involving local variants between the antecedent and
the consequent that nonetheless seem to represent genuinely optional embellishments in the sense that they have no
subsequent thematic implications. Examples may be found in the final movements of Mozart’s Piano Sonatas K.
281, K. 309, K. 333, and K. 533/494, as well as the A minor Rondo, K. 511 (see Figure 1). In all of these cases the local
variants between antecedent and consequent are introduced already in the course of the refrain’s initial presentation;
however, while in some of them (as in K. 511) the embellishments undergo further transformations in the course of
the refrain’s subsequent recurrences, in others (e.g., K. 281/iii) the initial period is re-invoked literally (including the
variants between antecedent and consequent) throughout the piece.
16 I do not refer here to recomposed recapitulations, a strategy frequently used in sonata-form movements by Haydn
and Beethoven and, to a lesser extent, in some Mozart movements. Note, however, that recomposition generally
involves changing much more than just the melodic surface (e.g., the harmonic/tonal plan or the phrase structure),
and hence does not fall into the category of embellishment (see the discussion in the next section).
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
63
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
were, undone,17 and the recapitulation embarks on a process of its own, mirroring the
exposition with certain changes, some of which (e.g., the tonal adjustment) are mandatory
while others may be optional.
Recapitulatory embellishments, accordingly, may be defined as embellishments introduced in
the course of a theme’s recapitulatory restatement(s) that vary the corresponding expositional passage. I
choose to speak of “recapitulatory restatements” rather than “recapitulations” because this
more general term covers, besides sonata-form recapitulations, also refrain repetitions in
the rondo form and the return of the A section in the ternary form. Against the backdrop
of the underlying analogy to the exposition, embellishments introduced in the course of a
recapitulatory restatement are generally perceived as optional deviations from the original
form introduced for the sake of variety and interest, thus indicating true flexibility of
the melodic surface. (Note, however, that this doesn’t mean that performers are free to
add them without restraint; as will be explored below, the employment of recapitulatory
embellishments correlates with, among other things, a movement’s form and tempo.)
In sum, while embellishments found in original scores may represent either obligatory
or optional variants, recapitulatory embellishments—among all embellishments notated
by the composer—are the ones most likely to indicate tolerance to embellishment (as
opposed to local embellishments, which are more likely to represent tokens of ongoing
thematic processes). In the following two sections I will address the question of what
composer-notated recapitulatory variants in Mozart’s piano works may teach us about
the role of different musical parameters in determining a given movement’s or passage’s
degree of tolerance to embellishment.
4. to l e r a n c e to e m b e l l i s h m e n t as a co ro l la ry o f a
m ov e m e n t ’s fo r m a n d t e m po
In Baroque music there seems to be at least some systematic correlation between the
use of diminutions or larger-scale ornamentation, on the one hand, and a movement’s
tempo, on the other. As a rule, slower movements accommodate more ornamentation
17 A fascinating exception to this rule occurs in the recapitulation section of the first movement of Mozart’s String
Quartet in G major, K. 387. Here the primary theme’s chromaticism is enhanced in the recapitulation by two added
chromatic passing notes in the first violin part in mm. 109 and 111 respectively, deviating from the theme’s original
form in the exposition. The first of these added passing notes may be seen as responding to mm. 82 and 84 in the
development section, where a chromatic passing tone (g♯″) in the first violin is similarly used to mediate between the
perfect fourth and the minor third above the bass note in a descending melodic motion. In this (exceptional) case the
thematic process carried out throughout the development section seems to be prolonged into the recapitulation
section, making the recapitulatory variant in mm. 109–111 appear to be of the obligatory type in the sense discussed
earlier. (The movement’s particularly quick tempo, allegro vivace assai, bespeaks, too, a constellation of intolerance
to embellishment according to the principles to be discussed in the next section, making optional recapitulatory
embellishments at this point rather unlikely.)
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
64
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
than faster ones. Among the many ornamented versions that came down to us for the
violin part of Corelli’s Twelve Sonatas, Op. 5, all sources from Corelli’s time—including
the surviving diminutions by the composer himself—contain embellishments only for the
Adagios and Graves, whereas the Allegro and dance movements are left intact.18 Among J.
S. Bach’s English Suites, there are embellished variants for the Sarabandes of Nos. 2, 3,
and 6 (the latter variant is titled “Double”); however, the Courante of Suite No. 1 features
a couple of Doubles, showing that this ornamentation strategy is not confined to slow
dances only. With regard to the Classical style, both instrumental pieces and vocal arias
in slow tempo are demonstrably more ornate than fast ones. True, quick movements
often sport a great deal of passagework, which corresponds to the idea of diminutions;
however, passagework as a rule doesn’t qualify as optional embellishment (it is normally
retained without any changes in the recapitulation). Remarkably, Mozart’s separately
notated embellished versions are exclusively of passages from slow movements.
As for a possible correlation between the use of non-obligatory embellishments (in the
sense defined above) and a movement’s formal layout, one may speculate that certain
forms are more susceptible to embellishments than others. Embodying multiple refrain
repetitions, the rondo form seems to require recapitulatory variants to counter the
potential monotony of literal restatements. Conversely, sonata form, often described
as representing an especially forward-driving formal process,19 is expected to come along
with a particularly fixed melodic surface, basically adverse to free ornamentation or the
exchange of melodic formulations against variants. Intriguingly, these two strains of
arguments, the tempo based and the form based, clash with regard to slow movements
in sonata form, which (to judge by their tempo) are likely to favor added recapitulatory
embellishments although (on the basis of their formal layout) are expected to shun them.
A similarly ambivalent constellation exists with regard to movements in sonata-rondo
form, because the rondo components, on the one hand, and the sonata components, on
the other, seem to engender varying degrees of amenability to ornamentation.
In this section I undertake a cursory examination of the use of recapitulatory embellishments as a possible corollary of both a movement’s tempo and of its formal layout.
These questions will be examined with regard to two sub-corpora of Mozart’s piano-sonata
movements: quick sonata-form (hence: “sonata-allegro”) movements that inaugurate
18 Neal Zaslaw, “Ornaments for Corelli’s Violin Sonatas, Op. 5,” Early Music 24/1 (1996): 95–118, https://doi.org/10.1093/
em/24.1.95.
19 See James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-EighteenthCentury Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195146400.001.0001),
18: “One should experience any sonata form with a strongly ‘directed’ preparatory set, pressing forward conceptually
and anticipating genre-defining events-to-come.”
