The Imperial Repertoire

By the second half of the seventeenth century, Vienna had become a center of keyboard composition and performance. The Baroque tradition of a suite of dances, unified by tonality and diversified by style, prevailed at court from ca. 1658 until ca. 1750, i.e., from the beginning of the reign of Leopold I until that of Maria Theresa. The repertoire composed and performed for the court was intended for amusement within the private chamber of the Imperial family. The Habsburgs were personally involved with music making: Leopold I (reigned 1658–1705) was himself a composer and kept more than a hundred musicians on the Imperial payrolls. His successor, Joseph I, reigned only six years. He was followed by Karl VI (reigned 1711–1740), a keyboard player, who further increased the size of the Hofkapelle to 140 members and employed one of the most important Baroque composers, Johann Joseph Fux.

During the reign of Maria Theresa (reigned 1740-1780), keyboard composition and performance activities within the Imperial chambers reached their highest point during the period 1749–ca. 1765, when the prolific Georg Christoph Wagenseil was court keyboard composer and music teacher not only to the Empress—who was a skilled player⁴—but also to her children. Her eldest son, Emperor Joseph II, was a violist, cellist, singer, and keyboardist and held regular musicales in his chambers. Two contemporary paintings now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna attest to the musical interests of the Empress’s progeny: in one, Joseph II is seated at the keyboard flanked by two of his sisters holding music (Plate 12); the other shows Maria Antonia performing at the keyboard (Plate 13).

Yet the musical tastes of the Imperial family apparently only slowly departed from suite-oriented works. The deaths of Emperor Karl VI in 1740 and his Kapellmeister Fux in 1741 did not so much mark a revolution in style as a quickened evolution: solo and accompanied divertimentos/sonatas with little or no relationship to the suite did not begin to be composed by the court musicians until the 1750s.

Some of the repertoire performed at the Imperial court during the reign of Maria Theresa is contained in three manuscripts at the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek (Anthology Imperial): S.m. 11084 and 11085, music books apparently written for the Archduchess Maria Elisabeth (1743-1808); and S.m. 3348, possibly a collection used by Archduchess Maria Anna (1738–1789). Even though S.m. 11084 and 11085 are now bound with the Archduchesses’ book plates, they are not true collections: the watermarks change, several copyists are found (but not in consecutive order), and the Primo and Secondo parts to the same compositions are bound in the same volume.⁵ In contrast, S.m. 3348 is more unified: the works are all by Wagenseil; a single copyist was used for the entire first part and a second completed the collection. Together, the three manuscripts contain twenty-seven concertos, two concertinos, a trio, three suites, and five divertimentos by Wagenseil; six concertos, a trio, and three partitas by Hofmann; a concerto and a concerto movement by Steffan; a concerto by Matielli; a divertimento by Loserth; two concertos by Agnesi; and a trio (Hob. XV: 41) and a concertino (Hob. XIV: 11) by Haydn.

PLATE 12. Joseph II seated at the keyboard flanked by his sisters, Marianne and Elisabeth (b. 1780). Oil painting by Joseph Hauzinger. (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)

PLATE 13. Maria Antonia (ca. 1770) seated at the keyboard. Oil painting by Franz Xaver Wagenschön. (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)

While the dominance of Wagenseil is not surprising, it is difficult to believe that works by his pupil Joseph Anton Steffan would play such a small role, since Steffan was Klaviermeister to Maria Carolina (1752–1814) and a future Queen of France, Maria Antonia (1755–1793)-During the early years of the nineteenth century a large collection of Steffan’s keyboard music became part of the archive at the castle in Kroměříž, a residence of the archbishop of Olomütz. It seems likely that this collection was at one time part of the Imperial holdings since on external grounds it segregates itself from other keyboard copies in the archbishop’s archive. Also conspicuous by their absence are compositions by Wenzel Raimond Birck, the music teacher to the three archdukes Joseph (1741–1790), Karl (1745–1761), and Leopold (1747–1792). Although the documentation is still incomplete, it is clear that the Imperial keyboard repertoire was dominated by Wagenseil and his students during Haydn’s early years.

Solo Keyboard Works

SOURCES

Prints. Outside the Imperial court, some music was available to the Viennese public in prints. During the first half of the eighteenth century, only one print of keyboard music was published in Vienna: 72 Versetl Sammt 12 Toccaten by the Imperial court organist Gottlieb Mufffat (1690–1770) in 1726.⁶ More than a quarter of a century was to pass before Wagenseil’s Op. 1 (a set of six divertimentos) appeared in 1753. It was soon followed by the publication of three more sets of six divertimentos by Wagenseil—Op. 2 (ca. 1755), Op. 3 (ca. 1761), and Op. 4 (1763)–and his three divertimentos (1761); the Trattenimenti (1757) by Wenzel Raimond Birck; and the six-sonata sets Op. 1 (ca. 1759) and Op. 2 (1760), the three-sonata sets Op. 3 (1763—before 1771) and another without opus number (1771– ca. 1776), plus 40 Preludi (1760) by Joseph Anton Steffan.⁷

This meager list does not represent the only keyboard prints on the market during the mid-century; advertisements in the Wienerisches Diarium and other catalogues show that a number of works written and published by foreigners were readily available to the Viennese public. From 1737 to 1780—when Artaria issued its first set of sonatas by Haydn—in addition to works by C.P.E. Bach (which are identified in Essay VII), no fewer than sixty-five opere were advertised in the Imperial city.⁸

Before 1760 the “foreign” solo keyboard music available in printed form was not dominated by any single composer as much as by one publisher: Johann Ulrich Haffner of Nürnberg. His beautifully engraved works were sold by Peter Conrad Monath, who carried more of Haffner’s products than did any other Viennese bookseller, perhaps because of his Nurnberg family ties—Augustin Bernardi, Georg Bauer, and Johann Jakob Lidl. As a result, from ca. 1742 through the mid-1760s Vienna was inundated by keyboard music from Germany and Italy. Unfortunately, none of these works exhibited a strong stylistic profile except for those of Domenico Scarlatti. One wonders why not a single notice has been located for the keyboard anthologies for which the Nurnberg house was so famous: Oeuvres melees (1755-1765 or 1766), twelve volumes containing seventy-two sonatas by German composers;⁹ Raccolta musicale (1756–1765), five volumes containing thirty sonatas by Italian composers;¹⁰ and Collection recreative (1758–1761 or 1762), two volumes containing twelve sonatas by German composers.¹¹ The only evidence we have for the importation of any of these anthologies is a late one: the 1799 catalogue of Johann Traeg, who advertised all twelve volumes of Oeuvres melees. However, we do not know whether he was selling Haffner’s prints or, as is more likely, manuscript copies.

