Rondos, Proper and Improper

Author(s): Malcolm S. Cole

Source: Music & Letters, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 388-399
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/731479
Accessed: 24/10/2010 21:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music &
Letters.

http://www.jstor.org
 RONDOS, PROPER AND IMPROPER
BY MALCOLMS. COLE

ALTHOUGHthe title of this article may at first glance seem to suggest

a moral judgment or at least a value judgment about rondos,'
in reality it stands for a classification of rondo types proposed in
1799 by August Friedrich Christoph Kollmann, a German theorist,
organist and composer living in England and writing in the tongue
of his adopted land. Dividing rondos into 'proper' and 'improper'
ones, Kollmann explains: "The former are those, in which the first
section always returns in the principal key, either in its original form,
or varied. . ., and the latter, those in which the subject or first
section also appears in keys to which a digression may be made".2
Obviously Kollmann has used the term 'improper' in the sense
of 'unusual'. Twentieth-century writers of books about musical form
generally agree that in a rondo returns of the reprise almost always
stand in the main key, and indeed, eighteenth-century writers of
composition books made the same observation, although none of
these early authors expressly forbade a return in a harmonic area
other than that of the tonic.3 The most casual survey of rondo
production in the second half of the eighteenth century reveals that
in the greatest number of rondos the main theme, however it may
be varied, abbreviated or rescored, always returns in the main key.
There are additionally, however, several exceptions in which
returns of the reprise are not always in the tonic. Such examples
occur most frequently in the works of C. P. E. Bach. Daniel Gottlob
Turk observed: "In his rondos Emanuel Bach has shown that this
repetition does not always have to occur in the main key, but may
take place in different related keys".4 The purpose of this article
is to summarize the twentieth-century explanation of Emanuel's
improper rondos, to illustrate the importance of improper rondos
1 For a representative sample of eighteenth-century value judgments about the
rondo see Carl Ludwig Junker, 'Zwanzig Komponisten' (Bern, 1776), p. 28, who felt
the rondo was over-used and too popular in tone; Johann Nikolaus Forkel, 'Musikalisch-
kritische Bibliothek' (Gotha, 1778), ii, pp. 281-93, who stated that most rondos had
little "true, inner value" (p. 28I); 'Musikalisches Kunstmagazin', ed. Johann Friedrich
Reichardt (Berlin, 1782), i, pp. 168-9, where Reichardt declared that for the few good
rondos one had to hear hundreds of mediocre and thousands of poor ones; Magazin
der Musik, ed. Carl Friedrich Cramer (Hamburg, 1783-6), i, pp. 35-6; ii, pp. I241 foil.,
in which Cramer observed that the rondo as practised by many was a fright.
2 'An Essay on Practical Musical Composition' (London, 1799), p. 6.
3 For example, see Wallace Berry, 'Form in Music' (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966),
pp. I40-4I, and Heinrich Christoph Koch, 'Musikalisches Lexicon' (Frankfurt am
Main, 1802), cols. I271-4.
'Klavierschule' (Leipzig & Halle, 1789), p. 398: "Dass dieses nicht immer im
4

Haupttone selbst geschehen miisse, sondern in verschiedenen Nebentonen statt finde,

hat E. Bach in seinen Rondo's gezeigt".