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
65
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
a sonata cycle, and slow movements that feature a recapitulatory restatement of the
primary theme material. Notably, the examination of fast sonata-form movements is
restricted to first movements only, as quite a few of Mozart’s finales belong to the hybrid
sonata-rondo form, which, as argued above, is expected to exhibit a mixed profile with
regard to the employment of surface variants. (Note, however, that many of Mozart’s
finales in the regular sonata form are just as strictly forward-driving as any of his first
movements). Importantly, with regard to both sonata-allegro and slow movements I
limit my examination to variants of main-theme (or refrain) recurrences only. To be
sure, recapitulatory variants occur more frequently among Mozart’s subsidiary and
closing themes, possibly because these form elements already involve a difference in
pitch level between analogous expositional and recapitulatory passages owing to the tonal
adjustment. However, including these variants here would go beyond the scope of the
present cursory investigation.
Finally, with regard to movements in sonata form—whether fast or slow ones—it is
crucial to distinguish between decorative recapitulatory variants and more substantial
recomposition. Although quite a few recapitulations in Mozart’s sonata-form movements
entail considerable recomposition of expositional material, recomposition as a formal
strategy affects essential aspects of the music (such as harmonic layout and phrase
structure) reaching far beyond varying the melodic surface and is therefore irrelevant to
our discussion.
As conjectured above, sonata-form first movements are the ones least expected to
harbor ornamental flexibility at the surface level. Indeed, of all such movements found
among Mozart’s eighteen piano sonatas, only in a single one—the first movement of
K. 330 in C major—does Mozart introduce variants between the expositional and the
recapitulatory statements of the primary theme. As suggested in the annotations to
Example 4, the passages in question entail both non-optional diminutions (“motivic
growth”) at the level of local phrase repetition and genuine tokens of surface flexibility at
the higher level of recapitulatory restatement.
Significantly, the movement in question, while essentially belonging to the category
of fast opening sonata-form movements, is the slowest in this category among Mozart’s
piano sonatas—in fact, it is the only one to bear the tempo indication “Allegro moderato”;
additionally, it has a great number of thirty-second notes, further attesting to a rather
moderate execution tempo.20 The slower tempo may account for the somewhat less
rigorous, more flexible melodic surface of this movement, a feature reflected in the unique
variants in analogous exposition and recapitulation passages.
20 The opening movement of the Piano Sonata in B♭ major, K. 281 also incorporates small rhythmic values and seems to
require moderate execution tempo; however, it bears the generic tempo marking of Allegro.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
66
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 4a: Mozart, Piano Sonata in C major, K. 330 (300h), i, Allegro moderato, mm. 1–10 (exposition)
Example 4b: Mozart, Piano Sonata in C major, K. 330 (300h), i, mm. 88–97 (recapitulation)
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
67
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Inasmuch as this isolated example allows us to draw some more general conclusions,
one may surmise that comparatively slow movements of the sonata-allegro type are
expected to display a higher degree of surface flexibility than veritably quick ones (that
is, movements bearing tempo indications ranging from Allegro to even faster tempi).
To venture a tentative practical conclusion, it seems permissible to add at least some
decoration in the performance of sonata-allegro movements, provided that their tempo
lies on the moderately vivid side. In this connection, it seems noteworthy that among
Emanuel Bach’s Six Sonatas with Varied Repeats (Sechs Sonaten mit veränderten Reprisen), which
entail meticulously written out embellishments of entire formal sections, only a single
opening movement—that of No. 3 in A minor—is really fast, whereas the remaining five
first movements represent various shades of the more moderate tempo category (see Table
1 for details).21
Table 1: Tempo indications in the opening movements of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach’s Six Keyboard
Sonatas with Varied Repeats, Wq. 50
1.
Sonata in F major, Hob. 136, i, Allegretto
2.
Sonata in G major, Hob. 137, i, Allegretto
3.
Sonata in A minor, Hob. 138, i, Presto
4.
Sonata in D minor, Hob. 139, i, Allegretto grazioso
5.
Sonata in B♭major, Hob. 126, i, Poco allegro
6.
Sonata in C minor, Hob. 140, i, Allegro moderato
To conclude, it seems that with regard to opening movements of the sonata-allegro type,
tempo nuances play at least some role in determining a given movement’s tolerance to
embellishment: the slower the tempo, the more flexible the melodic surface.
When it comes to slow-movement ornamentation, things become essentially more
complex. To begin with, slow movements as a rule entail far more composer-notated
decoration than fast ones, both at the local level and at that of recapitulatory restatements.
In addition, one should take into consideration the diversity of formal designs, of which
the sonata form is only one of several options. Finally, any typology of Classical-style slow
21 Emanuel Bach’s variation procedure in the Six Sonatas with Varied Repeats represents practically the opposite of the
one observed in Example 4 with regard to Mozart’s recapitulatory variants in K. 330/i. While Bach’s recapitulations
(unlike Mozart’s) invoke the corresponding exposition passages in a literal or near-literal way, both the first and the
second reprises in his movements, amounting together to the complete sonata-form design, are subjected to writtenout, all-encompassing variation when repeated for the second time. In Table 1, I disregard many other compositions
by Bach with varied repeats, including the six finales of Wq. 50, as well as other pieces contained in published
and unpublished collections. A thorough investigation of this repertoire is expected to yield a more differentiated
assessment of the interplay between form, tempo nuances, and the employment of embellishments in Bach’s works.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
68
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
movements calls for a crucial tempo-based distinction between a moderately slow category
(with “Andante” as a generic tempo indication) and a veritably slow one (often indicated
by “Adagio”). All these aspects are expected to bear on the question of surface flexibility in
slow movements.
Table 2 presents an overview of the sixteen slow piano-sonata movements by Mozart
that include recapitulatory restatements of the opening thematic material.22 In slow
movements in sonata form, this procedure boils down to an either literal or varied reinvocation of the main theme at the recapitulation’s beginning. In other forms, such as
the rondo or the A–B–A form, the recapitulatory principle is invoked by a refrain (or an A
section) that is repeated once, or several times, throughout the movement. In the case of
the Andante un poco adagio from K. 309—the only movement of the repertoire under
investigation featuring written-out “varied repeats” à la Emanuel Bach—there are no fewer
than three restatements of the opening theme (all of which are embellished), resulting
from a combination of the rounded-binary layout (which entails a concise recapitulation of
the main theme toward the end of the second reprise), on the one hand, and the written-out
varied repeats themselves, on the other. In all cases of varied recapitulatory restatements
in Table 2, the variants indicated encompass veritable diminutions, representing a more
substantial type of ornamentation than standard graces. In some slow movements in sonata
form, the main theme’s recapitulation is subjected to recomposition; however, as argued
above, recomposition doesn’t qualify as optional decoration. Embellishments that occur
in connection with local phrase repetition in thematic presentations—such as surface
variants between antecedent and consequent in period-like themes—are disregarded in
this analysis.
