Texture
The treatment of texture in symphonic music between 1750 and 1900 evolved from the
clarity and balance of the Classical style to the complex, multi-layered soundscapes of
the Romantic period. Composers increasingly exploited contrasts of density, orchestral
colour, and contrapuntal techniques, using texture not only to articulate form but also
to convey emotion and character.
In the early Classical period, texture was typically melody dominated homophony, with
clear melodic lines supported by harmonic accompaniment. Stamitz’s Symphony in D
major, Op. 3 No. 2 demonstrates this: melodies are presented by the strings with simple
harmonic backing, while wind instruments occasionally double or decorate the texture.
This clarity allows for immediate accessibility and formal balance typical of the gallant
style of the period idealised at the Manheim court where this piece was composed. C. P.
E. Bach, however, began to experiment with more flexible textures in his symphonies,
introducing sudden contrasts between soloistic and full orchestral passages, or layering
melodies and accompaniments to heighten expressive tension, this time due to the
style of Emfindamer Stil which dominated his writing. This fitted perfectly with what his
patron Baron Gottfield Van Swieten desired from this private, new and diverse
orchestral music.
Haydn expanded texture both orchestrally and contrapuntally. In Symphony No. 31,
Haydn opens with a military style solo horn fanfare as this is his hornsignal symphony to
make use of the new four horns at the Esterházy court. These add a warmth and
richness to the texture. Haydn also shows early examples of complex textural contrast
through introducing antiphonal writing later in the work to reflect choral works of the
time. One of Haydn’s preferred techniques in symphonic writing was using rapid semi-
quaver passages in the strings to create textured layers of sound, and this is particularly
prominent in his 88th Symphony during his more mature period at the Esterházy court. In
Symphony No. 104, Haydn integrates contrapuntal techniques within a classical
framework, being principally melody dominated homophony as was tradition during the
period and would have appealed to the London audience it was premiered to. However,
there are some examples of antiphony in movement two between the instruments and
motif x. These shifts in texture enhance interest and highlight structural moments,
showing how texture could contribute to both clarity and drama.
Mozart balanced homophonic clarity with occasional contrapuntal complexity. In
Symphony No. 41, the finale employs fugal passages layered over orchestral
accompaniment, combining the elegance of Classical harmony with Baroque
counterpoint. Elsewhere, Mozart’s use of texture includes dynamic layering, such as
dialogue between strings and winds, which adds both richness and variety without
compromising formal clarity. This was written on his own terms without a patron,
showing how a lack of control could lead to breaks from standard texture.
The treatment of texture in symphonic music between 1750 and 1900 evolved from the
clarity and balance of the Classical style to the complex, multi-layered soundscapes of
the Romantic period. Composers increasingly exploited contrasts of density, orchestral
colour, and contrapuntal techniques, using texture not only to articulate form but also
to convey emotion and character.
In the early Classical period, texture was typically melody dominated homophony, with
clear melodic lines supported by harmonic accompaniment. Stamitz’s Symphony in D
major, Op. 3 No. 2 demonstrates this: melodies are presented by the strings with simple
harmonic backing, while wind instruments occasionally double or decorate the texture.
This clarity allows for immediate accessibility and formal balance typical of the gallant
style of the period idealised at the Manheim court where this piece was composed. C. P.
E. Bach, however, began to experiment with more flexible textures in his symphonies,
introducing sudden contrasts between soloistic and full orchestral passages, or layering
melodies and accompaniments to heighten expressive tension, this time due to the
style of Emfindamer Stil which dominated his writing. This fitted perfectly with what his
patron Baron Gottfield Van Swieten desired from this private, new and diverse
orchestral music.
Haydn expanded texture both orchestrally and contrapuntally. In Symphony No. 31,
Haydn opens with a military style solo horn fanfare as this is his hornsignal symphony to
make use of the new four horns at the Esterházy court. These add a warmth and
richness to the texture. Haydn also shows early examples of complex textural contrast
through introducing antiphonal writing later in the work to reflect choral works of the
time. One of Haydn’s preferred techniques in symphonic writing was using rapid semi-
quaver passages in the strings to create textured layers of sound, and this is particularly
prominent in his 88th Symphony during his more mature period at the Esterházy court. In
Symphony No. 104, Haydn integrates contrapuntal techniques within a classical
framework, being principally melody dominated homophony as was tradition during the
period and would have appealed to the London audience it was premiered to. However,
there are some examples of antiphony in movement two between the instruments and
motif x. These shifts in texture enhance interest and highlight structural moments,
showing how texture could contribute to both clarity and drama.
Mozart balanced homophonic clarity with occasional contrapuntal complexity. In
Symphony No. 41, the finale employs fugal passages layered over orchestral
accompaniment, combining the elegance of Classical harmony with Baroque
counterpoint. Elsewhere, Mozart’s use of texture includes dynamic layering, such as
dialogue between strings and winds, which adds both richness and variety without
compromising formal clarity. This was written on his own terms without a patron,
showing how a lack of control could lead to breaks from standard texture.
