Leopold Mozart and his Son's Reputation

[robert newman]

Peter asks -

'How many works did Haydn and Mozart actually claim themselves to have written ? How many of them did they list in their own inventories, and how many of them did they have published ? I would also like to know how you (Robert) can say Luchesi should be seen as a great composer and then admit that your theory hasn't yet been proved'.

Well, Peter, it seems Joseph Haydn had absolutely no idea how many works he had written. Time after time during his career he admits that a particular work that has become popular is not familiar to him - but this strange admission is excused as being evidence of just how busy he was. We have a fairly typical situation in 1783 where one music collector in Bonn records that he now has in his collection no less than 90 Haydn symphonies, for example. And situations where Haydn himself is so confused about his own supposed compositions that he is forced to get copies of the works made (quickly) in his own handwriting so as to conceal the awful truth. (This definitely occurred with dozens of symphonies in his later years at Esterhazy, for example). The same is again true of many 'Haydn' Masses. So, as far as Haydn is concerned the situation has always been one of great confusion despite claims to the contrary. Even today, Haydn scholars cannot agree as to which index of Haydn works has most authority - that of Kees or the several that have been offered over the past 200 years or so (all of which contradict one another in many, many places). It is not even agreed which symphony was first written by Haydn and he himself was unable to answer this. (One could go on and on with such basic facts).

In respect of Mozart, well, the Koechel list (which is at least widely regarded as authoritative) did not appear in its 1st edition until many decades after Mozart's death (71 years, in fact). This Koechel list, far from being accurate, is, in fact, far from being so in many respects. Bear in mind too that earlier attempts (by people like Abbe Maximilian Stadler/Nissen/Constanze Mozart etc) were even worse in often crediting Mozart with works that, frankly, had little or nothing to do with Mozart.

So in answer to your question, it is today regarded as 'fact' that Mozart wrote those works which are given in the current Koechel edition - i.e. some 626 works, these listed chronologically from K1 to K626.

Unfortunate, or course, that K1 is actually NOT by Mozart and that K626 ('Mozart's' supposed Requiem) was itself dismissed early by various musicians (including the great German musicologist Gottfried Weber) as being a forgery.

But, in simple terms, students of Mozart hold to the view that during Mozart's lifetime there were two real records of Mozart's works - the first of these being a list of Wolfgang's compositions drawn up by none other than Leopold, his father, in 1768 which contained (so it was claimed) a true record of the young composers works made thus far - i.e. at the age of 12.

But here too the Mozart 'industry' seems to run on rules that are hardly consistent. We know for a certain fact that in the very first edition of Koechel (and this a fairly typical example) K18 is an E Flat symphony said to have been written by Wolfgang. Yet this work is actually NOT by Mozart but instead by Johann Christian Bach - his Symphony Op.7 No.6

Similarly, there are works listed in Koechel (i.e. works which are supposedly authentic Mozart) which are simply not his. Take K1, for example. One could continue on and on with this in simply listing the many works supposedly by Mozart written by him before he was 12 years old that are, in fact, NOT by Mozart. Many of them nevertheless remain, today, still in modern versions (the 6th and 7th editions) despite this fact !

We have too many evidences of works being in Koechel which are today said to have been written by Mozart in 'collaboration' with other composers, including a whole series of other early works. We have symphonies, quartets, church works, keyboard works etc. etc. which (had it not been Mozart of whom we were speaking) could surely not have survived till today in being credited as works by 'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart'.

Somebody suggested that contributors to MozartForum would do well to comment on these matters here. (My reply is 'fine ! - let them do so - and will we not see what is true ?)

But I want to emphasise the murky nature of this rise to fame of Mozart at the hands of his father. It was of course Leopold's guidance and example that shaped much of what was to come. Let's look next at Mozart in 1768. Surely, if Wolfgang had indeed arrived in Vienna that year with his father as a young musical genius (one who had toured successfully to the astonishment of all Europe) we would hardly expect Leopold to record as he does that year of the reaction of the Viennese -

'They (the people here in Vienna) avoid most carefully every occasion of seeing us and of admitting to Wolfgang's skill, so that on the many occasions on which they might be asked whether they have heard this boy and what they thought of him, they could always say that they had not heard him and that it could not possibly be true - that it was all humbug and foolishness - that it was all pre-arranged - that Wolfgang was given music which he already knew - that it was ridiculous ....'
(Leopold Mozart, Vienna, 1768 - writing on the reaction to the Viennese musicians about Wolfgang, his son).

Well, of course this was nothing more than evidence of 'jealousy' - and so says his father, of course. This is of course the point at where the neutral judge must agree that the young Mozart is not merely a remarkable circus performer on keyboard but is, in fact, a remarkable composer. And it's THIS aspect, I suggest, that is all too often forgotten.