Table 2: Recapitulatory embellishments of the main theme/refrain in Mozart’s slow piano-sonata
movements
Slow movement Tempo
Movement form
Ornamented recapitulatory
restatement of main
theme/refrain
K. 279 (189d), ii
Andante
Sonata form
—(Recomposition)
K. 280 (189e), ii
Adagio
Sonata form
—(Shortened recapitulatory
restatement)
22 The opening movement of the Piano Sonata in E♭ major, K. 282, while representing a slow movement in sonata form,
lacks a recapitulation of the primary theme and is therefore irrelevant for the present investigation of recapitulatory
variants. The Sonata alla turca, K. 331, on the other hand, lacks a genuine slow movement in the first place.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
69
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Slow movement Tempo
Movement form
Ornamented recapitulatory
restatement of main
theme/refrain
K. 281 (189f), ii
Andante amoroso Sonata form
Diminutions (from
recapitulation’s beginning)
K. 283 (189h), ii
Andante
Sonata form
—(Recomposition)
K. 284 (205b), ii
Andante
Five-part rondo
Diminutions (both refrain
repetitions are embellished)
K. 309 (284b), ii
Andante un poco
Rounded binary
Diminutions (at both
adagio
form with varied
levels: [1] embellished
repeats
recapitulatory restatement
and [2] varied written-out
repeats)
K. 310 (300d), ii
Andante cantabile Sonata form
—
K. 311 (284c), ii
Andante con
Five-part
Diminutions (both refrain
espressione
sonata-rondo
repetitions are embellished)
K. 330 (300h), ii
Andante cantabile A–B–A
—
K. 332 (300k), ii
Adagio
Sonata form
Diminutions (starting with
(without
recapitulation’s beginning)
development)
K. 333 (315c), ii
Andante cantabile Sonata form
Diminutions (starting with
K. 457, ii
Adagio
Diminutions (both refrain
recapitulation’s beginning)
Five-part rondo
repetitions are embellished)
K. 533, ii
Andante
Sonata form
—(Recomposition)
K. 545, ii
Andante
A–B–A
—(Posthumous 1st edition)
K. 570, ii
Adagio
Five-part rondo
—(Posthumous 1st edition)
K. 576, ii
Adagio
A–B–A
—(Posthumous 1st edition)
What can we learn from this overview of Mozart’s written-out recapitulatory embellishments about the composer’s practice of improvised embellishments in live performances
of his piano-sonata slow movements? It is important to note that there is an essential
asymmetry between positive and negative findings: while the presence of recapitulatory
embellishments in a certain movement serves as a proof of this movement’s susceptibility
to surface variants, the lack of such embellishments may suggest—but by no means
prove—that the given movement was meant by Mozart to be performed without any
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
70
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
recapitulatory variants. In addition, one should take into account the different philological
statuses of sonatas published during Mozart’s lifetime, possibly also under his supervision,
from those published posthumously. When Mozart prepared the music for print himself,
he would normally take care to embed additional information so as to help potential
performers interpret the piece effectively. However, strictly speaking, even the fact that a
given movement was published by Mozart with no recapitulatory variants still does not
amount to proof that the composer himself wouldn’t have improvised embellishments in
a live performance. Ultimately, any inference regarding a movement’s non-liability to
embellishment must remain conjectural.
In particular, for two of the Adagio movements shown in Table 2—the second
movements of K. 332 (sonata form) and K. 457 (rondo form)—manuscript scores have
come down to us that contain no ornamentation of the main-theme recapitulation (in
K. 332, ii) or refrain recurrences (in K. 457, ii). In both cases, however, later versions that
include these embellishments were worked out by Mozart when preparing the sonatas in
question for print (the first prints of both works feature these embellishments). Arguably,
the fact that Mozart’s original manuscripts of both movements lack recapitulatory variants
underlines these embellishments’ flexible, optional character.23 However, if Mozart only
settled for the ornamented version as late as preparing the music for print, the lack of
recapitulatory embellishments in his last three piano sonatas—K. 545, K. 570, and K. 576
(all of which were published posthumously)—may not serve as evidence that he didn’t
want these movements to be embellished in the first place. In fact, it is entirely possible
that he simply postponed notating the recapitulatory embellishments to a later stage.
Taking all these aspects into consideration, we find some interesting insights that may
be gleaned from the small corpus under investigation with regard to the employment of
recapitulatory embellishments in slow movements. Generally speaking, formal layout
seems to matter, but so does the distinction between moderately slow and genuinely slow
tempi.
In all four movements in rondo form—with the exception of the second movement of
the posthumously published K. 570—their refrains are embellished upon recurrence. This
may in fact serve as analytical evidence that the latter movement should be ornamented as
well in actual performance. Among the slow rondo movements under discussion, tempo
23 As convincingly argued by Robert Levin in his Cambridge lecture “Improvising Mozart” (delivered on 29 October
2012) with regard to the slow movement of K. 457, performing the main theme’s repetitions as literal da capos—
that is, following the indications in the preserved dedication copy—is contrary to musical logic, because the theme’s
consequent already begins with decorating the antecedent, thus engendering listeners’ anticipation of more ornate
modifications to follow upon return. Mozart’s recapitulatory embellishments are construed here as optional only in the
sense that they may be replaced by other embellishments, not in the sense that the movement could do without them.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
71
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
nuances do not seem to play a role, as the relevant instructions range from Andante (K.
284, ii) to Adagio (K. 457, ii), with K. 311’s Andante con espressione located somewhere in
between.
Of the three movements in A–B–A form listed in Table 2, none contains any recapitulatory embellishments whatsoever. This is quite surprising, as the function that the A
section fulfills in this ternary design is similar to that of the refrain in the rondo from.
Given that two of the three movements concerned (K. 545, ii and K. 570, ii) were published
posthumously, the small corpus under consideration doesn’t seem to permit any definitive
conclusions. (The complete lack of recapitulatory embellishments in the A–B–A middle
movement of K. 330—a sonata published during Mozart’s lifetime—remains puzzling; it
may relate to the movement’s evocation of a naïve, artless mode of expression.)24
It is in connection with the sonata form (and the closely related rounded binary form)
that the distinction between moderate and slow tempo categories comes to bear on
the question of adding recapitulatory embellishments. As expected, faster movements
appear to represent a lower level of tolerance to embellishment. Notably, all three sonataform Andantes listed in Table 2 (K. 279, ii; K. 283, ii; and K. 533, ii) lack recapitulatory
embellishments, a constellation suggestive of a level of surface rigorousness (in the sense
of averseness to variants) comparable to that of fast movements in sonata form. There are
only two nominal Adagios in the group, of which one (K. 332, ii) features recapitulatory
embellishments, whereas the other one (K. 280, ii) lacks them. The in-between tempi
Andante cantabile and Andante amoroso seem to fit into the slower category, as two of the
three movements in question (K. 281, ii and K. 333, ii) evince recapitulatory embellishments.