After 1760 a greater number of German prints of solo keyboard music became available, with publications from Hummel, Hartknoch, Lotter, Gerle, Hande, and Breitkopf. It seems odd that so few from Breitkopf made their way to Vienna, even though a large number of Viennese products are found in the Leipzig dealer’s thematic catalogue. Preston of London and the Bureau d’Abonnement Musical of Paris are the only non-German firms represented. In the years after 1780 there was a trend toward greater diversity; and by 1799, according to Traeg, a staggering number and variety of keyboard works from d’Anglebert to Beethoven were available in the Imperial city.¹²

Manuscript Copies. In contrast to the situation in London and Paris, printed music was not the only way to measure what the Viennese keyboardists were playing, for the professional copy shops were at the center of music distribution. As Charles Burney reported in 1772:

here, among other things, I was plagued with copyists the whole evening; they began to regard me as a greedy and indiscriminate purchaser of whatever trash they should offer; but I was forced to hold my hand, not only from buying bad music, but good. For everything is very dear at Vienna, and nothing more so than music, of which none is printed.¹³

Unfortunately, very few manuscript collections from the mid-century period survive. Symphonies and string quartets are preserved in great numbers, but keyboard music was used again and again and when worn, was discarded. Many of these works were used for pedagogical purposes and were thought not worthy of preservation. Among the surviving collections, excluding those of the Imperial family described above, two anthologies remain unrivalled: a two-volume set of unknown provenance now in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna (Anthology Vienna) and two volumes, Ms. mus. 749 and 753, in the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest (Anthology Roskovsky).

Anthology Vienna, the more careful compilation, was probably assembled sometime during the 1760s or early 1770s, but no later than ca. 1780. It consists of seventy-one attributed works that reflect the availability of a solo keyboard repertoire from various geographic areas: Italy (Agnesi, Alberti, Fiorroni, Martino, Sampani, Toselli [?]);¹⁴ Germany (Platti), perhaps from Breitkopf and Haffner sources; Bohemia (Brixi); and Vienna, from both prints and manuscripts (Buch-hammer, Haydn, Hofmann, Matielli, Monn, Schloger, Steffan, Umstatt, Wagenseil, and Vanhal).

The two Budapest volumes—Anthology Roskovsky—are part of a larger series of seven tomes copied and collected by Pater Panteleon Roskovsky (1734-1789), a Franciscan monk resident in Bratislava, Pest, and other locations.¹⁵ Their contents are broader both geographically and chronologically. Besides the better-known Viennese (Birck, Fux, Kohaut, Monn, Muffat, Reutter, Steffan, Tuma, Umstatt, and Wagenseil) and some lesser lights from the Imperial city (Peyer, Romer, and Schmidt), Italians (Agnesi [?Alberti], Palladini, Platti, Rutini, and Vento) and Germans (J. L. Krebs and Handel) are well represented. In addition, the anthology preserves compositions by Hungarian (Csermak, Ninger, and Roskovsky) and Austrian (Ehrenhardt and Zechner) monks as well as by a series of otherwise unknown composers (Fillenbaum, Kayser, Obermayer, Ruge, and Wachowski). Some 145 works are identified, and about 120 more are not explicitly attributed.¹⁶ In short, the Roskovsky volumes offer the most extensive anthology of the eighteenth-century repertoire available in the Imperial lands.

In addition to their presence in these Sammelbände, a series of Viennese composers are represented in separate copies. At the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, S.m. 1079 is devoted chiefly to music by Wenzel Raimond Birck (1718-1763). The manuscript begins with an explanation of the musical elements, followed by dances and suite/divertimentos by Birck, and concludes with an aria by Galuppi and a group of figured bass exercises. As some are Birck autographs, one might hypothesize that this book was a Klavierschule for Joseph II.

An unusually rich series of solo keyboard copies, housed in the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz in West Berlin, includes works by Matthias Georg Monn, Johann Christoph Monn, Joseph Anton Steffan, Leopold Hofmann, Georg Christoph Wagenseil, and Georg Reutter d.J. (?), among others. It remains a mystery how many of these Viennese copies came into the possession of the Staatsbibliothek. Since some works by Fux are in the hand of a copyist referred to by Riedel as having been associated with the Baron Gottfried van Swieten,¹⁷ some of this material may have emanated from the mostly lost Nachlass of this musical collector and connoisseur.

Probably the most comprehensive collection is to be found at the archbishop’s castle/residence at Kroměříž, in Moravia. In addition to nearly all the keyboard works by Joseph Anton Steffan, this relatively well known but little explored archive contains five capriccios, a character piece, twenty sonatas, and two variation sets by Vanhal; three divertimentos/sonatas by M. G. Monn; nine pieces and seven divertimentos and sonatas by J. C. Monn; three sets of variations by Giuseppa Auerhammer; twenty-six two-and four-hand sonatas by Leopold Kozeluch; twelve sonatas by Wagenseil; and twenty-six sonatas attributed to Joseph Haydn. In general, the bulk of this music seems to originate after 1750; in the final decades of the century the archbishops’ interest in keyboard music seems to have waned.¹⁸

STYLE

There can be no question that the solo keyboard repertoire to which Haydn could have been exposed went far beyond that proposed by Abert and surveyed by Wackernagel. Although it is impossible here to offer a comprehensive treatment,¹⁹ we shall discuss the works of some of the most important native and resident composers as they relate to Haydn’s early sonatas. No effort will be made to establish thematic connections as a direct influence from one composer to another: the triadic melodies, stock accompaniments, galant cadences, etc., frequently chosen as significant observations are merely formulas of the age. Rather, the focus will be on movement and cyclic typologies, with some further remarks on syntax and other special aspects.

