A focused score comparison

Dossier index · observations from printed NMA scores, 16 September 2026

This comparison asks how attention is organized: between melody and accompaniment, between simultaneous orchestral layers, and between successive contrapuntal entries. It describes notation and offers interpretations for testing in performance. No acoustic measurements or recording auditions were made. Source IDs identify the editions in the register.

K. 545: clarity with a changed return

S01 — I, Allegro, bars 1–4; E02, p. 122. The right hand presents the opening melody above left-hand eighth-note broken chords. The low–high–middle–high ordering of chord tones is the familiar Alberti pattern. The two hands have legible roles, but legibility does not imply that the performer has no choices about balance, phrasing or timing. No dynamic indication appears in this opening; the page’s footnote points readers to the edition’s discussion of missing dynamics. It is not evidence that every note should be equally loud.

S02 — I, bars 42–45; E02, p. 124. The recognizable opening returns with its supporting pattern in F major, rather than immediately in the movement’s home key of C. Calling bar 42 the beginning of the recapitulation is an analytical identification based on that thematic return. The inspectable facts are the returned melodic configuration, its F-major setting and the restored accompaniment relationship.

This gives the beginner designation a useful complication. An accessible surface can carry an unexpected large-scale placement. A listener may experience familiarity before identifying the tonal displacement, or may not hear the displacement as surprising at all. Those are possible responses to investigate, not observations already collected.

S03–S04 — II, Andante, bars 1–4 and 33–36; E02, pp. 126 and 128. The opening is in G major. At bar 33, G-minor harmony, including B-flat, changes the tonal character while the accompaniment continues its broken-chord motion. Compare what remains recognizable with what changes. “A darker passage” can be a listener’s description; the minor mode itself does not identify grief, a particular bereavement or a composer-specific emotional code.

For the first listening exercise, restrict attention to S01–S02. Keep the Andante available as a later comparison instead of letting one listening session become a complete survey.

K. 543: coordinated force and moving detail

S05 — I, Adagio, bars 1–6; E01, p. 1. The opening notates strong orchestral statements with dotted rhythms, alternating with quieter continuation and rapid descending violin figures. The changes in dynamics and texture occur within the introduction itself. The score includes flute, clarinets, bassoons, horns, trumpets, timpani and strings; it does not list oboes.

“Ceremonial” is a plausible interpretation of the opening’s coordinated weight and rhythmic profile. The same six bars already resist treating the symphony as uninterrupted grandeur. The contrast concerns how an ensemble distributes force and motion. It does not prove a particular social occasion, an actual premiere ensemble, or Mozart’s confidence about his circumstances.

The selected opening is sufficient for this limited comparison. The Allegro and later movements have not been analyzed here, so these observations should not become a characterization of the entire symphony.

K. 546: contrast, continuation and inherited material

S06 — Adagio, bars 1–8; E03, p. 47. Dotted gestures and strongly marked attacks give way at bar 5 to a softer slurred figure. The opening thus contains differences of articulation and motion before the fugue begins. “Severe” may describe an interpretation of some gestures; it does not summarize every instruction on the page.

Fugue, bars 1–9; E03, p. 49. The bottom staff begins, the viola enters at bar 4, and the second violin at bar 7. Following an entering voice while remembering an earlier one is a different task from following K. 545’s opening melody above accompaniment. The NMA score links Adagio to fugue with attacca and restarts bar numbering for the fugue. Its footnote also distinguishes the printed Allegro heading from an earlier tempo designation; a recording’s speed must not be judged from a simplified label alone.

E05 establishes the relationship to K. 426. This pass does not collate the two versions note by note. Changing from two keyboards to strings is a material change; exactly how articulation, sustaining sound and voicing differ needs the earlier score and identified performances. Neither “identical music” nor “entirely new composition” adequately states the established version history.

What the comparison earns

These relationships make plurality musically specific. They also suggest why whole-work emotional labels can be too coarse. The historical claim remains coexistence of distinct practices; a later performance can illuminate those practices without serving as a transparent report of their creator’s private experience.