Finally, the binary-form movement Andante un poco adagio from K. 309 displays lavish
ornamentation throughout.
Admittedly, in view of the small size of the repertoire under discussion, all the
conclusions listed above must be considered provisional. May these conclusions—tentative
as they are—now be brought to bear on our assessment of Levin’s embellished version
of the second movement of K. 488? The movement in question is in A–B–A form. As
discussed above, none of the ternary-form slow movements in Mozart’s piano sonatas
contain recapitulatory embellishments; however, this state of affairs is likely to go back
to philological circumstances (posthumous first prints) rather than to any fundamental
24 There is some strong circumstantial evidence suggesting that Mozart wanted the return of the A section in the second
movement of K. 330 to steer clear of improvised recapitulatory embellishments in actual performance. For the slow
movement of the Sonata K. 332, published along with K. 330 and K. 331, Mozart supplied a lavishly decorated version
of the recapitulation section when preparing the three sonatas for print. K. 330/ii itself underwent an important
revision at this stage: Mozart introduced a new four-measure coda based on the material of the middle section to
conclude the movement; however, he didn’t use this opportunity to supply recapitulatory embellishments. If the lack
of notated embellishments in this style may indicate a composer’s wish to inhibit added decoration, K. 330/ii seems to
represent a strong case.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
72
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
intolerance to embellishment of the A–B–A form. The movement’s tempo—Adagio—is
suggestive of a rather high level of surface flexibility. But then, again, its siciliano-like
beginning closely resembles that of the sonata-form Adagio movement from the Piano
Sonata K. 280 (this resemblance will be explored in some detail below), a movement devoid
of any recapitulatory embellishments of the main theme.
As it happens, Levin’s recapitulatory decoration for the slow movement of the Piano
Concerto K. 488 receives some substantial corroboration through a piece of evidence stemming from Mozart’s close circle. A preserved manuscript of a highly ornate embellishment
version of this movement was identified as written by Mozart’s pupil Barbara Ployer.25
Although Ployer applies meticulous diminutions to several passages throughout the movement, most of her ornamentational zeal concentrates on the passage depicted in Example
1: the recapitulation of the A section. Evidently, this document from the hand of a Mozart
pupil confirms the return of the A section in slow ternary-form movements as a locus
classicus for the application of ornaments. In choosing to decorate this passage—notably,
in a manner different from that of Ployer—Levin seems to act in complete agreement with
the movement’s genre, formal layout, and tempo.
5. to l e r a n c e to e m b e l l i s h m e n t as a co ro l la ry o f a pas sag e’s
t e m po r a l-fo r m a l pos i t i o n
The return of the refrain in movements in rondo form is a generic place for added ornamentation. As discussed above, basically all slow rondo movements in Mozart’s piano
sonatas feature embellished refrain repetitions (see again Table 2). (Among Mozart’s
piano-sonata finales in rondo and sonata-rondo form—which are not part of the above
analysis—movements in moderately fast tempo generally accommodate more extensive
recapitulatory variants than faster movements.26) One slow rondo movement not considered above—because it isn’t part of a piano sonata—is the exquisite Rondo for Piano
in A minor, K. 511, a piece featuring lavishly ornamented refrain repetitions. In his analysis
of the piece, Robert Levin quotes all five refrains, declaring that “such decorations provide
25 A transcription of Ployer’s manuscript is reproduced in Hermann Beck, Kritischer Bericht, Serie V, Werkgruppe 15, Neue
Mozart-Ausgabe (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1964), g/10–g/14.
26 For example, in the comparatively moderate sonata-rondo finales of K. 309 (Allegretto grazioso) and K. 533/494
(Allegretto; notably, the piece’s original tempo marking as a standalone rondo was even slower: Andante) Mozart
opts for new extensive decoration in each restatement of the refrain. Conversely, in the finale of K. 311—an Allegro
in 6/8 time—there are only minute differences between the original refrain and its subsequent recurrences (see,
e.g., the chromatic variant in m. 96 replacing the original diatonic figure in m. 10). But there are also exceptions to
this rule: for instance, in the Allegretto grazioso finale of the Piano Sonata K. 333—notwithstanding its moderate
tempo—Mozart introduces no surface variants among the various refrain occurrences (with the exception of the
final, shortened restatement at mm. 199ff.).
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
73
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Figure 1: Embellishments as a corollary of temporal position across the refrain of Mozart’s Rondo for
Piano in A minor, K. 511
invaluable examples of spontaneity captured on the page.”27 What Levin fails to point
out is that the five variants in question at the same time also offer valuable information
as to what Mozart didn’t choose to embellish.
Figure 1 shows the rondo’s refrain in its initial form as presented at the piece’s beginning (variant a). The plotted line represents the amount of recapitulatory embellishments
at each position of the refrain throughout the other four refrain occurrences. Half-measures
are used as basic time units. One embellishment unit is equivalent to the melodic bit in
question occurring in an embellished/varied form in one of the refrain’s repetitions. No
attempt has been made to distinguish between lighter and heavier forms of embellishment
(although such nuances exist in the music). However, the gruppetto sign added by Mozart
over the first note (c″) of the refrain’s final measure in all four subsequent repetitions
27 Levin, “Improvised Embellishments,” 224.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
74
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
has been disregarded, as it represents a standard generic grace and in addition remains
unaltered throughout the remainder of the rondo (notwithstanding its absence from the
refrain’s initial presentation). The written-out chromatic gruppetto initiating the theme is
not taken into account either (notably, in the fourth refrain this grace is dropped altogether
as a result of the refrain’s being introduced via a rising chromatic line). In the figure,
the tabular representation below the excerpt indicates which of the refrain repetitions
receive embellishments at any given position, b standing for the second refrain, and so
on.
Notably, although in the last repetition the refrain is more heavily decorated than in
any of the earlier occurrences, there is no consistent increase in the use of embellishments
throughout the piece. Following variant b, which is almost as ornate as the final variant
e, variant c, mediating between the rondo’s two main episodes, is very restrained with
regard to embellishments, and variant d, directly following the second episode, takes a
while to reengage in ornamentation. Overall, the refrain’s antecedent, comprising its first
four measures, receives fewer embellishments than its consequent, comprised of the next
four measures.