From Suite to Sonata. The most important developments in seventeenth-century Viennese solo keyboard compositions are to be found in the works of Johann Jakob Froberger (1616–1667). Froberger was familiar with a broad spectrum of Continental keyboard music: he studied with Frescobaldi in Rome, and he was intimately acquainted with the French school through his associations with Gaultier, Chambonnieres, and Louis Couperin. His most important contribution was the establishment of the keyboard suite not as an ordre but as an established cycle consisting of an allemande, a courante, and a sarabande, to which a gigue was added or interpolated in later sources. In the larger view this development was one of the early steps toward the eighteenth-century keyboard partita/divertimento/ sonata.²⁰

The keyboard music of Johann Joseph Fux (1660—1741),²¹ which was still being distributed in copies during the last decades of the eighteenth century, serves as the most important link in the transmission of the synthesized Franco/German/ Italianate keyboard styles of Froberger. Although Fux’s works are characterized by the dense textures, fabrics, and ornaments also seen in Froberger, they display a more flexible approach to the suite, while retaining the essential outline of Froberger’s cycle (as shown by brackets):

Here three types can be distinguished: those that consist of a series of dances without a prelude, those preceded by a French Overture, and those that commence with an improvisatory prelude. Various aspects of these cycles were continued by later generations. Two characteristics should be especially noted: the presence in all but two of a minuet (which plays such a central role in the mid-century divertimento/ sonata that it is often—particularly in the minore trios—the center of aesthetic gravity), and the improvisatory prelude. Riedel correctly described K.404 as approaching the Viennese keyboard divertimento/sonata of the mid-century.²²

The First Generation of Composers after Fux. The Viennese composers of keyboard music that constituted the first generation after Fux set the vogue to which the young Haydn was subjected (see Table VI-1). Even though documentation of a direct association with Haydn exists only for Georg Reutter d.J., the Kapellmeister at St. Stephen’s when Haydn was a member of the choir school, to deny the importance of Wagenseil and his contemporaries for Haydn’s formative years would be to ignore the musical environment offered by the Imperial capital.

Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715–1777) was among the most respected of the Viennese keyboard composers and one of Fux’s own students. After changing from the study of law to music, Wagenseil was appointed Hofscholar (1735) at the Imperial court. In 1741 he became organist to the widow of Karl VI, Elisabeth Christine, and eventually took up the position of Hofklaviermeister (1749), i.e., keyboard teacher and composer for the Imperial family. In a two-year concert tour (1756–1758), Wagenseil established himself as one of Europe’s premier keyboardists,²³ a reputation that was still obvious to Charles Burney in 1772 even though Wagenseil’s health had deteriorated.²⁴ C. F. D. Schubart described him as “one of the first Clavier virtuosos of his time. . . . He himself plays with unusual expression and improvises fugues with considerable skill.”²⁵

Among Wagenseil’s solo keyboard cycles are works titled Divertimento, Sonata, Suite, and Partita. His use of these terms, however, does not follow textbook prescriptions, for each type may contain all dances (pure suites), a mixture of dances and free movements (mixed suites), or only one dance—the minuet and trio— (new divertimento/sonata). The contents and titles of these cycles are summarized in Table VI-2. These sets are so varied that it is difficult to draw conclusions with regard to number of movements, movement types, and generic terms, except to note that the new divertimento/sonata employs fewer movements (two to four), whereas the pure and mixed suites may have as few as two or as many as eight. “Divertimento” is not used for pure suites; it seems to be preferred for the mixed and new divertimento/sonata types. Surprisingly, “Sonata” is the least preferred title among those of the new style.

TABLE VI-1

The Viennese Keyboard Tradition Beginning with Fux

TABLE VI-2

Summary of Wagenseil’s Solo Keyboard Cycles²⁶

Each of the pure suites,²⁷ like the keyboard works of Fux, contains a minuet movement, and examples can be found of the arpeggiated prelude (in WWV 59) and the French Overture (in WWV 17). However, Wagenseil never uses more than two of the dances from the Froberger cycle, while Fux on several occasions employs all four.

A number of new characteristics appear in the thirty-one cycles of the mixed style: fast first movements that are not dances; movements that begin as stylized dances but carry no dance titles; and finales that are not gigues but rather more neutral movements: very fast or fast pieces in 3/8 or 2/4, and the Tempo di Menuet or minuet and trio. It is still not uncommon to find two minuet movements within a cycle: the minuet with trio; and the Tempo di Menuet, which takes on a more specialized role as a finale. In addition, several sicilianos (a standard slow movement type), duple-meter scherzos, and polonaises occur.

This group features a more stylized formulation of the cycle. Whereas in the pure suites no two cycles were alike; now there are several that appear more than once:

Nine of the thirty-one cycles contain movements with titles such as Preludio, usually a series of arpeggios with toccata-like sections (WWV 60); Capriccio, here in toccata style (WWV 73); Ricercarta (WWV 50), an extended movement not unlike the first Prelude to Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier;²⁸ Intrada (WWV 75), a march with dotted rhythms; and a French Overture (WWV 75).

In the new divertimento/sonata, a uniformity in the number of movements is immediately evident: three-movement sequences account for all but six of forty works, the others having two or four movements. The three-movement sonatas divide into one of three cyclic patterns: Fast-Minuet + Trio-Fast (thirteen examples); Fast-Slow-Fast (five examples); and Fast-Slow or Moderate-Minuet + Trio or Tempo di Menuet (sixteen examples).

But do the pure suites, mixed suites, and new divertimentos/sonatas represent a chronological evolution? Although a chronology for Wagenseil is not yet possible, one can turn to the six collections published from 1753 to 1765, including the one published by Haffner: of the thirty-three cycles, all—except for six in the mixed style—belong to the new divertimento/sonata type. Since nearly all these prints can be proven to be authentic and are probably fairly representative of Wagenseil for these dozen or so years, it can be said that by the 1750s and early 1760s, the new divertimento/sonata was the predominant cyclic type.

Although Wagenseil is a pivotal figure in the evolution from the suite to the sonata, the works themselves are at best disappointing: the composer seems to connect one empty idea to another with little, if any, compensatory activity.²⁹ For example, in Op. 1/5, the exposition (Example VI-1) is based entirely on scale passages, trills, and stock accompaniments. Even though this criticism could be leveled at other composers from the period, few were so relentless in the sameness of the texture and the predictability of the two-measure phrase rhythms.

Ironically, it was these weaknesses that established Wagenseil’s historical importance. In comparison with the suites of Fux and Gottlieb Muffat (the latter published in his Componimenti Musicali [Augsburg, 1736]), Wagenseil’s solo output significantly departed from the stylized dances, thick textures, and continuous syntax of his predecessors, replacing them with less-characterized movements, thin two-and three-voiced fabrics, and a more modular phrase structure. In the end, however, it must be concluded that Wagenseil’s reputation rested more on his abilities as a teacher and performer and on the prestige generated by many published opere than on the quality of his music.