388
 in the writings of selected music critics of the eighteenth century,
and finally, by expanding the scope of the investigation to certain
formally and harmonically irregular works by Haydn, Mozart and
Beethoven, to suggest that perhaps the flexible eighteenth-century
concept of 'improper' is still a useful one for dealing with rondos.
Several writers have advanced the convincing hypothesis that
the reason for the relatively large number of improper rondos in
C. P. E. Bach's work is his constant exploration of the fantasy or
improvisatory principle in works other than fantasies. Early in the
twentieth century Sir Henry Hadow, observing the unusual designs
of the Bach rondos, wrote of the Rondo in E Major ('Kenner und
Liebhaber', iii, Rondo i): "His best known example ... seems, at
first sight, as free as the most irresponsible fantasia. The melody
returns in F, in F#, in C; ... the whole design, both in audacity
of key-distribution and in variety of phrase, has no parallel before
Beethoven".5 In a standard article on the rondo in the works of
Emanuel Bach, Suzanne Clercx also commented at some length
about rondos with transposed statements of the reprise.6 This
practice, which she connects with the fantasy idea, is just one of
the many reasons that make of the Bach rondos "un genre nouveau
de la plus haute portee musicale". Speaking specifically of Bach's
sonata practice, but including rondos implicitly, Rudolf von Tobel
noted: "Ph. E. Bach especially has granted broad scope to the
apparently disconnected, improvisatory element, as it was manifested
of old principally in toccatas, fantasies and cadenzas".' Heinrich
Schenker best summed up the connection of fantasy or improvisation
and improper rondo. Submitting that the rondo reprise originally
recurred in the main key because of the rondo's derivation from
the dance, Schenker continues: "With advancing development
of the art of composition, however, especially the art of
impro-
visation, it could happen that an Emanuel Bach also changed the
tonality of the 'A' part in his rondo compositions, so that not only
did the tonalities of the couplets contrast with the main theme, but
also the tonalities of parts A1, A,, A,, etc., were different".8
While eighteenth-century theorists did not specifically relate
improper rondos to the fantasy concept, they in no way prohibited
a return of the reprise in a key other than the main key as
long as
the modulation was handled smoothly, as in the works of Emanuel
Bach. Certain eighteenth-century critics, in their enthusiastic
endorsement of some of Emanuel's improper rondos, bestowed a
5 'The Viennese
Period', 'Oxford History of Music', v
(Oxford, I904), p. 204.
6 'La Forme du Rondo chez Carl
Philipp Emanuel Bach', Revue de
lv (I935), pp. 148-67. As other important concepts Clercx lists the varied Musicologie,
the art of thematic development. reprise and
7 'Die Formenwelt
der klassischen Instrumentalmusik' (Leipzig, 1935), p. 47.
8 Heinrich Schenker, 'Der freie Satz', Vol. III of 'Neue Musikalische Theorien
und Phantasien' (Vienna, 1935), par. 320. A recent summary of the connection between
fantasy and improper rondos may be found in Hans Engel, 'Rondeau-Rondo', 'Die
Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart', xi (Cassel, 1963), col. 880.

389
considerable importance upon this relatively rare phenomenon.
An anonymous critic's observation about the finale of Emanuel's
trio, Wq.9o.2 (1776), to the effect that it shines among the abundant
rondos as the moon among lesser stars, in no way indicates that an
improper rondo is the object of consideration.9 Such is the case,
however, and thus this statement provides an appropriate prelude
to an essay by Johann Nikolaus Forkel, who in 1778 chose this
rondo as a model of good rondo construction and prepared one of
the most significant rondo discussions of the late eighteenth century.10
Speaking first of the reprise, he lists the qualities that make this
particular reprise worthy of frequent repetition (pp. 282-4):
Graziosoe poco allegro

ty# JV:#eV~
{'' V i r j J
He then describes Emanuel's variation technique (pp. 284-6,
three examples), and the derivation of couplet material from the
reprise (p. 286). Finally, he discusses transposition to related or
distant keys. Cautioning that the connecting modulations must
be as smooth as possible, he writes:
The main key is G major. When the main thought has been per-
formed once in this key and finished completely, a secondary section
enters, one which leads the harmony from the main key to D major
and closes in this key with the first restatement of the main section
[transposed to D major]. Here the composer considers the key of D
major as the harmony of the dominant of G minor and therefore
modulates ... for a few bars in G minor until he makes a short pause
on its dominant and, after a short rest which is just sufficient to
erase the feeling of this dominant, transposes the main section to B[
major [bars 32-5] :11

IAr r
adr ri
A bolder, though more beautiful and in the context of the whole
more effective, turn is the following, in which the transition is
accomplished by means of an enharmonic permutation of the
9 Der HamburgischeCorrespondent (Hamburg, 1777); see Ernst Fritz Schmid, 'Carl
Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik' (Cassel, I93I), p. 80.
10 'Musikalisch-kritische Bibliothek', ii,
pp. 281-93.
11 Ibid. "Die Haupttonart ist G dur. So wie nun der Hauptgedanke in dieser Tonart
einmal vorgetragen und vollkommen geendigt ist, tritt ein Nebensatz ein, welcher die
Harmonie aus der Haupttonart, ins D dur ffihrt, und mit der ersten Wiederholung des
Hauptgedankens in dieser Tonart schliesst. Hier sieht der Compositor die Tonart D dur,
fuir die Harmonie der Dominante von G moll an, und modulirt also ... einige Takte
hindurch im G moll, bis er auf der Dominante desselben einen kleinen Ruhepunkt macht,
und nach einer kurzen allgemeinen Pause, welche das Geffihl dieser Dominante
auszul6schen gerade hinreichend ist, den Hauptgedanken ins B dur versetzt".

