Conclusion

In the end, all of these organization, fortifications, variations, and unique-but-intricately-related events serve to bring to light Mozart’s greatest gift – his capability for artistic expression in spite of a seemingly rigid Classical form. The crux of this piece, to me, is that the roles of soloist and accompanist between violin and piano are blurred. The piece offers a great number of dualities: it is a piece whose form and phrases are both based on two and three; it is both strong in motive but weak in cadence; it is melodic and contrapuntal; it is rigid in form but free in its expression; but last of all, it conceived as a sonata for violin but, in reality, is a duo for violin and piano. It is the tension between these roles which mirrors the tension of, say, a pedal bass progression or tension of the overlapping phrases. Even at its conclusion, the final cadence is not a conclusively unified statement between the two, but a dissonant progression whose resolution offers two views of the same resting place. It is this example of subtle complexity which gives Mozart his depth, a composer who is known for his simplicity of melody, but still manages to run deeper than his fellow Classicists. Or as he might have said: Chi sa meno, più sa.

Corey Cerovsek, violin; Jeremy Denk, piano. Recording courtesy of MUSOPEN

©2018 Sunny Knable. Published by teoria.com