A second student of Fux, the little-known Wenzel Raimond Birck (Pürck, Pürk, Pirck, etc.; 1718–1763),³⁰ was, like Wagenseil, Hofscholar (1726–38) and later (1734) court organist and music teacher to the Imperial family. The 1757 print Trattenimenti per Clavicembalo (whose title page states that Birck was “Maestro di Tre Serenissimi Archduchi”), S.m. 1079 at the Osterreichische National-bibliothek, and a few examples from one of the Roskovsky manuscripts (Ms. mus. 749) constitute his known keyboard output. The Trattenimenti (“entertainments”) is divided into two large tonally unified suites or balli, each preceded by a series of movements that approximates a sonata cycle: the first in four (Fast—Slow–Variations-Fugue) and the second in three (Fast-Slow-Fast). Its entire plan seems to be modeled after François Couperin’s Les Nations:

EXAMPLE VI–1 Wagenseil, Divertimento Op. 1/5/1 (WWV 64), mm. 1–29.

The plan presents a synthesis of the light and elevated styles in the mid-century Viennese tradition: the fugue with the chromatic subject, which closes the sonatalike composition³¹ of the first part; and the extended suites, which mix main and supplementary dance movements with character pieces. The latter recall not only Fux’s K.404 but more markedly works by French composers of the so-called first galant school.

The manuscript S.m. 1079 contains seven or eight cyclic compositions in addition to some individual minuets, a ballet, and an aria. Within this apparent autograph, Birck uses the three different titles Parthia, Divertimento, and Ballo, none of which assumes a generic identity.

According to the classifications applied to Wagenseil’s suites, of Birck’s thirteen or fourteen extant cycles (excluding the two balli), four are of the more progressive divertimento/sonata type and the remaining are mixed suites. Yet, like Wagenseil’s works, aspects of the tradition established by Fux are still evident: the ever-present minuet, the use of titles such as scherzo and capriccio as well as those with more specific programmatic or characteristic implications, and the improvisatory prelude movement.

Birck’s works arouse more interest than do Wagenseil’s; rarely does Birck revert in such length to the melodic and rhythmic cliches and formulas so evident in the works of his better-known contemporary. Although Birck also uses the exact repetition of two-measure units, one can find more advanced antecedent/consequent formulations. Furthermore, he seems to have a special talent for employing advanced textures: massive chords of seven and eight notes and rapid alternations of register (Example VI-2). Most astonishing is the extensive use of dynamic markings in the 1757 print (see Example V-1). Birck is certainly one of the more attractive of the unknown mid-century Viennese composers.

Two other composers active at the court were probably students of Fux: Franz Tuma (1704-1774), a member of the Kapelle of Karl VI’s widow; and Matthias Schloger (1722-1766), Hof-Klaviermeister and teacher to Maria Carolina and Maria Antonia. Anthology Roskovsky contains the only known keyboard works attributable to Tuma: two four-movement Partitas,³² both belonging to the new divertimento/sonata type. Syntactically they do not change the established view of Tuma as an essentially conservative composer. He was less oriented than Wagenseil toward modular phrases and composed in a more Baroque idiom, while the quality of his works is at least a notch or two higher. Matthias Schloger’s works have been said to include “new stylistic elements of great promise.”³³ Although Schloger was a keyboard teacher at the court, only a single solo keyboard work survives in Anthology Vienna, a three-movement Divertimento, Fast—Slow—Fast without a minuet, which confirms the above comment. In the exposition of the first movement (Example VI-3), the phrase continuations and expansions go beyond the one-and two-measure repetitions and sequences so prevalent in Wagenseil.³⁴

Outside the court circle, the best-known composer of the post-Fux generation is Matthias Georg Monn (1717–1750).³⁵ At one time he was the organist at the Karlskirche, and he may have studied with Birck. Considering that all of Monn’s cyclic keyboard works were written before 1750, the number, type, and order of movements are rather advanced; of fifteen listed by Fischer, only one (No. 50) is a pure suite, five are mixed, one (Slow—Fast) is probably for the liturgy, and the remaining eight belong to the new divertimento/sonata type, as does one work in Anthology Vienna that is not listed by Fischer. Once again the minuet is an ever-present component. Also encountered are those arpeggiated preluding pieces that precede the first substantial fast movement of the cycle. Monn’s sonatas are the most conservative in style. Their expository materials are almost entirely generated through Fortspinnung (Example VI-4). At other times the syntax seems more progressive (Example VI-5), but even here Monn eventually reverts to the older growth process.

EXAMPLE VI–2. Birck, Trattenimento 1/3, mm. 1–4, 81–83, 101–103.

EXAMPLE VI–3. Schlöger, Divertimento (Anthology Vienna), mm. 1–30.

EXAMPLE VI–4. Monn, Sonata 1/1 (Fischer 45), mm. 1–9.

EXAMPLE VI–5. Monn, Sonata 9/1 (Fischer 58), mm. 1–17.

In sum, it was Wagenseil—if only by virtue of the wide distribution his works received—who led the way for the change from a cycle oriented toward the suite to the new divertimento/sonata type in which dance movements and styles become relatively insignificant. However, Wagenseil and his generation failed to find a satisfactory solution to the syntactical problems of the mid-century style that confronted them: either they continued to write in an essentially Baroque style, or they depended on the repetition of one-and two-measure units.

The Second Generation after Fux: Students of Wagenseil and Others. Wagenseil replaced Fux as the leading musical personality in Theresian Vienna; according to Hiller, Wagenseil was “in omni genere notissimus.”³⁶ One need only remember the names and reputations of some of his many students—Joseph Anton Steffan (1726–1797), Franz X. Dussek (1731–1799), Giovanni Anton Matielli (ca.1733–1805), and Leopold Hofmann (1738–1793), who, if not of the first rank, were among the most-admired Viennese musicians of their era.

Without doubt the most talented was Steffan, who was the most-advanced composer of keyboard music among the Viennese Kleinmeister of his generation; a favored student of Wagenseil, he established his name through the publication of a number of keyboard Divertimentos and Sonatas beginning in the 1750s. In 1766 he succeeded Schloger as Klaviermeister to the Archduchesses Maria Carolina and Maria Antonia.³⁷ In the same year the Wienerisches Diarium stated:

There is no denying his novelty, the beautiful and unaffected turns of phrase in which art and nature seem bound together. His concertos, divertimentos, galanteries, variations, and preludes for Clavier will always be acclaimed by connoisseurs. . . . His works reveal a spirit which can create real delight whenever he wants. His Allegros are for the most part amusing and charming, full of fun and solid ideas, however mournfully the previous Adagio may have sighed.³⁸

After retiring from his court appointment, Steffan established himself as one of the most important teachers and composers in the salons of the gentry and the chambers of the aristocracy.