390
 harmony in which an augmented sixth is interpreted, after a short
pause, as a minor seventh [bars 91-4] :12

~I&"f
- b$-e" A
F
'9 $ ,L tp f b; F
Significantly, it was this same Bach rondo that Kollmann chose in
1799 as a "beautiful example" of an improper rondo, and to which
he added "an explanation of the course of its modulation".13 He
modestly points to a less elaborate piece of the same type in his own
composition.
Carl Friedrich Cramer was another critic of the time who used
rondos by Emanuel Bach as a springboard for a lengthy and sub-
sequently oft-quoted rondo essay (I783).14 In his rhapsodic com-
mentary about Emanuel's rondos in general, and those of the
'Vierte Sammlung fur Kenner und Liebhaber' in particular, he
invented little programmes for each of the rondos and included
quotations from Lucretius and Vergil.'5 Even this most eloquent
critic does not specifically equate rondo and fantasy, but he implies
the connection when, in the third rondo of the fourth collection, he
speaks of a "flight of the Gods" and "the free cadenza that ends
this Rondo ... in such an original manner":

itwtic-rrrl'rllp-
t I
i c-W--!
!): 66

12
Ibid, p. 288. "Eine kihnere, aber auch noch sch6nere und im Zusammenhang
des Ganzen wirksamere Wendung ist folgende, wo der tfbergang durch eine enharmonische
Verwechslung der Harmonie bewerkstelligt ist, indem eine tbermassige Sexte, nach
einem kleinen dariiber angebrachten Ruhepunkt, fiir eine kleine Septime genommen
wird".
18 'Essay', p. 6. My examination of the work has been based upon Kollmann's
reprint (P1. I, No. 2). I have not seen an original edition of the piece; to my knowledge,
there is no modern critical edition.
14 Magazin der Musik, i,
pp. 1241 foll.
1l The rondo in A major resembles a charming maiden who has set her heart upon
something she wishes to attain by "caprice and pleasing presumption". The rondo in
E major is harsh; the rondo in B, major is to be called 'Thalia', the playmate of Venus,
the muse who rules over comedy. For shorter reviews of other collections see Forkel in
MusikalischerAlmanachfiirDeutschlandauf das Jahr r783 (Leipzig, 1783) for a comparison
of the rondos of the second and third collections; Cramer, Magazin derMusik, iii, p. 870,
reviewed the fifth collection in 1786.

39I
 0_^^^fff\,r~^,
,(, ^ , ^ f-
r
1^l?]?ffl_fflr3T=^^.

Admitting that the rondo is a lighter genre, Cramer remarks:

"[Bach] shows more by achievement than by theoretical rigmarole
how one may excel here also [in the lighter genre] through treat-
ment and manipulation and may give satisfaction to the intellect
of a connoisseur".16 Declaring that as a rule he has no use for
Forkel, Cramer none the less refers his readers to Forkel's analysis
of Wq.9o.2, so that they may better understand the structure of a
model rondo.
All three of the rondos in 'Kenner und Liebhaber', iv are
improper (see Table I, p. 399).17 Of the thirteen rondos in the five
collections of 'Kenner und Liebhaber' that contain rondos, ten
are improper to some degree, and it is just this body of rondos
that North German critics proclaimed as models of the form.
There are several unusual rondos in the works of Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven-rondos that are improper in different
ways and, perhaps, for different reasons. In the 'Rondo a Capriccio',
Op. I29 in G major (1795-8) Beethoven has furnished an example
of a composition in which a similar connection with fantasy or
improvisation may be observed.1 Because of the length of this work
one might justifiably add that he has placed some returns in areas
other than the main key for variety. Variety of harmonic area
becomes increasingly necessary in a lengthy multi-couplet rondo,
and thus it seems reasonable to extend the principle of tonal variety
from the couplets to returns of the reprise as well. Change of harmonic
area, when it occurs, supplements the thematic variation introduced
as early as the second return of the reprise (grace notes, bars 93-4
in the Hertzmann edition, 85-6 in older edititions; figuration,
bars 105 foll., 97 foll. in older editions).19 Standing in the Neapolitan
area of A major, the fourth return opens the portion of the rondo
16 "[Bach] mehr durch die That, als durch theoretisch Geschwiz zeigt, wie man
auch hier durch Behandlung und Bearbeitung vortreflich seyn, und dem Verstande des
Kenners ein Geniige leisten k6nne".
17 For my examination of the rondos from the 'Kenner und Liebhaber' collections
I have used C. P. E. Bach, 'Die sechs Sammlungen von Sonaten, freien Fantasien und
Rondos fur Kenner und Liebhaber', Urtextausgabe herausgegeben von Carl Krebs
nach dem Erstdruck neu durchgesehen von Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht (Leipzig, 1953).
For a recent study of the rondos see Philip Barford, 'The Keyboard Music of C. P. E.
Bach' (London, 1965), pp. 122-32.
18 For the most accurate text of this work see L. van Beethoven, 'Rondo A
Capriccio, Op. I29', newly edited by Erich Hertzmann from the original manuscript
(New York, 1949).
19 Ebenezer Prout, 'Applied Forms' (London, I895), p. 113, is one of several writers
who called attention to an unusual tonal area in the third couplet (E major in relation
to the G major of the reprise). For variety in a work of this length several areas must be
exploited not only in couplets but also in returns of the reprise.