Significantly, the refrain’s first measure is never embellished. And there are two
additional points that remain undecorated throughout the rondo. Notably, these points
coincide with the refrain’s main closural events: the half-cadential ending of the antecedent
at m. 4 and the refrain’s final cadence at m. 8 (notwithstanding the added gruppetto sign in
variants b–e mentioned above). Should we take Mozart’s written-out refrain variants in
K. 511 to be of a wider significance beyond this particular piece, we may construe these
formal positions as tokens of intolerance, or, at least, reduced tolerance to recapitulatory
embellishments. Why is this? Obviously, the reason is not that the motives in question
cannot sustain any ornamentation: while the theme’s opening melodic gesture remains
undecorated throughout the rondo, its identical replica at the consequent’s beginning
(m. 5) is embellished in three of the remaining four refrains. Evidently, tolerance to
embellishment depends less on specific melodic contours and more on an element’s
temporal position across the theme.
It is tempting to generalize these observations into some sort of a performancepractice imperative in the style of “Thou shalt not embellish the beginnings and the
ends!” However, on closer examination this generalization proves contestable—even with
regard to Mozart’s keyboard music. For one thing, all his slow piano-sonata movements
in sonata form that incorporate recapitulatory variants (see again Table 2) have their
embellishments start right at the recapitulation’s beginning. But also some of Mozart’s
slow rondos (for instance, K. 284, ii and K. 457, ii) feature refrain recurrences that are
varied from the very start. Possibly the avoidance of variants at the beginnings or ends of
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
75
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
thematic restatements—as in K. 511—is characteristic of refrain melodies of particular
types only, for instance, melodies sporting salient rhythms (such as the siciliano) at these
edge positions.28
Be that as it may, I believe that the specific distribution of embellished and nonembellished moments across the theme of Mozart’s A minor Rondo attests to a more
profound principle. As a matter of fact, it invites us to link the concept of tolerance
(or intolerance) to variation with cognitive questions of boundary effects (primacy and
recency) explored by theories of memory and learning.
As established in empirical cognitive studies, the first and last visual or auditory items
in a sequence gain in salience owing to their boundary position, and people are better at
recalling and learning them in comparison with items located at intermediate positions.29
If, as theories supported by experimental results suggest, discrimination rates and memory
performance are highest at the temporal edges of a sequence of events, it is exactly those
musical events which occur at a theme’s boundaries that are expected to linger longest and
most vividly in listeners’ memories. Although this casts no absolute ban on embellishing
boundary-position events in a theme, it nevertheless implies that a literal re-invocation of
a theme’s beginning and end would most effectively contribute toward its recognition,
whereas any deviations introduced at these positions are likely to prove particularly
harmful to a theme’s recognizability.
Coming back to K. 511, it stands to reason that in this rondo Mozart employs the
literal re-invocations of the refrain’s beginning and end (the half cadence in m. 4 is
possibly construable as an “end” position at some subordinate hierarchical level) as
powerful “retrieval cues,”30 ensuring that listeners easily recognize the refrain’s subsequent
returns—a particularly crucial aspect in the perception and comprehension of the rondo
form.
The above discussion may further account for an intriguing formal procedure found
in some rondos and rondo-like movements by Joseph Haydn. In the opening movement
of the Piano Sonata in G major, Hob. XVI:39, Haydn re-invokes the refrain’s first phrase
separately before moving on to an ornamented rendition of the entire refrain. Example
5 shows one such passage following the first episode (the same procedure is repeated
28 This reading receives some additional corroboration through Chopin’s Nocturne in B major, Op. 9 No. 3, whose
period-like theme—like K. 511—features salient dotted rhythms. While the theme’s consequent is embellished
throughout the entire nocturne, the first two measures of the antecedent are kept unvaried, and the theme’s closing
gesture (mm. 19 f.) is also repeated literally, with the exception of the dramatic expansion in m. 150 heralding the
coda.
29 See Bob Snyder, Music and Memory: An Introduction (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 225 f.
30 See W. Jay Dowling, Barbara Tillman, and Dan F. Ayers, “Memory and the Experience of Hearing Music,” Music
Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19/2 (2002, https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2001.19.2.249): 249–76.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
76
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 5: Haydn, Piano Sonata in G major, Hob. XVI:39, i, Allegro con brio, mm. 29–38
once again following the second episode in mm. 76 ff.). As opposed to Mozart’s modus
operandi in K. 511, where, throughout the various refrain repetitions, he merges both
the embellishable and non-embellishable moments of the theme into one single strain,
here Haydn separates them into two different spaces: an initial literal “memory cue” and
a subsequent embellished repetition of the entire refrain. Obviously, the independent
memory cue introduced at the right moment resolves the need to have the refrain repetition
itself refer to the original in any literal sense: Haydn is now free to write a diminution
version more in the spirit of a theme-and-variations cycle than in that of a rondo without
impairing the perceptibility of the rondo form.31
31 Haydn employs this “literal-memory-cue” technique in a number of additional movements, several of which adhere
to the alternating-variations design (e.g., the third movement, Tempo di Menuet, of the Sonata in E major, Hob.
XVI:22, as well as the second movement, Scherzando, of the Sonata in C♯ minor, Hob. XVI:36), whereas others seem
to constitute a hybrid between the rondo and the variations form (as in the case of the third movement, Presto, of
the Sonata in E♭ major, Hob. XVI:28). While in the generic theme-and-variations form literal re-invocations of the
theme’s beginning do not seem to make much sense, all formal designs in question incorporate some additional
interpolations that make it necessary to mark the return of the main theme in a more overt way—namely that of the
literal cue described above. In her seminal study Haydn and the Classical Variation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1993), Elaine Rochelle Sisman remarks regarding the variation movement of Hob. XVI:22: “The variations on
the two returns of the E-major minuet are always presented as varied repeats.” Indeed, in this movement, as opposed
to Hob. XVI:39/i, the literal re-invocation encompasses far more than just the first few measures of the first theme’s
repetition. Possibly Haydn experimented with several ways of realizing the literal re-invocation principle, with
movements such as Hob. XVI:36/ii and Hob. XVI:39/i reducing this procedure to the minimum required in order to
generate an effective memory cue. At any rate, it is noteworthy that this device, typical of (and perhaps also unique to)
Haydn, creates an intriguing link between the composer’s variations and rondo techniques—a link that seems to
merit a separate in-depth study of its own.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
77
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Turning once again to Levin’s improvised embellishments in Example 1, this version
appears, on the whole, rather densely decorated. To be sure, Levin leaves some bits
unadorned, such as, for instance, mm. 54, 60, and 63. In this sense, his version is scarcely
any more overloaded than, say, Mozart’s own ornaments in the last refrain of K. 511 (cf.
variant e in Figure 1).32 Notably, Levin also refrains from embellishing the melody’s points
of closure: both the deceptive cadence in m. 63 (cadential arrival at m. 64) and the authentic
one in mm. 67–68 (not shown in the example) are left unornamented.