A prolific composer, Steffan produced for keyboard forty-one sonatas and divertimentos, six sets of variations, more than forty concertos, characteristic/programmatic pieces, and almost a dozen accompanied works.³⁹ In addition, the five capriccios, forty preludes (1762), and ninety cadenzas (1783) point to his strong improvisatory bent. Looking at his solo works in their entirety, one is struck by the absence of titles such as Partita and Suite and the limited use of the term Divertimento (ten examples) in contrast to Sonata (thirty-one examples). As far as can be ascertained, Steffan never used “Divertimento” after 1768 and began to employ the term “Sonata” first in his Op. 2, of 1760, even though his mentor Wagenseil continued to use “Divertimento.” The number of movements in the cycles still ranges from one to thirteen, but there is a strong preference for those in two, three, and four movements: three examples have only one movement; eight have two movements; seventeen have three; ten have four; and there are one each of cycles with five, six, and thirteen movements.

Steffan used a number of dance and characteristic pieces from the earlier generation, but they are less common than with Wagenseil; the Polonaise and Capriccio are the most frequently encountered, with the Courante (“Currant”) the only vestige from the standard Froberger suite. Other suite-related movements are the Villanesca Gallante (Šetková No. 4 and No. 15), Contredanse Angloise (Šetková No. 5), and Inglese (Šetková No. 18). Even though some cycles have two minuet movements, the minuet is no longer present in nine sonatas. Many of Steffan’s introductions take on a character totally different from the arpeggiated preludes of his predecessors; while they may retain the spirit of improvisation, they have a formal and expressive substance that provides contrast as well as balance to the ensuing Allegro.⁴⁰

The cycles lean strongly toward the new sonata /divertimento type. Excluding the one-movement and programmatic sonatas, only one keyboard work is a pure suite, Op. 1/4 (Šetková No. 4); eight are mixed; and twenty-eight are of the new divertimento/sonata type. The tonal practices also depart from the suite: related keys other than the tonic are used for internal movements and trios of the minuets. These progressive tendencies are evident even in the fifteen sonatas published before 1764.

A comparison of the first-movement expositions of Steffan’s Op. 1/2 from ca. 1763(?) (Example VI-6) and Wagenseil’s Op. 3/1 from ca. 1761 (Example VI-7) shows Steffan’s musical syntax to be decidedly more up-to-date than his teacher’s. Wagenseil’s exposition contains only the primary, transition, and closing functions, whereas Steffan’s also includes seven measures that have a secondary function. For Steffan each function is clearly defined by surface and phrase rhythms, melodic materials, and rests. As in Example VI-1, Wagenseil’s themes are lacking in distinction, a trait not compensated for by their context. Furthermore, the range of Steffan’s sonorities and his harmonic language enhance the melodic ideas, as do the dynamics—which even at this early date require a touch-sensitive instrument.

Leopold Hofmann, a somewhat younger Wagenseil student, is best known for the disparaging remarks Haydn made about some of his songs.⁴¹ Nevertheless, Hofmann achieved a reputation almost comparable to Wagenseil’s; he eventually attained the position of Kapellmeister at St. Stephen’s with Mozart as his deputy. We have only ten extant solo keyboard cycles by Hofmann; they may date from the period when he was Hofklaviermeister to the Archduchess Maria Josepha, who died in the fall of 1767.⁴² All are in the newer style and are titled Partita and Divertimento. Only one is in four movements (Fast—Slow—Minuet—Fast); the rest are in two (Allegro or Vivace and Tempo di Menuet or Minuet with Trio).

Hofmann’s sonatas are miniatures that remind one of some early Haydn sonatas. Hofmann’s expositions, like Wagenseil’s, usually have only the primary, transition, and closing functions; but they tend to be less homogeneous than Wagenseil’s, and the movements never disintegrate so completely into a series of clichés. Perhaps the most-advanced first-movement exposition is found in the third sonata of a series of six from Kroměříž (Example VI-8).

The keyboard cycles of Johann Christoph Monn [Mann] (1726-1782), the brother of M. G. Monn, cause difficulties of fraternal attribution. Those listed in Fischer’s catalogue are equally divided between cycles of mixed character and the newer divertimento/sonata. Other works from Kroměříž attributed to Christoph but not listed by Fischer might tip the scales to the more conservative side, for they tend more toward the dance suite.⁴³ Some works definitely bring to mind the earlier traditions: the arpeggiated prelude, the incorporation of more than one minuet or minuet-styled movement per cycle, and the Allegro “Paese” and the Allegro assai “Villanesca” all recall divertimentos from the Wagenseil circle.

EXAMPLE VI–6. Steffan, Divertimento Op. 1/2/1 (Šetková 2), mm. 1–51.

EXAMPLE VI–7. Wagenseil, Divertimento Op. 3/1/1 (WWV 41), mm. 1–42.

EXAMPLE VI–8. Hofmann, Divertimento 3/1 (CS-KRm), mm. 1-30.

However, Monn’s musical language is the most advanced and controlled of any Viennese Kleinmeister of his generation save for Steffan. In Example VI-9 the initial measures of the E-flat major Sonata (Fischer No. 98) reveal his ability to provide contrast and continuity without the disjointed effect of Wagenseil’s modular structures. Monn begins with three hammerstrokes (x) that provide a contrast to the linear (y) motion that follows. The repetition complements the opening but substitutes a full close in m. 6 for the half-cadence of m. 3. The continuation leading to the transition is derived from the rhythm of y and the chord outline of x. The secondary and closing sections rhythmically parallel the primary and transition sections, lending a balanced continuity to the entire exposition.

EXAMPLE VI–9. J. C. Monn, Sonata in E-flat Major/1 (Fischer 98), mm. 1–20.

The Second Generation after Fux: Joseph Haydn. Within the context of the Viennese tradition, Haydn’s early solo sonatas occupy a pivotal position in the evolution of the sonata cycle. All are of the new divertimento/sonata type and in two to four movements. Specific dances, except for the minuet, are totally absent, and the only titled characteristic type is the duple-metered “scherzo” employed as a finale; Haydn does not even use the compound duple-meter movements of the gigue/hunt typology so popular in the solo sonatas of his contemporaries. He does, however, exploit the favorite type of slow movement: a cantilena with accompanying pulsating eighth notes reminiscent of a written-out continuo part. None of Haydn’s solo sonatas contain the arpeggiated preludes found in a significant number of cycles from Fux to Steffan. Furthermore, Haydn does not precede any of the extant sonatas with an introductory movement, although in some of the later sonatas a central movement may function as a prelude to the finale.