392
that may truly be termed improper. At this point the analyst be-
comes acutely aware that this composition is more than a simple,
multi-couplet rondo. In an outstanding study Erich Hertzmann
has provided an analysis in which he views the work as a rondo with
three couplets, two development sections-the first including the
statement of the reprise in Ab--and terminal development.20 In
addition, he offers a theory by which he convincingly relates both
form and style not simply to improvisatory practice in general but
to Beethoven's own practice.
With the exception of the rondo finale of Bach's trio, Wq.9o.2
all the improper rondos encountered so far have been independent
compositions in which the fantasy concept with its inherent freedom
may be operative, in combination at times with a work of such
length that variation of the harmonic area of the main theme
becomes desirable.21 A different reason may account for the finale
of Haydn's piano concerto in D major ('Rondo all' Ungherese',
Hoboken XVIII, No. I, pub. I784)-a rondo with six couplets,
the last of which repeats a portion of the first, creating an unusual
rondo that bears a slight resemblance to a sonata-rondo.22 Trans-
posed statements of the reprise, e.g., to A major, bars 51-60, make
this rondo improper. To the work's length, which already encourages
variety of harmonic area, may be added the exotic element of the
'gypsy', which seemingly allowed otherwise uncommon practices.23
Turning to the sonata-rondo specifically, I suggest that two
sharply contrasting reasons may help explain the improper structures
that occasionally conclude the multi-movement works of Haydn,
Mozart, and Beethoven: first, the fluid, unsettled state of the
sonata-rondo of Haydn and Mozart; second, the fixed, predictable
state of the early sonata-rondos of Beethoven.
Haydn's sonata-rondos are almost never model examples of
the form. Roughly nine years after Mozart's first sonata-rondos
Haydn, in symphony No. 77 in Bb major (C.I782), offered his first
finale that can with some safety be called a sonata-rondo,24 although
20 'The
Newly Discovered Autograph of Beethoven's Rondo a Capriccio,Op. 129',
The Musical Quarterly,xxxii (1946), pp. I71-95. In addition to his analysis of the work
and his ascription of it to Beethoven's improvisatory practice Hertzmann discusses
dating and the relation of this work to Haydn's Hungarian style.
21 The 455-bar rondo fourth movement of Mozart's 'Haffner' Serenade, K.250
(248b) provides an illustration of the monotony that can occur when the full reprise
returns unvaried and in the same key each time.
22 For a recent score see Eulenburg Edition, No.
791 (London, n.d.), revised and
with a foreword by Kurt Soldan. For a two-piano score see Peters Edition No. 4353,
edited by Robert Teichmuller. Hugo Daffner, 'Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts
bis Mozart', 'Publikationen der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft', Beihefte II, Folge 4
(I906), p. 96, comments upon the freedom of this movement in comparison with rondos
by composers such as J. C. Bach.
23 In the famous 'Rondo alla Turca', the finale of the piano sonata, K.33I (300 i)
Mozart reverses his normal rondo practice when he places in the minor the reprise of a
work otherwise in major. In the first couplet of the 'Rondo hongrois' of the string
quartet, Op. I8, No. 4 (C minor) Beethoven moves to the area of A, major instead of the
expected relative major area of El.
24 H. C. Robbins Landon, 'The
Symphonies of Joseph Haydn' (London, 1955),
p. 389, also considers this movement Haydn's first symphonic sonata-rondo.