In January of that same year Leopold (now used to creating a sensation with Wolfgang at the keyboard) decides that his son is now old enough to take on Vienna. He seeks and gets several audiences with the Emperor, Leopold 2nd. He is rewarded for his persistancy and assures that Emperor that Wolfgang can certainly write an opera. Father and son are now asked to contact the Vienna Theatre Director, Giuseppe Affligio (1722-1788) with a view to Wolfgang writing 'La Finta Semplice'. The fee for this work to be 100 ducats.

Leopold is delighted and the two now see Affligio.

(Affligio had the year before been given a 10 year contract to oversee the two largest theatres in Vienna).

Affligio learns that the commission is for 'La Finta Semplice - an opera that had already been staged in Venice in 1764 by the composer Salvatore Perillo. Thus, Mozart is to use the same text (or one based on the same text) for his own version.

Leopold and Wolfgang return to Salzburg and work begins on the piece by late January/early February of that same year, 1768. In March Leopold writes that composition is going well. And by June the score of this opera by his son is now complete. (It consists of some 558 pages of music).

Father and son now return to Vienna and present the work to Affligio so that rehearsals can begin.

But there is now a major problem. Affligio (who obviously stands to benefit if the opera is performed) is convinced that this work is NOT by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He dares to say so. In fact Affligio (saying much the same as other musicians in Vienna) tells Leopold that this opera has been 'ghost written' and was certainly NOT the product of the 12 year old boy. Leopold is deeply offended by this. But now the orchestra and the singers themselves (who have worked with the boy Mozart for a few days on the piece) agree with Affligio - the work is definitely NOT by Wolfgang.

What happens next ? Well, Leopold now writes at length to the Emperor and Empress (the latter being specially keen to hear the piece and enclosing with his letter a long list of compositions already written by his son. (It's this list which is the first attempted inventory of 'Mozart' thus far).

But the Emperor, despite having commissioned the work, now decides that there are sufficient reasons to abandon the whole venture. La Finta Semplice is NOT staged and the Mozart's return home to Salzburg without any payment.

As for Affligio, he continues working in Vienna as per his contract but starts to lose money. In a few more years he is obliged to transfer control of the theatres to a nobleman, Count Kohary. And, most remarkably, in 1778 Affligio is now arrested. (Mozart at this time is now 22 years old). The charge ?
That of forgery. And the following year (1779) he is condemned to life imprisonment to the island of Elba - the island where, 9 years later, this same Affligio dies.

I mention this remarkable story to illustrate that time after time things occur in the life and career of Mozart which would, if we were not here discussing Mozart, give us grounds to doubt the accepted version of his life and works. One could give dozens of examples. In my honest opinion Leopold's own Jesuit education made him a quite audacious 'manager' of the young Mozart and, I suggest, a person who was both willing and able to manufacture certain truths if those suited him. In later years (even after Mozart's death) the myth of Mozart's life and career would be much embellished as would the supposed inventories of his works. By 1784 the mature Mozart was in Vienna writing his own thematic catalogue of his 'own' works. This thematic catalogue is today under scrutiny as never before. And with good reason. It too contradicts many other lines of evidence.

Mozart wrote many wonderful things. Of this there is in my view no doubt at all. But his actual achievements (particularly in symphonic and other material) may be far less than many are prepared to accept.


Robert

[Hofrat]

Dear Robert;

Thank you very much for sharing this with us. It is truly remarkable.

I believe that Wolfgang, at one point of his life, started to catalog his own works.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

Yes, the thematic catalogue started by Mozart in 1784. But even this has very real problems. Firstly, it was began several years after Mozart had already settled in Vienna. Why 1784 and not years earlier ? Secondly, there are many works today found in Koechel which are not even listed in Mozart's own catalogue. Thirdly, there are many cases where dates given for works in his thematic catalogue differ either with dates on the manuscripts themselves or with dates associated with their known first performance. And still other cases where it must be asked whether Mozart claiming authorship of a given piece (by writing it out in manuscript form and adding its incipit to his thematic catalogue) is, itself, sufficient evidence to credit Mozart with being its true composer.

It is surely no coincidence that this same year (1784) is the one where Mozart's hopes were dashed to become Kapellmeister at Bonn - a post promised repeatedly to him by the new Elector Max Franz (a man who was the same age as him and who had association with him ever since they were boys). It is also in 1784 (since we must be sometimes hard in emphasing the truth) that Mozart's musical productions take a sudden qualitative leap that is truly amazing. Let me give just a few examples.

Consider if you will the symphonies supposedly composed before 1784. Which of them will we say is of the same quality/standard as, say, the 'Linz' (36), the 'Prague', 39, 40 or 41 ? Which opera prior to this same year would we rank alongside 'Figaro', 'Don Giovanni', 'Cosi fan Tutte', 'Die Zauberflote' etc etc ? Which piano concerto ?

