Spohr's Symphony No. 6 Op. 116

Although long forgotten, Louis Spohr was a prolific musician in his time, highly revered as a composer, violinist, conductor, and teacher. As a composer, Spohr maintained a close connection to his teaching and playing, similar to piano composers Chopin and Liszt (Kolneder). He wrote in many genres but favored his own instrument; his large output for the violin includes fifteen concertos and numerous chamber pieces. Spohr also wrote a treatise, Violinschule, which had a profound impact on how the violin was taught and played (Eddy). His non-violin works include four clarinet concertos, several operas and oratorios, a relatively small amount of piano music, and ten symphonies. Spohr’s Symphony No. 6 Op. 116 (Historical) was written in 1839, 2 years after his highly acclaimed Symphony No. 5. The four-movement work contains a wide variety of characters, tempos, and moods, each representing a different stylistic era. The first movement is a Largo – Grave in the style of Bach and Handel (1720), the second movement is a Larghetto in the style of Haydn and Mozart (1780), the third movement is a Scherzo in the style of Beethoven (1810), and the final movement is an Allegro vivace in the “new” style (1840). He sought to create a musical timeline, showcasing the development of music from the Baroque through the music of his time. Theoretically, his idea was innovative; in real life it was a disappointment.

The work begins with a stately “tip of the hat” to two prominent Baroque era composers, Bach and Handel, showing his knowledge of the primary stylistic features of both. To represent Bach, Spohr includes fugue, imitation, and extensive development of ideas. He also explores beautiful melodic material in the style of Handel. Although the movement is rich in aspects of Baroque composition, those aspects are heavily romanticized. There is no question for the listener about the origins of the piece, it is clearly not written by a composer from 1720. The second movement, intended to emulate Haydn and Mozart, is full of late 18^th century trademarks. Beautiful arpeggiated melodic passages flow throughout the movement. Spohr also creates a strong sense of harmonic push and pull typical of this era of music. Disappointingly, as the movement lingers on the melody becomes mundane and unlikely dissonances begin to slip in. The third movement is dedicated entirely to Beethoven and features an increased contrast in dynamics and stylistic features. Spohr includes numerous Beethoven-like manipulations of melodic material. The listener can also feel the continuous build to the end. For the final movement Spohr attempts to satirize a modern compositional style of his time, Grand Opera. The movement is quirky and joking, showing an unmistakable resemblance to the music of opera composers like Rossini and Auber. Through this composition, Spohr shows his feelings toward past and current music.

Despite the success of his other works, Spohr’s Symphony No. 6 was never well received, a fact attributed to issues surrounding the fourth movement. For the “new” style, Spohr wanted to make a joke about the quality of French opera music being produced at the time. The problem was that many of his audience members enjoyed this style of opera and did not find his joke funny. The movement was heavily criticized and its reputation destroyed immediately. In fact, it was so poorly received that the audience of the work’s London premier actually hissed (Powell). Even Spohr’s good friend Felix Mendelssohn diplomatically suggested that Spohr should have included some of his original work instead of the mocking finale (Brown).

Listening to Spohr’s music, I found it appealing but not revolutionary. Even though the piece was written for a full orchestra, he seemed to favor the strings, especially the violins. I also felt the symphony was overly repetitive and at times lacked a flow of new musical material. Spohr was clearly a talented musician and a well-trained composer but he did not have his colleagues’ creative genius. As a result, his fall from fame is simple to trace. What I find fascinating about this work is the unique window to the past it provides for the listener. The way Spohr wrote each movement provides us with information about how he viewed different composers and styles. He pays homage to great composers of the Baroque era (Bach and Handel) in one movement and to great composers of the Classical era (Haydn and Mozart) in the next. He then gives Beethoven his own movement, showing how highly Beethoven was respected at the time. Spohr commits his last movement to poking fun at the “newest” style of music, which he clearly viewed as inferior to the other three. Interestingly, the opinions that he expressed in his music almost two centuries ago still prevail today.

Two main factors keep this piece out of the Canon of Western Music: the works original perception and the reaction of today’s listener. Unfortunately, most listeners were against this piece form the beginning. Spohr made a critical mistake by underestimating the controversy the fourth movement of his work would create. The mocking tone of the final movement offended audience members causing the piece to lose support while it was still new. Modern listeners aren’t as concerned with this aspect of the piece as they are with others. Today, performances and recordings of the music of composers such as Bach and Mozart are abundant. So if someone wants to hear their music, they have ample opportunity. In Spohr’s time this was less common. The way he copied the style of older composers would have been more interesting to listeners at the time than now. In today’s society his music sounds like a knock-off. If people are going to listen to Bach, they want the real thing. This makes Spohr’s Symphony No. 6 less noteworthy to modern listeners. Both of these aspects factor heavily into why this piece is not more commonly heard.

Spohr’s Symphony No. 6 (Historical) was an intriguing idea that did not turn out as planned. Controversy destroyed the work when it premiered and mediocrity has kept it from gaining prestige today. The one advantage the piece has is its ability to freeze history. One composer’s views on the music before and during his time are documented in this work. I agree that it should not be part of the canon. When compared to standard compositions from this time period, musically it doesn’t hold up; however, as a part of history, Spohr’s Symphony No. 6 is truly unique.