However, Levin does embellish the theme’s beginning. Besides adding a gruppetto on
the first note (which may pass as a rather unobtrusive, generic grace), he fills in the triadic
figure in the second half of the theme’s first measure through veritable melodic diminutions. Against the backdrop of Mozart’s ornamentation practice in K. 511—a movement
embodying a similar siciliano style to that of the second movement of K. 488—this temporal
position may be construed as premature. Notably, even Ployer’s embellished version—
otherwise hardly any less opulent than Levin’s—leaves no fewer than two and a half (!)
measures at the beginning of the A section’s return untouched before resuming embellishment in the second half of m. 55 (in fact, she doesn’t even bother to copy out the first two
measures of the theme into her manuscript). Inasmuch as her embellishments may serve
as primary-source evidence for Mozart’s improvised ornamentation practice, they seem
to speak against Levin’s decision to embellish the theme’s very beginning upon return.
6. m o z a rt ’s n o n-e m b e l l i s h a b l e m ot i v es
Yet another composer-related aspect may be indirectly brought to bear on the question of
embellishing Mozart’s music. Based on a study of the occurrences of a particular six-note
motive across Mozart’s oeuvre (see Example 6a), I infer that “a melody’s exact form, its
irreducible surface, played a crucial role in Mozart’s compositional thinking, at least to a
certain extent. A given melodic formulation and its variant […] would be memorized and
treated as two independent, separate entities.”33 This claim is supported by an extensive
investigation I conducted on key-related elements in Mozart’s music, suggesting that the
choice of key played a significant role in his compositional process, with works in the
same key sharing similar musical content.34 For example, the six-note motive shown in
32 One detail (at least) in Levin’s profoundly stylistically informed embellishment version creates an intriguing link
between the two movements K. 488/ii and K. 511: the diminutions added in m. 55 are adopted verbatim from the A
minor Rondo, m. 154, where they are used to decorate the refrain’s final return.
33 Uri Rom, “Ein ‘Es-Dur-Gedanke’? Zum Zusammenhang von Motivik und Tonart bei Mozart,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft
für Musiktheorie 6 (2009, https://doi.org/10.31751/426): 9–50, at 36.
34 Uri Rom, “Tonartbezogenes Denken in Mozarts Werken unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Instrumen-
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
78
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 6a: A recurring six-note motive in Mozart’s works
Example 6b: Mozart, Die Zauberflöte, Portrait Aria “Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön,” Larghetto, mm.
3–10
Example 6a displays, in its unembellished form, a statistically significant attachment to
the key of E♭ major, possibly the best-known example being mm. 7–8 of Tamino’s Portrait
Aria in Die Zauberflöte (see Example 6b). However, as soon as one includes embellished
instances of the motive—such as the one found in the first movement of the Violin Sonata
in G major, K. 379 (Example 6c)—the statistically significant connection to the key of E♭
major (as, indeed, to any other key) vanishes completely.
What can these findings teach us about the relation between unembellished and
embellished occurrences of motives in Mozart’s works? If, as my study suggests, Mozart
associated musical elements sharing the same key very strongly with one another, the
talwerks” (Ph.D. diss., Technische Universität Berlin, 2011), 81–86, 691. Retrieved from: https://depositonce.tuberlin.de/handle/11303/3212.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
79
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 6c: Mozart, Sonata for Piano and Violin in G major, K. 379 (373a), i, Adagio, mm. 10–14
existence of a unifying key among unembellished occurrences of a given motive may
indicate that the composer himself regarded these occurrences as particularly similar to
one another; conversely, the lack of a unifying key among the same motive’s embellished
variants suggests that he conceived of these variants as melodic entities incompatible with
the simple, unembellished form.
One may surmise that certain melodic formulations were meant by Mozart literally
not because there was no stylistically appropriate way to embellish them, nor even because
they occurred at temporal-formal positions adverse to variation (as it happens, the six-note
motive normally occurs at intermediary positions rather than boundary ones), but rather
because their identity, from the composer’s point of view, appears to have been inseparable
from their exact, irreducible surface form. As a further corroboration of this claim, I point
to the fact that in all his movements presenting the six-note motive in its literal form,
Mozart refrains from embellishing any subsequent restatements. One possible practical
conclusion that may be drawn from this discussion is that the composer wouldn’t have
approved of the singer of Idomeneo’s Ilia adding decoration to the six-note motive in her
aria “Se il padre perdei,” where it appears three times in its unembellished form—once in
the orchestral introduction and twice in the vocal line.35
35 Notably, in both presentations of the six-note motive in the vocal part (mm. 17–18 and mm. 60–61), Mozart opts for a
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
80
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 6d: Haydn, String Quartet in C minor, Op. 17 No. 4, iii, Adagio cantabile, mm. 1–10 (piano
transcription)
Example 6e: Haydn, String Quartet in C minor, Op. 17 No. 4, iii, mm. 34–43 (first violin part)
Notably, Mozart’s treatment of the motive at hand seems to betoken his individual
composition style. When using the same six-note motive in the slow movement of
his String Quartet Op. 17, No. 4 (see Example 6d, mm. 7–8), intriguingly in the same
key E♭ major, Haydn doesn’t hesitate to suffuse the motive’s restatement with lavish
ornamentation as part of a varied repeat of the entire first reprise (see Example 6e, mm.
slight embellishment in the form of two anticipations preceding the third and the sixth note of the sequence. One
may surmise that anticipations—which do not add any new pitches to the figure they embellish and are rhythmically
rather unobtrusive—were perceived as a particularly light form of embellishment.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
81
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
40–41; notably, Haydn’s movement represents a full-fledged, singing Adagio featuring a
soloistic first violin part, which applies to none of the Mozart movements employing the
motive in its unembellished form).
To what extent may this line of argumentation, based, as explained above, on a
demonstrable key relatedness underlying Mozart’s music, be brought to bear on the
question of ornamenting other motives as well? Or, more specifically, the main theme
of the slow movement of the Piano Concerto K. 488? To claim that the “identity” of the
theme in question—from a composer’s point of view—became attached to the melody’s
unaltered surface would require, analogously to the case of the six-note motive discussed
above, that additional occurrences of this theme in Mozart’s works were shown not to
be embellished, and furthermore to share the same key, F♯ minor. Unfortunately, the
sublime Adagio from K. 488 is Mozart’s one and only piece in this key, making a one-to-one
adaptation of the above argumentation strategy impossible.