1784 (I suggest) is the year in which Mozart, thwarted in his ambition to get the post at Bonn, made a conscious decision to take advantage of the offer of manuscripts being regularly offered to him by other sources. These he took, orchestrated and called his very own - and he did this over and over again as his father had done in his childhood.

I do not, for a moment, deny that Mozart's ability to bring out the best of any piece of music by orchestrating it or modifying it, was superior to virtually all other musicians of that time or any other. But there are a hundred reasons to argue that this is what started to happen on a large scale from 1784 onwards in his case.

This will of course infuriate Mozart purists (and it has done so often enough already). But as someone keen to get to the heart of Mozart the 'real' person I'm as sure of this now as I have ever been. And I'm not alone in saying that this view is far more credible than its critics suppose.

This 'sanitising' of Mozart at virtually every stage of his entire musical career is almost unprecedented and focusing on it here is not, I think, too much in view of the myth that sustains the industry that is 'Mozart' today.

The music itself is sublime and always will be. But Mozart the man (and here I am so interested biographically) seems to me a quite different person than the one so often assumed. A genius, no doubt. But one who was groomed, protected, and even abused before he was dumped in his final years.

I do not think that anyone can spend time studying this man and his music without loving him - even if loving him means that his supposed achievements are questioned. One must do more than rehash old myths.

Rgds

Robert

[Kalimac]

With these theories there are many problems, of which here are a few.

First, we must distinguish between the works known to be falsely attributed to Mozart in the original Koechel catalog and any further questionings of Mozart's works. Examples like K.18 have long since been corrected, moved out of the Koechel main listing decades ago, and are never included in collections of complete Mozart. It, or others like it (K.17 is another symphony in the same category), were not originally added for being in Leopold's catalog of his son's works - indeed, I believe they were not in that catalog, though I am open to correction on this. They were originally added by Mozart's posthumous publisher, who found copies of them in Mozart's handwriting among his papers and assumed they were his works. In fact, they and other works like them were by Mozart's father and other teachers, which he had copied out because copying out works note-by-note is how you learned to compose in those days before textbooks. (Mr. Newman is incorrect in stating that K.18 is J.C. Bach's Op. 7 No. 6 - according to the catalogs I have here, Op. 7 No. 6 is a keyboard concerto in G, and K.18 is by K.F. Abel, confirmed by Neal Zaslaw, the leading authority on Mozart's symphonies.)

Cases like these were dropped from Mozart's catalog long ago because of obvious stylistic discrepancies from what Mozart was otherwise known to be capable of writing at the time. Any larger-scale claims that Mozart's works surpassed his abilities - such as Mr. Newman's claim of a suspicious jump in Mozart's compositional abilities in 1784 - would require discarding even the bases against which we judge questionable works. Indeed, if it is to be claimed that the superlative genius of post-1784 Mozart means that he did not write the works, we are still left with the question of finding the superlative genius who did and wondering where he came from, for despite Mr. Newman's incredulity I would claim that such earlier symphonies as K.183, K.201, and K.425 are themselves works of genius that are clear steps on the way to K.504 ff, and that if the (still young, still maturing) Mozart could not have written the later masterworks, nobody else known to us could have, either.

We are also faced with the problem, if we accept Mr. Newman's thesis on post-1784 Mozart but accepting his earlier works, of discarding the entirety of Mozart's later oeuvre, for which later works of Mozart's would one claim are not up to the standards of the rest?

Besides misleadingly conflating the K.18-type cases with the question of the catalog, Mr. Newman also misleadingly conflates it with questions about the Requiem K.626 - a work with much exterior documentation establishing Mozart's authorship - and K.1 - a simple piano piece that Mozart could have written if he could have written any of his early works at all. Mr. Newman fails to make clear that the orthodox dismissal of K.18 does not extend to K.626 nor - according to the catalogs I have here - K.1 either.

This is important, because it does not follow - though Mr. Newman and his master Taboga would like you to think that it does - that one false attribution which scholars easily uncovered means that other, securer attributions are equally false. In cases like K.18 there was no fraud intended. For the other works to be false there must have been massive fraud, all of the evidence for which is purely speculative.

In the case of Haydn, he maintained that the symphony now known as No. 1 was his first - that is why Mandyczewski and Hoboken gave it that number. Scholars have suspected that he remembered incorrectly and that No. 37 was earlier, but if every faulty memory by an old man is taken as evidence of fraud, there is an improbably great amount of fraud in the world.

