JAVS Fall 2011

The sonata-allegro form is very clear; at any given moment, informed listeners can easily tell exactly where in the form they are. Perhaps this quality con tributes to the sense of being a “composition student’s exercise,” as though Mendelssohn had to demonstrate his understanding of sonata first movements. however, formal clarity remained one of Mendelssohn’s strengths throughout his career. yes, Mendelssohn follows all the rules, but he executes them extremely well. The second movement of the sonata is a charming minuet; like the first movement, it is in C minor (until the trio section, which is in C major) and clear ly adheres to the expected form. As R. Larry Todd points out, Mendelssohn reused the opening material for the third movement of his Symphony No. 1 in C Minor, composed a month after he completed this

sonata. 25 Examples 1a and 1b compare these two themes (in both cases, the melody passes between dif ferent instruments, as labeled), and the similarities are striking—they begin with the same double-neighbor motive with the upper neighbor suspended over the bar line. The rhythm is identical in spite of the differ ent meter—Mendelssohn opts for 6/4 in the sym phonic version (ex. 1b) instead of the 3/4 of the sonata (ex. 1a). Although he uses the same motive in both works, the melody is laid out differently. Both begin by emphasizing the A-flat across the bar line, and in the sonata the motive jumps higher so that D flat is sustained next. This happens in the antecedent phrase (mm. 1–8) and again in the consequent (mm. 9–16). In the symphony, however, Mendelssohn holds off on the D-flat until the consequent phrase; in the antecedent, the motive moves downward, emphasiz ing F. This delay renders the symphonic version more

Example 1a. Felix Mendelssohn, Viola Sonata, movt. II (Menuetto), mm. 1–16.

Example 1b. Felix Mendelssohn, Symphony No. 1, op. 11, movt. III (Menuetto), mm. 1–10.

J OuRNAL OF ThE AMERICAN VIOLA SOCIETy 22