As in nearly all the Viennese divertimentos/sonatas, a minuet or minuet-styled movement is part of the cycle. In the unquestionably authentic sonatas Haydn never uses more than one minuet movement, but he does continue the tradition of the minuet in the major mode and the trio in the parallel minor. In a few instances syncopated rhythms pervade the trio, a characteristic seen in the cycles by his Viennese contemporaries and predecessors. When employed by Haydn as a finale, the minuet is occasionally extended by a series of variations, a characteristic of Leopold Hofmann’s sonatas. In Haydn’s sonatas of the mid-to late 1760s, the minuet is omitted from the cycle, as is also true of works by Steffan.

Haydn’s solo sonatas of the mid-to late 1760s and Steffan’s are completely segregated from those of their Viennese contemporaries: they are cyclic works of unparalleled seriousness that ultimately lead to the sonata as a genre of real stature. During the 1780s, Haydn was in attendance at the salon of the von Greiners, where Steffan was a favored guest. There, he must have become familiar with both Steffan and his keyboard music. However, Steffan is not mentioned in any extant Haydn documents, and there is no evidence from the 1760s of any direct connection between them.⁴⁴ It is therefore possible that these earlier parallel developments were merely coincidental.

Accompanied Keyboard Works

The origins of accompanied keyboard music in the Viennese milieu remain a mystery. It is possible to trace the tradition from suite to sonata in solo keyboard works from Froberger to ca. 1770, but no parallel repertoire exists to explain the presence of accompanied settings in Vienna. According to the Wienerisches Diarium, only three such publications were advertised before 1750 and a total of forty-one up to 1780.⁴⁵ The first print by a Viennese, Wagenseil’s Op. 5, appeared in 1770. However, it was not until the mid-1770s that a number of accompanied settings received notice. By 1799 accompanied keyboard music occupied as much space in Traeg’s catalogue as did works for one and two keyboards without accompaniment.

In contrast to solo settings, manuscripts of accompanied works are less prevalent, and there seem to be no Sammelbände ⁴⁶ for this repertoire. The only trios to be found in collections are those in the volumes of Anthology Imperial. Manuscript sources of individual compositions are at the same locations that took on such importance for the solo keyboard sonata. The collection at Kroměříž is again one of the principal sources for this repertory, and it provides a general beginning date for the composition of works in this genre: the latter half of the mid-century period (ca. 1755–1770). The creative lives of the composers of these works⁴⁷—Wagenseil, Dussek, Leopold Hofmann, J. C. Monn, Steffan, Johann Vanhal, and Anton Zimmermann—support such a hypothesis: the fact that Fux did not contribute to this genre, nor did any of his students from the first generation save Wagenseil, also points to the rise of accompanied keyboard music as a relatively late phenomenon, and then it only achieved secondary status to a composer’s solo output.

In addition to the standard settings for keyboard and violin and for keyboard, violin, and bass, the repertoire contains a broader spectrum of instrumentation than heretofore assumed. It includes the flute as an option to the violin or as the preferred accompanying treble instrument (Hofmann and Vanhal); accompaniments for two violins and bass and, in the case of one work by Wagenseil, with the instruments indicated “con sordino” (WWV 268); and settings for a variety of combinations: flute, violin, and bass or cello (Dussek, Hofmann, and Steffan); violin, cello, and bass (Hofmann); two flutes and bass (Hofmann); flute, violin, bass, and two horns (Steffan); violin and viola (Wagenseil and Zimmermann); viola and cello (Vanhal); cello obbligato and violin ad lib (Wagenseil); and the modern piano quartet—violin, viola, and cello (Zimmermann).

The titles continue to be the expected Sonata, Divertimento, and Trio or Terzetto. Suite and Partita, however, are used only once, while Concerto is used to indicate the relationship among the various parts (i.e., at least one of the voices in addition to the keyboard is obligatory and operates as a full partner). Although Concertino is reserved primarily for settings with three or more accompanying parts, the term may indicate a chamber rather than orchestral setting (i.e., concertino vs. ripieno, solo vs. orchestra) and/or a miniature concerto if the movement sequence is Fast-Slow-Fast.

In contrast to the solo repertoire, the accompanied works contain few vestiges of the suite; only one by Johann Christoph Monn conforms to the older type with more than four movements (Fast–Slow–Ballet with Variations–Minuet and Trio–Fast). Besides nine cycles of Fast-Slow–Fast; three of Fast (Moderate)-Slow–Minuet and Trio, eight of Fast-Slow-Tempo di Menuet, six of Fast-Slow-Minuet and Trio-Fast, and two of Fast-Minuet and Trio-Fast, others less prevalent in early solo keyboard music come to the fore. There are ten instances of two movements consisting of Moderate, Slow, or Fast followed by a minuet and trio or a Tempo di Menuet; and a number of three-and four-movement orderings: one consists of Moderate–Slower–Fast, one of Slow–Fast–Moderate/Fast, three of Fast-Slow–Moderate to Slow in Variation form, two of Slow–Fast–Variations, and one of Moderate/Fast-Fast-Minuet and Trio-Fast. The two-and three-movement cycles provide a model for keyboard trios during the last two decades of the century.⁴⁸

Before 1780 Haydn composed thirteen or more keyboard trios and possibly more than a dozen accompanied keyboard divertimentos/concertinos with two violins and bass, making him the most productive composer of accompanied keyboard music in Vienna during the mid-century period. However, his output is more restricted in terms of setting, as he composed only two works with an accompaniment other than violin and cello or two violins and bass: a keyboard trio with a pair of horns (Hob. XIV: 1) and a lost work adding a baryton to his normal accompanied divertimento setting (Hob. XIV: 2).

The exceptional structures and movement typologies in Haydn’s trios can also be found in the compositions of his contemporaries. Hob. XV: 33, today known only by its incipits, is the only accompanied setting to hark back to the older suite; of similar ancestry is a work by his contemporary Christoph Monn (Fischer No. 103). Hob. XV: 36 and Hob. XV:C1 are Haydn’s only trios with two dance movements—containing a polonaise and a fast minuet and two minuets respectively; these trios bring to mind Wagenseil’s solo divertimentos. In contrast, Hob. XV: 37, with its Slow–Fast–Minuet sequence, belongs to the tradition of the Viennese da chiesa trio sonata. Single movements also relate to established types and styles: the Capriccio of Hob. XV: 35/1, the French Overture rhythms of Hob. XV: 1/1, the elaborately ornamented slow movements of Hob. XV: 33 and 41, and the slow finales in variation form of Hob. XV: 2 and C1. The first three seem to find their origins in the Viennese solo rather than in the accompanied repertoire; Fillion has shown that Hob. XV: 1 may be modeled on Wagenseil’s G-minor solo Divertimento WWV 58.⁴⁹ The slow finales in variation form are also present in accompanied works by both Vanhal and Zimmermann.

