Flute Quartet in D, K. 285

Mozart’s flute quartets closely model the design of the traditional string quartet, a genre that had been growing in popularity since its appearance in Austrian musical circles in the late 1740s. In the earliest examples, such as Haydn’s quartets of 1757, the first violin dominates the texture: It generates the lion’s share of melodic interest while the remaining three parts fill out the harmony. In creating the flute quartet format, Mozart simply substituted the flute for the first violin. The acoustic differences present within the new ensemble (1 wind + 3 strings) only reinforce its indebtedness to the solo-plus-accompaniment texture of opera aria. And even though the string quartet genre gradually achieved a state of near equality among the four parts, there will be no denying the flute her privileged status in this ensemble.

The Flute Quartet in D Major, K. 285, heard this evening, was Mozart’s first in the genre. Work on the quartet progressed quickly—here the composer’s reputation for prodigious speed and fluency rings true—and the entire piece was finished on Christmas Day, 1777. It stems from a commission Mozart received during a stay in Mannheim, one of the premier musical cities in 18th-century Europe. His patron on this occasion was Ferdinand Dejean, a surgeon with the Dutch East India Company and an amateur flautist. We should recall that commissions often came from prominent or affluent persons who were more or less amateurs (sometimes, far less). Dejean’s commission likely included Mozart’s second flute quartet, written immediately after K. 285 but left incomplete, and the two flute concertos, K. 313 and 314.

The first movement of K. 285 offers a classic instance of sonata-allegro form, with its tripartite exposition-development-recapitulation structure. Mozart presents his themes and two principal keys (D and A major, in this case) with the utmost clarity and concision. Only in the closing section of the exposition does he allow himself to digress. Following a repeat of the exposition, the development opens with a turn to the minor mode, and a modulation from A minor to F major takes place in short order. Development sections thrive on contrast, chromaticism, and startling changes of mood; this case is no exception. The larger purpose, one might say, is to dramatize the eventual return of the opening theme and key at the recapitulation. Mozart is arguably the greatest composer of all time in handling the graceful return to the home key from distant tonal regions, making the inevitable sound spontaneous and “just right.” The transition back to D major occupies only a few measures, and after that it is smooth sailing.

The second movement, in B minor, functions like the development section of the opening Allegro. Mozart’s purpose is to enter a different realm, to locate a contrasting affect between the outer movements in D major. Key is not the only means at his disposal: the Adagio tempo, pizzicato articulation in the strings, triple meter, and form all stand in contrast to the atmosphere of the other movements. Mozart heightens the sense of this being an intermezzo by leaving the movement incomplete in itself. Two times he prepares and abandons a final cadence. The movement stops on a rhetorical interruptio, a musical ellipsis that trails off for a moment in silence before the finale begins.

Given a lack of closure to the Adagio, the Rondo finale cannot avoid sounding a little awkward at first. The abrupt return to D major from the dominant-7th chord of F-sharp minor is bound to raise a few brows. Might Mozart have originally planned to complete the movement, bringing it to a full close before the finale? In any case, the D-major rondo theme starts immediately in the first measure, so we have no time at all to get our bearings before the plot begins to unfold. Overall, the form of the finale is symmetrical: A-B-A-C-A-B-A. Theme A provides a readily recognizable tune, which aids in the listener’s perception of form. Its periodic return defines the “rounded” nature of the rondo. The B material has a similar rhythmic motive to theme A, but it can be distinguished from the latter due to more imitative dialogue between instruments. Section C stands on its own as a small binary unit in G major. One may also point out a similarity here to sonata form, whose progression of statement (A-B-A), development (C), restatement (A-B-A) can be mapped onto the finale to suggest a hybrid Sonata-Rondo.

(c) Jason Stell