393
it is by no means a textbook example. The motive of the reprise
returns briefly at its original pitch before the development (bars
9o-98), but the F pedal and the solidly established area of F major
impart to this motive the character of a subdominantin F:

- - V
Flute

i
2 Oboes ~V
.1
[Solo]

2 Bassoons
.p

Horns in B!
[alto]
.P

ViolinI

ViolinII - - - . - -- -i-J i - I

Viola
p p
[Vlc.]
Cello& ...s:), JJ- jJ Jj J j j Jj j 4j - J- - Jji
Bass v ?IC~~~~~
III I bV I
III~ ~ ~ ~~~I T I
r-
[Basso]
-r- -r -r r-r

b f r,

c' pp

_1
JJ J-|
S/@,Sl

............
Y'I
'P^_IJ---L_J .J
..,:j
- _

,):~ _pJ _P

394
None the less Haydn has at least restated the motive at its original
pitch, differing in this respect from his practice in works like the
piano concerto in G major and symphony No. 92.
With one striking exception, an exception that makes the rondo
improper, the Presto finale of the piano concerto in G major
(Hoboken XVIII, No. 4, pub. I784) is one of the clearest examples
of sonata-rondo in the works of Haydn.25 Having moved to the
area of the dominant, Haydn states the main theme in both D major
and D minor. After cadencing in D, he restates the complete main
theme in D major, not in the anticipated G major of a proper
sonata-rondo (beginning at bar 84):

Oboes & - 7
Horns

rrJ
Viola
, lf jiI y X X, tr
& Bass , y"r _rir 7 Tr 7v rr ? -i
I, yr 79 rr r ( 7

Piano tutti
|0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~tutti
-77 -r-7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
-71 ,i
..;-L ,.,.

<)' 7
_r 7 #C T- 7 7
AI,#r7#r ? r'

25 For a score see

Nagels Musik-Archiv, No. 86 (Hanover, 1936), ed. Kurt Schubert.
Accurate dating is essential in a study of these concerto movements. The editor of the
piano concerto in G major proposes c.I770 as the date of composition; a nineteenth-
century editor of the piano concerto in D major, Am6ede Mereaux in 'Les Clavecinistes
de 1637 a 1790' (Paris, 1867), proposes 1771. On the other hand most Haydn studies
give "vor 1782" for the concerto in G major, and for the concerto in D major either the
date of publication (1 784) or "vor 1782". Considering the concerto in D major, Landon,
op. cit., p. 384, n. 41, argues for 1780 at the latest. I believe that I770 is too early a date.
No example parallel to this developed, fully-integrated rondo exists in Haydn's early
period. Transitions, frequent excursions into the minor, reprise variations and trans-
positions, and the Hungarian motif argue for the eighties. Further, I submit that because
of numerous similarities in procedure the concerto in G major originated at approximately
the same time.