In terms of texture, Haydn’s early accompanied works—like those of his contemporaries—share small motives among the various instruments. In Haydn’s trios, however, the primary material is always presented first by the right hand of the keyboard and then by the violin; his contemporaries are more likely to begin with the violin and follow with the keyboard.⁵⁰ The upper two voices (i.e., the right hand of the keyboard and the violin) of the trio setting also act as they might in a trio sonata, with the left hand and the bass part maintaining a Baroque role.

Thus, Haydn’s early accompanied keyboard sonatas derived a great deal from his contemporaries. With the exception of his limited settings (i.e., keyboard and strings a due and a tre), his works are a reflection of Viennese trends in general during the 1750s and 1760s. Even though the entire issue of Priorität in terms of the invention of a genre is a risky one, Haydn probably played as vital a role in the development of accompanied keyboard music as he did in the primal stages of the modern string quartet and symphony. His contributions to the accompanied keyboard genres differ only in the consistency with which they were cultivated: no original keyboard trios were composed from ca. 1765 to ca. 1783, and he may have ceased writing accompanied divertimentos and concertinos during the 1770s or early 1780s, if not earlier.

Concertos

Although there has been a tendency to trace the origins of the keyboard concerto to J. S. Bach, whose two sons disseminated the tradition in North Germany and England, that assumption is falsely grounded. The elder Bach’s model was the Italian violin concerto.⁵¹ To view the Viennese product as an outgrowth of events in Weimar, Cothen, and Leipzig is clearly unacceptable, for a similar cultural environment existed at the Imperial court. During the first half of the eighteenth century and even earlier, Vienna was saturated with Italian composers, performers, and, presumably, concertos; certainly, the keyboard concertos of the elder Monn or Wagenseil could have been composed independently of any North German influence.⁵² M. G. Monn died in 1750, so his concertos pre-date the mid-century mark, as do—most probably—the first concertos of Wagenseil, who had been employed since March 1741 as organist in the chapel of Elisabeth Christine, the widow of Karl VI. Yet before 1750 only foreign concertos by Leffloth and Platti were advertised in the Wienerisches Diarium,⁵³ and even after that date relatively few by the Bach sons and other North Germans appear.

The assumption that the keyboard concerto in Vienna was a small work, scored for two violins and bass, infused with the “divertimento spirit,” and of little consequence⁵⁴ does not stand the test of a survey of the works themselves. The scoring of the Viennese concerto probably has a greater variety of and interest in color than its North German counterpart, even if all of Mozart’s contributions are eliminated. Not uncommon are scorings for three-and four-part strings and for strings with winds and timpani—including flutes, oboes, horns, and clarini. There are even works in which the keyboard is pitted against soloists within the orchestra, such as the concertos by Leopold Hofmann with a solo oboe and obligatory horn parts and those by Steffan and by Wagenseil that feature a solo violin in the slow movement. Furthermore, the dimensions of the Viennese concerto seem to be appreciably larger than the qualifier “divertimento spirit” might allow. Before the 1780s there were clearly two places where concertos were used: in church, where the individual movements became interludes and substitutions for various portions of the Mass proper;⁵⁵ and at court, where the Imperial family played them for amusement in their chambers. It is no wonder that the keyboard concertos that come down to us resulted mainly from an ecclesiastical and/or court appointment.

For sources and repertoire, the most important collection is Anthology Imperial. In addition, the Wienerisches Diarium advertised sixteen works by 1780,⁵⁶ and by the late 1790s, Traeg was offering about 150 keyboard concertos. As final evidence of the independent Viennese development of this genre, the concertos offered by Traeg are more confined to works by Viennese residents than are those for solo keyboard.

NATIVE VIENNESE COMPOSERS

M. G. Monn to L. Hofmann. Possibly the earliest Viennese keyboard concertos are by M. G. Monn to whom seven works (Fischer Nos. 35, 36, 40–44) have been attributed without question.⁵⁷ All are strongly oriented toward a Baroque style in their beat marking, surface rhythmic homogeneity, fast harmonic rhythm, spun-out melodies, and motivic play. In addition, the first movements are in ritornello form with four or five tuttis and three or four solos; the structural downbeat and thematic correspondence among the sections required for a recapitulation are generally absent; and the tonic often does not return until the final statement of the ritornello. Their overall structure thus essentially conforms to the Baroque stereotype. On the other hand, the opening ritornello/tutti is frequently a strongly articulated three-section affair, underlined by contrasts in dynamics and texture.⁵⁸

Most of the slow movements have a cantilena texture, the Adagio of the C-major Concerto (Fischer No. 35) being one of the more elaborate melodically. Three are ritornello forms but with only three tuttis, and their total effect is very close to a binary structure. Fischer No. 35 begins with the solo; and the slow movement of the E-flat major Concerto (Fischer No. 44) is basically a solo sonata movement in binary form. The finales are of four types: two are 3/4 Allegros characterized by rhythmic drive;⁵⁹ two are 3/8 Presto or Allegro; one is a 3/8 Tempo di Menuetto; and two are fast movements in 2/4 in the style of sonata finales sometimes titled “scherzo.” The ritornello structure again predominates.⁶⁰

Unfortunately, the concertos of Wenzel Raimond Birck, a possibly significant link from the old to the new, are no longer extant. They must have been distributed rather widely, for the Breitkopf catalogue lists three with an accompaniment for strings a quattro in 1763, 1767, and 1775.⁶¹

While it is highly probable that Haydn was acquainted with Matthias Georg Monn’s works, Haydn’s associations with Georg Reutter d.J. carry authentic documentation. His keyboard concertos in F major and C major, which survive undated in copies at the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, are scored for two violins and bass and seem to be intended for the harpsichord, as their highest tone is d’”. Reutter’s concertos have a more progressive musical syntax than Monn’s, but their harmonic language is less colorful. One of Reutter’s slow movements is remarkable for its similarity to the slow movements in Haydn’s early solo Sonatas Hob. XVI: 1 and 6 (Example VI-10). Both finales are ritornello forms enclosed by repeats.

EXAMPLE VI–10. Reutter, Concerto in C Major/2 (A-Wgm 16286), mm. 1–8.

