Click to return to Dave’s Music Database home page.

portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Composed: 1788

First Performed: ?


Rating: 4.500 (1 rating)


Genre: classical > symphony


Quotable: --


Work(s): *

  1. Symphony No. 41 in C major (“Jupiter”), K. 551 [31:50]
* Number in [] indicates average duration of piece.


Parts/Movements:

  1. Allegro vivace
  2. Andante cantabile
  3. Menuetto & Trio, Allegretto
  4. Molto Allegro


Sales: - NA -


Peak: - NA -


Singles/ Hit Songs: - NA -


Awards:

Rated one of the top 1000 albums of all time by Dave’s Music Database. Click to learn more.


Symphony No. 41
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (composer)
Review:
“The near-quarter century that separates Mozart’s first symphony and his last – the Symphony No. 41 in C major (1788) – was marked by the composer’s recurrent, if not ongoing, interest in the possibilities inherent in this form. Upon examination of the chronology of Mozart’s works, one finds that the composition of his symphonies tends to occur in irregularly spaced groups, of as many as nine or ten examples in a row, rather than regularly or singly. What this might suggest, aside from any financially based motivation, is that he employed these various periods specifically for the working out of the problems and challenges of the symphonic form. In surveying these works, one finds that the prominent benchmarks increase almost geometrically as time progresses, so that by the production of the ‘Jupiter’ Symphony two years before his death – as part of a group of three composed within the space of less than three months – the full extent of the evolution which has taken place is striking indeed” (Rodman).

“The Symphony No. 41 aptly embodies what is now identified as a paradigm of Classical symphonic form: four movements, the first and last in a quick tempo, the second slower, the third a minuet with trio. Unencumbered by norms suggested by any model, however, Mozart’s deft imagination distinguishes this work from others in a similar cast. The first movement is characterized in part by the dramatic and effective employment of unexpected pauses in the rhythmic flow through the use of rests, a trait shared with and perhaps influenced by the symphonies of Haydn. After an initial regularity, irregular and changing phrase lengths contribute as well to the dramatic impetus. The serene F major quietude of the second movement’s opening is soon disrupted, posed against more restless, rhythmically insistent minor-key episodes. This calm/dark conflict continues throughout, the initial spirit eventually prevailing. The falling chromatic theme and flowing, even accompaniment of the Minuet set a graceful tone for the third movement. The companion Trio provides an earthier, more overtly dancelike mood, which is, however, interrupted by a suddenly more serious tutti outburst. The final movement is exceptional for the richness of its contrapuntal language, a somewhat unexpected — and, some of Mozart’s contemporaries would venture, unfashionable – attribute in a symphonic work of the time. The four-note motive that begins the movement is put through its paces in a number of guises, most prominently as the beginning of a recurrent canon and fugue subject which occurs both as originally presented and in inversion. The effect is one not of academicism but of great tension and dramatic impulse which, borne bristling and in search of resolution, finds its resting place only in the final bars” (Rodman).


Review Source(s):


Last updated October 15, 2008.