To conclude this study with a bit of speculative reasoning, I wish to point to some
anecdotal evidence that when composing in “rare” keys Mozart would occasionally rely on
material drawn from works in more common, chromatically adjacent keys. For example,
in the secondary theme zones of both the opening movement of the Piano Trio in E major,
K. 542 (mm. 74–88), and the finale of the Symphony No. 39 in E♭ major, K. 543 (mm. 54–
66), Mozart employs very similar harmonic progressions that are otherwise completely
unique in his instrumental music (see Figure 2 for details).36 Notably, unlike E major,
36 Both passages represent the respective secondary themes as re-invoked in the recapitulation (the choice of the
recapitulation rather than the exposition is motivated by the fact that the harmonic progressions depart from and
return to the movements’ respective tonic keys, rather than the dominant keys; the corresponding expositional
passages incorporate nearly identical progressions, centered, however, around the respective dominant keys, B major
and B♭ major). The diagram shows the local key areas visited in the course of the secondary-theme presentation, but
not the specific harmonic degrees used to articulate these tonal regions (on a chord-to-chord basis, the two passages
differ markedly from each other). Local keys are shown both as harmonic degrees in relation to the movement’s home
key and as absolute keys (in parentheses). Lowercase letters are used to designate minor-mode keys. In K. 543/iv, the
keys designated as C♭ and c♭ are notated in Mozart’s score enharmonically as B major and B minor respectively. A
conspicuous difference between the two progressions is the lack of the tonic minor in the piano-trio movement (the
shift to the minor mode in K. 543/iv facilitates the transition to the following remote key of the lowered sixth degree,
whereas in K. 542 this shift is quite abrupt and accompanied by a sudden forte outburst). Notwithstanding this,
and several other substantial differences between the two passages, the parallels are striking, particularly when
considering that this succession of local keys is unique—across all of Mozart’s instrumental music—to the two
movements in question. Notably, both works were completed within a short span of time in June 1788. Another
remarkable connection between these two works, composed within a short period of time, is found in the opening
themes of their respective first movements. The triadic figure e♭–g–b♭ initiating the allegro section of K. 543/i (after
the slow introduction) is found—a semitone higher, i.e., as e–g♯–b—at the beginning of K. 542 in the piano left
hand, where it serves as a counterpoint to the movement’s principal theme in an identical rhythmic constellation to
that of the symphony’s theme: a quarter-note rest followed by two quarter notes leading to the peak tone in the next
measure. Intriguingly, yet another movement in E major, which, however, was left unfinished by Mozart—the Horn
Concerto movement K. 494a—begins with an identical triadic figure (in that case, in common time). The hornconcerto fragment further anticipates yet another characteristic of the E♭ Symphony’s opening theme: the second
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
82
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Figure 2: Succession of local keys in Mozart’s a) Piano Trio in E major, K. 542, i, Allegro, mm. 204–229,
b) Symphony in E♭ major, K. 543, iv, Allegro, mm. 192–218
which is extremely rare in Mozart’s output, E♭ major is one of the composer’s most
frequently employed keys.
Though F minor, the key chromatically adjacent to F♯ minor, is by no means a
common one in Mozart’s works, it is nonetheless used in five movements—obviously more
frequently than its upper chromatic neighbor. Notably, the F minor second movement of
the Piano Sonata K. 280 shares a tempo and meter with the second movement of K. 488,
and, what is more, begins with a nearly identical siciliano melody (see Example 7a). In a
similar vein to the theme of the piano-concerto movement, the sonata-movement theme
emphasizes the melodic leap of a fourth upward (c″–f″) in the second half of the first
measure; however, unlike the piano-concerto theme, which continues its ascent to the
third scale degree (a″), the piano-sonata theme stops at f″. Finally, in their second measure
both themes harbor similar leaps of a minor seventh downward. In the second movement
of K. 488 this skip (a″–b′) is explicitly integrated into the upper-part melody; in the second
movement of K. 280, on the other hand, it is implied by the shift of melodic focus from
the upper voice to a middle one (the recomposed version in Example 7b illustrates how
this interval may be perceived as a melodic leap).37
time the triadic figure appears (mm. 9 ff.) Mozart has the pair of orchestral horns in octaves echo it in close imitation,
which is exactly what he would do a few years later (and a semitone lower) at the beginning of the symphony’s
Allegro, whereby the motive similarly wanders from the first violins to the pair of orchestral horns playing in octaves.
37 In the comparison between the themes of K. 280/ii and K. 488/ii outlined above, I explore a possible connection
between these two very similar siciliano melodies—notwithstanding their different keys, F minor and F♯ minor
respectively—from the perspective of Mozart’s works only. Intriguingly, similar themes—in both keys—are found
also in compositions by Mozart’s contemporaries that were very probably known to him. One case in point is the F
minor second movement of Haydn’s Piano Sonata Hob. XVI:23—an Adagio movement in 6/8 time whose theme
features the pitches c″, f″ and a♭″ in a rhythmic constellation reminiscent of that in K. 488/ii. (Notably, Haydn’s theme
contains some embellishments at positions where Mozart’s has none; this seems to add to the evidence gleaned from
the third movement of the String Quartet Op. 17 No. 4 shown in Examples 6d and 6e, suggesting that the concept of
non-embellishable motives possibly applies more to Mozart than to Haydn.) Another similar theme—this time in F♯
minor—launches the finale of the Sonata Wq. 63, No. 4, one of the six sonatas complementing C. P. E. Bach’s famous
clavier treatise. While the first measure of this movement is practically identical to that of K. 488/ii (and even features
an identical left-hand accompaniment), it is titled Allegro Siciliano e scherzando, making it a fast movement. One
can only speculate about a possible influence of these two foreign models on the two Mozartian Adagios, written,
interestingly, in the same two keys.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
83
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
Example 7a: Mozart, Piano Sonata in F major K. 280 (189e), ii, Adagio, mm. 1–5
Example 7b: Recomposed version of mm. 1–2
I propose that the “plain,” unadorned surface of the two siciliano themes of the second
movements of K. 280 and K. 488 may have played an important role in the way Mozart
conceived of and (possibly) associated the two themes with each other.38 However, it
is exactly the crucial melodic interval of a perfect fourth in the piano-concerto theme
that Levin chooses to fill in with diminutions at the return of the A section, thereby
divorcing it from its early F minor counterpart in the second movement of K. 280, which
remains unembellished throughout (in the piano-sonata movement Mozart applies no
embellishments in the recapitulation of the primary theme; see again Table 2). Granting
that there are certain motives that Mozart intended exclusively in their undecorated
form, and against the backdrop of the telling comparison with the second movement
of K. 280, I feel fairly confident that Mozart would have refrained in a performance of
the piano-concerto movement from embellishing the interval c♯″–f♯″ in m. 53, nor do I
believe that he meant it to be embellished by others. (As mentioned above, additional
circumstantial evidence may be gleaned from the complete absence of these measures in
Ployer’s otherwise heavily ornamented version of this passage.)