The most prolific producer of keyboard concertos during the mid-century period was, once again, Georg Christoph Wagenseil. His output numbers more than eighty works for one and two keyboards with orchestra. Of those for which data are available, sixty-three are scored for strings a tre and eight for strings a quattro; ⁶² the remaining dozen or so require from one to three pairs of wind instruments in addition. The emphasis on strings may reflect the fact that these works were for the most part composed for the entertainment of the Imperial family. In this capacity, many are in the modern sense on the border of chamber music; it is not known if the strings were played by more than one performer to a part. Those with larger and more diverse scorings were perhaps for special occasions, the chapel, or even a private concertlike environment.⁶³

It was shown above that Wagenseil held a crucial position in the transition from suitelike cycles to the more modern sonata in the solo keyboard works. Here he can be given a place of importance in the development of a new type of concerto. However, for the concertos it is not a change that affects the formation of the cycle— they are all in a Fast–Slow–Fast sequence—but rather the structure of the individual movements: the first movements can be seen to evolve from a form strictly governed by the ritornello principle to one that more consistently reflects its synthesis with sonata form. Since in the older structure the initial material did not return in the tonic key until the final tutti, the presence of a recapitulation before the final tutti-ritornello, i.e., during the penultimate tutti and/or final solo, is crucial to this synthesis. Only one of the first movements of the authentic concertos by M. G. Monn has a recapitulation, while of the available sample of twenty-five first movements in ritornello form by Wagenseil,⁶⁴ twenty-two have a recapitulation before the final tutti.

Most of the middle movements employ highly embellished melodies in a cantilena texture. One might expect a binary or small ritornello form with one or two solo sections, but that is not the case: Wagenseil again uses the large ritornello structure of the first movement with a recapitulatory downbeat combining theme and key in the area of the penultimate ritornello and final solo. Most of the binary movements are from smaller works whose first movements were derived from or possibly based on a solo divertimento.

All but two of Wagenseil’s finales from the sample of twenty-five are in triple meter (3/4 or 3/8), and more than a third are in Tempo di Menuet. In contrast to the previous movements, binary form with indicated repetitions is the only structure encountered. As happens in the first movements using this framework, a ritornello or tutti/solo plan is interpolated. A shape in which the binary frame is preceded by a tutti section, e.g., in WWV 283

held special interest for the next generation of Viennese composers.⁶⁵

Wagenseil’s student Leopold Hofmann composed many more concertos than solo divertimentos/sonatas; according to Jan LaRue, he produced more than thirty keyboard concertos.⁶⁶ Although in the concertos his musical ideas do not differ appreciably in quality or interest from those of his mentor Wagenseil, Hofmann used the structures in different ways. Within a sample of seventeen available works,⁶⁷ nine first movements use a binary frame for the ritornello, with two of them—as in WWV 283—preceded by a ritornello. Perhaps all nine are based on solo divertimentos/sonatas now lost, even though only one of the known solo divertimentos can be matched to them. Hofmann almost always made use of a recapitulatory form, but—unlike Wagenseil—usually commenced the reprise with the penultimate tutti not the final solo, thereby strengthening its effect. In some of these recapitulations the tutti is followed immediately by the solo restatement of the initial material, while in a few others the solo continues the phrase of the tutti—a device reminiscent of some Mozart concertos in which the keyboard emerges out of the orchestral beginning in the recapitulation.

Although Hofmann’s slow movements are also mostly cantilenas, their tonalities depart from a mid-century orientation in that the major mode is preferred.⁶⁸ Ritornellos now account for nearly two-thirds of the structures and tend to be less strongly articulated.

The majority of the finales are of a very fast tempo in 2/4, 3/8, or 3/4, but more than a third are still in the aristocratic Tempo di Menuets. One of the most interesting aspects of the fourteen movements in binary form is the syntactical relationship of the opening tutti to the subsequent solo: here the tutti ends in a half cadence followed by the solo commencing with the same material, thereby effecting an antecedent-consequent statement.⁶⁹ For the first time there is a finale in the form of theme with variations, a structure enhanced by its scoring with concertante oboe.

An even more profilic composer of keyboard concertos after Wagenseil’s generation was Joseph Anton Steffan, to whom forty-two are attributed.⁷⁰ A few of his late concertos (after ca. 1789?) have received some attention because of their explicit indications for the fortepiano, lengthy slow introductions, and flexible rhythmic/improvisatory style, but the early works have had little study. Even from the seven available early Steffan concertos⁷¹ it is clear that during the 1760s recapitulatory ritornello forms, as well as binary frames preceded by a ritornello, were already an established Viennese tradition.

Haydn and the Viennese Tradition. The position of Haydn’s concertos within the Viennese environment is considerably different from that of his solo and accompanied works. While Haydn seems to have been a major contributor to these other mediums and their development, the keyboard concerto was of real interest to him only before his employment by the Esterhazys in 1761. Because of his lack of interest, it is one of the few genres in which Haydn failed to develop a personal style.

Rather than being innovative, Haydn’s early concertos fit well within the tradition of his Viennese colleagues. If the setting is genuine, Hob. XVIII: 7—an arrangement of Hob. XV: 40—recalls procedures of transcription and arrangement found in Wagenseil and Hofmann. Although the process in the examples not by Haydn is closer to a transcription than a total reworking, Hob. XVIII: 7 and 10 probably belong to a wider tradition that will be further elucidated once a tighter bibliographic control of both the solo sonata and the concerto is achieved. Perhaps also deriving from this heritage of transcriptions and arrangements is the structure that imbeds the tutti/solo of the ritornello principle into a binary frame. Within the first movements in ritornello form, Haydn often used the Viennese recapitulatory practices, discussed above, with regard to the placement of the structural downbeat and the synthesis of recapitulatory function with ritornello in the penultimate tutti and final solo. In addition, one can cite the similar cantilena slow movements and the use of binary/ritornello forms for finales. Haydn’s concertos differ from those of his Viennese contemporaries in that they tend to be less virtuosic and to contain fewer measures of empty figuration.

In the Viennese keyboard tradition and repertoire Haydn’s output was decisive in the areas of the keyboard trio and the solo sonata. Haydn was the central figure in the early propagation of the keyboard trios; later he established the piano trio as a primary genre of the Classic style. In his solo sonatas, Haydn transformed the Wagenseil divertimento from a suitelike genre of little consequence to the elevated sonatas of late Classicism. In the course of this process during the 1760s, Haydn expanded not only their depth of expression but also their length, formal complexity, harmonic language, and keyboard idiom to the extent that the divertimentos of Wagenseil and his students seem unlikely ancestors.