395
 After a central couplet in which the main theme is prominent,
Haydn reaches the reprise and, remaining in G, recapitulates his
earlier events. In the finale of symphony No. 92, likewise, the main
theme returns in the area of the dominant before the double bar
and in the tonic in the recapitulation (bar 98 and bar 287).
These finales, in which the border between sonata and sonata-
rondo is flexible if indeed it exists at all, clearly demonstrate that
the entire question of where to draw the line between a work in
sonata form and one in sonata-rondo form is especially difficult in
the works of Haydn and Mozart. Because many of their works are
basically monothematic, the so-called 'closing' material is often a
varied restatement of the main theme, thus functioning like the
return of the reprise in a sonata-rondo. The tonal area of course
differs, being the dominant in a sonata-allegro movement and the
tonic in a sonata-rondo. While I have for some time admitted con-
siderable flexibility in my definition of sonata-rondo, particularly
with regard to events after the first return of the reprise, I have
stressed that in a sonata-rondo at least the first return of the reprise
must stand in the main key. By this criterion works like the finales
of the concerto in G major and symphony No. 92 must be considered
as being in some other form, perhaps sonata form.26 If, on the other
hand, one accepts the flexible eighteenth-century notion of
'improper', the formal structure of these works, together with the
thematic material, the closed form of the reprise and the overall
proportions can suggest an improper rondo. Application of the
simpler and more fluid approach of Kollmann would redirect
the attention from arguments over arbitrary formal boundaries
which have been established a posteriori to the musical content of
the works being investigated.27
It might be possible to apply the idea of 'improper' to such
famous Mozart works as the 'Rondo' in D major, K.485 and the
'Rondo' finale of the Serenade, K.525. Both works were called
'Rondo' by their creator; both are generally considered by more
modern authorities to stand in sonata form.28 Again, to the arrange-
26 Landon, for instance, considers the finale of symphony No. 92 to be in sonata form.
27Although advocating greater flexibility in rondo matters, I am not proposing
that almost every finale is a sonata-rondo. For an amusing illustration of two theorists
who did, see Alexandre Etienne Choron & J. Adrien de Lafage, 'Nouveau Manuel
complet de Musique Vocale et Instrumentale' (Paris, 1838), ii: iii, p. 289, where they
write concerning the finales of symphonies: "Ordinairement ces morceaux se traitent
dans la coupe du rondeau". They then proceed to discuss the finale of Haydn's symphony
No. 104, quite clearly a movement in sonata form, as if it were a rondo, and in the process
contradict their own definition of a rondo (pp. 276-7).
28 See Hermann Abert, 'W. A. Mozart', 7th ed. (Leipzig, I956), ii, p. 205; Th6odore
de Wyzewa & Georges de Saint-Foix, 'W. A. Mozart' (Paris, I936-46), iv, pp. I34-5;
and Rudolf von Tobel, 'Die Formenwelt der klassischen Instrumentalmusik' (Berne &
Leipzig, 1935), pp. I98-9, all of whom consider K.485 a sonata-allegro and relate it to
the practice of Emmanuel Bach in his rondos with transposed statements of the reprise.
On the other hand Max L6wengard, 'Lehrbuch der musikalischen Formen' (Berlin,
1904), pp. 38-54, considers K.485 a model example of rondo form and devotes his entire
rondo chapter to it. For a reasonable compromise position and an analysis of the work
as both a rondo and a sonata, see Roland Tenschert, 'Zwischen den Formen (Mozarts
Klavierrondo K.V.485)', 'Festschrift Wilhelm Fischer' (Innsbruck, I956), pp. 33-7-

396
ment of sections must be added considerationsof thematic character,
reprise structure, and overall proportions. K.485 opens with a
period (a closed cell of sixteen measures) that could serve as the
reprise of a rondo, and all subsequent material is derived from this
main theme. K.525 seems to offer more indications of rondo form
than K.485. The double bars and repeat signs in the opening
period often accompany a work in rondo form:
RONDO
Allegro
r-k. ^r. f f f f r-r--r f f f f r ,^?
-- ' 1: ,
m;~,JOi '--'

*pP r rrrr Jm rXjm;fJJ

JF
|>^

i1 .V- - r'r'r r r

, ,r--rrrrt _- -_-
I. - rr rr-f r ^--JJ.-
1J. :,
f'L.l r -

The theme itself and the closed structure of the opening period
suggest rondo form. As in the Haydn examples, the main theme
recurs in the dominant before the development. Then, after a
In the case of K.525 Abert (ii, 393-4) feels that the rondo element predominates, main-
taining that thematic statements in areas other than the main key attest the influence
of Emanuel Bach. Saint-Foix (iv, p. 267) and Tobel (pp. I98-9) view this work, like
K.485, as a sonata. For a particularly illuminating speculation, see Tobel's discussion
of these works. He compares the structure of sonata form and sonata-rondo with develop-
ment as follows:
Sonata-rondo :A B A C(dev.) A B A Coda
I V I
Sonata form: MS SS
Clos. (://:) Dev. MS SS M Coda
(MS)
I V V
The similarities become especially apparent when the repeat signs are omitted, and
perhaps the transposed return of the main theme after the second section goes back to the
ritornello of arias and concertos. Tobel writes: "For Mozart the sonata-form construction
appears to have become something completely obvious, an unconscious need so to speak.
Thus, in his later period, he occasionally labels as 'Rondo' forms which in their total
structure belong positively to the sonata type, revealing rondo influence only in thematic
shaping" (pp. I98-9).