38 The fact that there is a time span of over ten years between the composition dates of the two movements doesn’t make
a connection between them at all unlikely, particularly if one takes into account the ample evidence attesting to
Mozart’s prodigious musical memory. Notably, between the first occurrences of the six-note motive (see Ex. 6a) in
Mozart’s early string quartets and the latest one in Die Zauberflöte lies an even wider interval of almost twenty years.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
84
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
But this apparently small detail has some far-reaching implications. For one thing, I
maintain that no practical theory of ornamentation may be considered complete without
addressing also the question of what may not be embellished. More specifically, the
particular case of the not-to-embellish melodic fourth in the slow movement of K. 488
illustrates that the reasons for intolerance to embellishment may lie outside the domain
of general music-theoretical reasoning, pertaining instead to a composer’s personal style
and its idiosyncratic features. We may never be able to fully expose Mozart’s treasury of
non-embellishable motives; however, one way to avoid decorating what Mozart himself
would have left unadorned would be to go about quite cautiously when making up one’s
mind what bits of a given melody should receive ornamentation in the first place. Pace
Levin, and with all due reverence for his pivotal role in reinvigorating a truly Mozartian
improvisational tradition, I consider his highly accomplished gilding of the main theme’s
return in the slow movement of K. 488, at least in parts, to eclipse, rather than magnify,
the gleam of Mozart’s refined gold.
Abstract
The question of adding embellishments in music performance is generally regarded from
a primarily practical perspective. In this article I make a case for embellishments as an
object of music-theoretical inquiry in their own right. While exploring this question
mainly in conjunction with Mozart’s music for solo piano, I address the more fundamental
question of what makes a given moment in the music suitable for added ornamentation.
Tolerance to embellishment is defined as a quality of the melodic surface tantamount to
the flexibility and exchangeability of melodic formulations with variants. Thus defined,
only some of the embellishments notated by composers are indicative of a flexible melodic
surface (optional embellishments), whereas others are shown to be irreducible owing
to their participation in substantive thematic processes (obligatory embellishments).
My investigation focuses on embellishments introduced in sonata-form recapitulations
and other types of recapitulatory restatements (e.g., the return of the refrain in the
rondo form). A movement’s form and tempo are shown to affect its amenability to added
ornamentation. At a local level, I draw on aspects of music perception and musical memory
to account for a correlation between a passage’s temporal position in the movement and its
suitability for added embellishments. I conclude by pointing to a Mozart-specific category
of unembellishable motives, demonstrably intended by the composer to be performed
with no decoration. Engaging in a dialogue with Robert Levin’s recorded embellished
version of the slow movement of Mozart’s Piano Concerto in A major, K. 488, this primarily
theoretical discussion also leads to some tentative practical implications for performance.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
85
Uri B. Rom
“to gild refined gold,” or what mozart didn’t want us to embellish
About the Author
Uri Rom studied conducting and music theory in Tel Aviv and Berlin and historical
performance practice in Basel. In 2011 he earned his doctorate in musicology at the
Humanities Faculty of Berlin’s Technical University, writing on the compositional
significance of key choice in Mozart’s works. His original compositions have been
performed and published in Germany and Israel, as have completions of fragments
by Mozart (e.g., the single movement of the Horn Concerto in E major, K. 494a); his oboe
concerto in the style of the Venetian Baroque was recorded for Harmonia Mundi. His
research interests encompass musical corpus studies, structure and expression in Mozart’s
music, and advanced chromatic harmony and enharmonicism. Between 1998 and 2009 he
taught orchestral conducting at the Berlin University of the Arts. Since October 2011 he
has taught music theory at the Buchmann-Mehta School of Music, Tel Aviv University,
where he also heads a research group on musical corpus studies supported by the Israeli
Science Foundation.
music theory & analysis | volume 6, # i, april 2019
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019
86
co lo p h o n
Music Theory & Analysis (MTA)
International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory
volume 6, number 1, april 2019
editors
Pieter Bergé (University of Leuven), Nathan John Martin (University of Michigan),
Markus Neuwirth (École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne)
advisory board
David Brackett (McGill University)
Danuta Mirka (University of Southampton)
Vasili Byros (Northwestern University)
Thomas Noll (Escola Superior de Musica de Catalunya)
Mark Delaere (University of Leuven)
Alexander Rehding (Harvard University)
Felix Diergarten (Schola Cantorum Basiliensis)
Michiel Schuijer (Conservatory of Amsterdam)
Julian Horton (Durham University)
Lauri Suurpää (Sibelius Academy)
Henry Klumpenhouwer (Eastman School of Music)
Christian Thorau (Potsdam University)
John Koslovsky (Conservatory of Amsterdam)
Barbara Titus (University of Amsterdam)
Christian Leitmeir (Oxford University)
Music Theory & Analysis (MTA) is a peer-reviewed international journal focusing on recent developments in music
theory and analysis. It appears twice a year (in April and October) as an online journal with a print edition. MTA takes
a special interest in the interplay between theory and analysis, as well as in the interaction between European and
North-American scholarship. Open to a wide variety of repertoires, approaches, and methodologies, the journal aims
to stimulate dialogue between diverse traditions within the field.
MTA is the official journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory (Vereniging voor Muziektheorie). It is the
successor to the Dutch Journal of Music Theory [Tijdschrift voor Muziektheorie (Founding Editors: Barbara Bleij & Henk
Borgdorff)].
editorial address
administration and subscription
Music Theory and Analysis
Leuven University Press
Leuven University Press
Minderbroedersstraat 4
Minderbroedersstraat 4
3000 Leuven
3000 Leuven
Belgium
Belgium
tel: +32 16 32 53 45
email: [email protected]
fax: +32 16 32 53 52
Editorial guidelines: mtajournal.be
email: [email protected]
Online journal with a print edition
Biannually (April/October)
Print issn: 2295-5917
Online issn: 2295-5925
Online available via ingentaconnect.com
For more information, visit the website www.mtajournal.be
© Leuven University Press / Music Theory & Analysis
Reprint from MTA, volume 6.1 - © Leuven University Press, 2019