Mozart's Concerto for Flute and Harp K. 299

Mozart’s Flute and Harp Concerto is a charming piece that exhibits many of his strengths as composer. Like most concertos of the period, it consists of three movements: Allegro, Andantino, and Rondo. Each movement is approximately eight to ten minutes long, depending on the tempo chosen by the performers. The work is a double concerto written for two solo instruments, flute and harp, accompanied by a small orchestra. In general the concerto shares many stylistic features with Mozart’s other works, especially his two Flute Concerti. The outer movements are playful and jovial while the second movement is more lyrical and flowing. He also places emphasis on the tonic and dominant of the key, an important practice at this point in music history.

I personally enjoy this piece. All three movements exhibit different characteristics while maintaining a beautiful singing quality throughout. The piece begins with a torrent of sheer classical brilliance. When the flute and harp enter the orchestra backs away to let their delicacy shine through. The second movement is a display of rich melodic material. While maintaining the beauty of the piece, Mozart allows this movement to drive. The final movement returns the listener to the exuberance of the first movement, and even beyond. The flute and harp have sounds that intertwine to provide a unique chamber ensemble within the concerto, a welcome contrast to music pairing flute with pianoforte or harpsichord. This concerto contains the essential elements of composition during its era, while also highlighting a unique branch of Mozart’s work.

Mozart’s views on the flute, as an instrument, are fiercely debated. Based on the contents of a letter written to his father (while working on an earlier commission), many say that Mozart did not care for the flute. In the letter he tells his father, “…you know that I become quite powerless whenever I am obliged to write for an instrument that I can not bear (Morgan).” The controversy is whether he actually meant what he was saying or was just making an excuse for not finishing the commission his father had written him an angry letter about (Morgan). Some say that Mozart’s dislike for the instrument could have stemmed from the poor quality of instruments being built and the lack of musicianship on the part of flutists, many of which were amateurs (Bowers). The flute of Mozart’s time was very different from the flute of today. Instruments used in the classical era had extensive intonation problems and a limited range of expressive qualities. Mozart composed his Flute and Harp Concerto for the wooden 6-keyed flute, a recent improvement upon the 4-keyed flute (Solum). The man who commissioned this work in 1778, Duc de Guines, had recently brought back one of these instruments from London, as they were not being produced in Paris at the time (Solum). Duc de Guines was a wealthy amateur flutist with a daughter who played harp and studied composition with Mozart. According to a letter Mozart wrote to his father, he thought highly of them both as musicians (Bowers). Although Mozart may not have been fond of writing for the flute, (as he mainly wrote for it on commission) he seems to have had more favorable conditions for this concerto than his other flute works. This perhaps accounts for the particularly joyous quality of the piece.

Mozart’s Concerto for Flute and Harp remains outside the Canon of Western Music for several reasons. Most obviously, this concerto is not a masterwork. Major operas and symphonies, written for important people and grand events are more likely to find their way into history books. This concerto was written on the side to make extra money (Feury and Martens). Also, the flute and harp are not historically considered to be influential solo instruments, such as the piano and the violin. At the time they was merely seen as orchestral instruments and popular hobbies for wealthy amateurs. Finally, there is the matter of Mozart’s views on the flute. Whether he truly disliked the instrument or not, the comment he included in the letter to his father does create a prejudice, leading some to believe that he put less effort into this Concerto and his other works for flute.

In addition to being outside the canon, this piece also rests outside the core of the flute repertoire. This is puzzling because many of Mozart’s other works for flute are frequently played: his G Major and D Major Flute Concertos being especially popular. In fact, most flutists spend a lifetime studying Mozart’s two Flute Concerti, which are both regularly seen on orchestral audition list. Somewhere along the line the Flute and Harp Concerto has been overlooked, primarily because of its instrumentation. Unfortunately in the “Concert Series” setup of today, concertos with two soloists are not particularly convenient. Coordinating for two musicians to fly in and perform together can be difficult. Orchestras often have only minimal time to rehearse with guest artists, which complicates the matter further. The concerto’s dual instrumentation also prevents it from being used in competitions and auditions intended for a single soloist. Many pieces gain popularity because of their accessibility to students for such events. It’s important to note that the Flute and Harp Concerto is not the only double concerto to be swept under the rug. The Brahms Concerto for Violin and Cello has also gotten lost in western music. Even though it contains many of the same desirable attributes as the famed Brahms Violin Concerto, the double concerto receives considerably less attention. A concerto with only one soloist is simply more practical.

Mozart’s Concerto for Flute and Harp is a beautiful piece despite the technicalities that surround it. Although lovely, this piece is lacking when compared to Mozart’s most important works, and thus has been left out of the canon, a decision I uphold. There is simply nothing monumental about it; the concerto is a typical example of Mozart’s commission work for amateurs. However, it definitely deserves a better place in the flute repertoire. Flutists have a sparse selection of concertos from this era, so there is no reason to avoid this one. This concerto may not be a masterwork but it is well composed and pleasing to the ear.