There are still a few early Mozart symphonies that we're not entirely sure if they're canonical or not, but there is no such doubt with Haydn. He left very clear records - Mr. Newman's implication that he did not is very misleading - and a definitive list was established in the early 20th century and never subtracted from. True enough that a vast number of symphonies - about 150 - not by Haydn were circulated with his name on them in his lifetime, trying to capitalize on his fame, but this fraud was not perpetrated by Haydn himself, and the false works were very easily disposed of, partly for stylistic reasons and partly for clear, obvious documentary evidence of other authorship.

It should also be remembered that Haydn was hardly unique in this regard. Hundreds of classical symphonies exist in multiple copies with differing names on them. Sorting them out has been a major task of scholarship, and much work has been done on this, starting with a massive catalog of manuscript sources to find the duplicates. Dozens, at least, of composers' names are involved. This is just capitalization, not massive conspiratorial fraud. Any charges of fraud such as those brought here would exist on an entirely different level, and no accepted cases of misattribution provide a precedent for such an enormity. That does not prove the charge wrong, but it does mean that the evidence offered here has no bearing on the case.

[Kalimac]

I must offer a small correction to my earlier post. Mr. Newman does say that K.1 is still listed as by Mozart in the latest catalogs.

But the main point still remains. Orthodox scholarship unanimously agrees that K.18 is not by Mozart; even Koechel was doubtful about some of the works in that category. But Mr. Newman goes on to say, just as categorically, that K.1 is not by Mozart. But this is not agreed by scholarship; instead, it is one of the controversial assertions that he wishes to prove.

Thus we have here entirely speculative guesses presented as fact, on the same basis as generally agreed facts.

[Hofrat]

Dear forum members;

Allow me to quote an interview with Dr. Allan Badley, a renown musicologist and expert on 18th century music:


"Establishing authenticity is one of the biggest problems in 18th-century music given the paucity of autograph material and authentic copies. Scholars are generally agreed upon how best to proceed in terms of establishing a hierarchy of reliability of sources, and yet all too often we find that a work – often an important work – survives in a single copy of unknown provenance in spite of our best efforts to identify contemporary professional copyists and paper types. Once one is reduced to deciding a work’s authenticity on stylistic grounds (i.e. on internal evidence), the picture becomes even more confused. The American scholar James Webster once pointed out that to decide a work’s authenticity on stylistic grounds means having to prove that no other composer could possibly have written it. This is a tough ask, particularly when dealing with secondary figures about whom we know comparatively little. To illustrate how problematic this can be, we need only consider the case of the Haydn D major Cello Concerto. For many years it was believed that this work may have been composed by Haydn’s principal cellist, Anton Kraft. Examined from every stylistic point imaginable the work just didn’t seem to be convincing as Haydn ... until one day Haydn’s signed-and-dated autograph score was discovered in the cellars of the Austrian National Library! Very often, though, there is no alternative but to make a judgement call based on style, and one relies almost as much on gut instinct as on a detailed knowledge of the composer’s style. Most scholars have made mistakes, and as we learn more I dare say more of these mistakes will come to light. It is very frustrating, though, to see works still being performed under the wrong composer’s name after the question of authenticity has been settled. One of Leopold Hofmann’s Flute Concertos is still frequently offered as a Haydn work over 70 years after the misattribution was first discovered."


I hope that sheds light on some of the points brought up by members of the forum.

Hofrat

[Hofrat]

Dear forum members;

Dr. Badley continues it the same interview:


"The selections made by history generally have been pretty much on the mark. However, the obscurity of many 18th- and early 19th-century composers is undeserved. A number of these figures were composers of enormous vitality and imagination and their later obscurity owes much to the fact that there was no conception of a classical canon until comparatively recently. It is only in the past few decades that any serious work has been done on the so-called secondary figures (Haydn’s symphonies – one of the cornerstones of the classical repertory – were not published in their entirety until the 1960s). Only now – and as a consequence of the kind of work I have been doing for so long – are we beginning to realise the extraordinary riches to be found in this missing tradition, and with this comes a curious paradox: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven emerge as less original than first thought and yet at the same time incomparably greater since the music of their most talented contemporaries was so good. Nothing we discover will upset the essential rightness of placing these composers at the top of the heap, but context will change everything. I’m also convinced that the day is not too far off when it will not be heretical to say that a good symphony by Wanhal is better than a weak symphony by Haydn and that Joseph Martin Kraus wrote far more interesting sonatas than Mozart. As a result, the classical canon and all of our musical lives will be enriched and the current ossification of classical music may be reversed."


I hope that helps!!

Hofrat

[Peter]

I'm sorry to close the thread, but I'd rather we kept this debate in the main Beethoven early years in Bonn thread - When that reaches around 5 pages, we'll close that as well and then open a new thread for discussion on this interesting topic to continue!

------------------
'Man know thyself'