397
statement of the main theme in Eb major in the development,"2
Mozart moves directly to the recapitulation of his second thematic
group as he does in his favourite arrangement of the sonata-rondo,
i.e. ABACB'A.30 The statement of the main theme that appeared
in the dominant in the exposition now stands in the tonic in the
recapitulation.
Why did Mozart call these works 'Rondo'? To the following
possible explanations-the popularity of the rondo, the mono-
thematic nature of the works, the character and structure of the
main theme, the relationship of sonata and rondo to the earlier
ritornello of aria and concerto, the composer originally intended
to write a rondo-might be added another, namely, that Mozart
simply produced a couple of improper rondos.
While Haydn and Mozart may have composed improper
rondos because of their unsettled, experimental approach to the
form, I suggest that Beethoven may have introduced statements
of the reprise in unexpected harmonic areas precisely because of
the fixed sonata-rondo form he practised early in his career. Since
the sequence of events in an early Beethoven sonata-rondo was
fairly predictable, much more so than in sonata-rondos of Haydn
and Mozart, perhaps he reasoned that an unexpected harmonic
digression might create surprise. In six representative works the
unexpected area occurs not before or during the development,
as in Haydn and Mozart, but towards the end of the movement,
in one of the last two returns of the reprise or in the recapitulation
of the first couplet. The digressions to be found in these six works
are listed in Table II (p. 399).31
In summary, although none of the eighteenth-century authors
of composition books expressly prohibited returns of the main
theme in areas other than the main key, only two specifically called
attention to the practice in the works of Emanuel Bach. Some
eighteenth-century music critics proclaimed Bach rondos, several
of which were improper, as models of the rondo in general, widely
spreading the praises of both the rondos and their creator, and thus,
probably unconsciously, focusing attention on this little-used
'improper' procedure. In addition to summarizing the abundant
later writing about the operation of the fantasy or improvisatory
29 For an
analogous procedure in a work that is definitely a sonata-rondo see the
finale of the piano concerto, K.595 (BI major), in which Mozart places the main theme
in E major in the development and then moves directly to a recapitulation of the first
couplet.
30 See C. F.
Abdy Williams, 'The Rondo Form, as it is found in the Works of
Mozart and Beethoven', Proceedingsof the Musical Association,xvii (1890-91), pp. 95-112,
especially p. 104; Martin Chusid, 'The Sonata-Rondo in Mozart's Instrumental Works',
University of California M.A. Thesis (1955), p. 41; Malcolm Cole, 'The Development
of the Instrumental Rondo Finale from 1750 to 800oo',Princeton University Ph.D.
Dissertation (1964), p. 131. See also Cole, 'Sonata-Rondo, the Formulation of a Theoretical
Concept in the i8th and Igth Centuries', The Musical Quarterly,lv (1969), p. i8i.
31For additional support, one may point to digressions in many of Beethoven's
codas as well, e.g. Op. 2, No. 2 (Neapolitan), Op. 2, No. 3 (submediant in a work in
major), and Op. 13 (submediant in a work in minor), all of which create surprise.

398
concept in these rondos of Emanuel, I have attempted to broaden
the scope of the investigation by suggesting that additional, and
frequently interconnected, factors may have influenced certain
rondos by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven-factors such as length,
the 'gypsy' element, flexibility of approach to rondo structure in
the case of Haydn and Mozart, and, on the part of Beethoven, a
desire to introduce an element of surprise into an otherwise
relatively fixed rondo structure.
TABLE I
Rondos of 'Kenner und Liebhaber', iv.
Harmonic areas in which statements of the main theme appear
Main themerestated Harmonicarea
beginningbar
Rondo I (A major): 17 E major
30 C major
47 G major
59 B minor
71 A major
87 BI major
I04 A major

Rondo II (E major) 49-50 E major

76-77 A major
9I-92 G minor
I27-128 E major
166-167 E major
Rondo III (Bb major) 32-33 F major
5I-52 Eb major
79-80 C minor
98-99 E major
ii8-i 19 D minor
I55-I56 Bb major
223-224 Bb major
TABLE II
Tonal digressions of the main theme
in six sonata-rondos of Beethoven
Work Main Key HarmonicArea Locationof Digression
of Digression in Structure
Piano sonata, A major F major ABACAB'A- (bar I40)
Op. 2, No. 2
Piano sonata, E[ major E major ABACAB'A- (bar 156)
Op. 7
Piano sonata, Bb major E[ major ABACAB'-A (bar 153)
Op. 22
Violin sonata, F major D major ABAC-AB'A (bar 112)
Op. 24
Piano concerto, B, major G major ABACAB'-A (bar 262)
Op. 19
Piano concerto, C major B major ABACAB'-A (bar 455)
Op. 15

399