JM Kraus - Symphonies

[robert newman]

There are only two possibilities - either Kraus wrote this march first or Mozart did.

You assume Mozart did. So do most other people. But it could be the other way round. There is no real fact to contradict such a possibility.

I will check the manuscript to see if the march exists in any form other than the full score. If it does not then it must realistically have been written only weeks before the premiere. For Mozart expressly says at that time that he has not yet written the score.

This would certainly explain why Kraus does not mention Mozart at all in 1789 - it was never Mozart's march in the first place.

There is too the possibility that the march was only added to the Vienna arrangement of 1786. That too must be considered.

So, on balance, I don't think this is quite as ridiculous as you seem to be suggesting.

It's not until these basic assumptions are questioned that the chance increases of there being a solution.

Rgds

Robert

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:


There are only two possibilities - either Kraus wrote this march first or Mozart did.

You assume Mozart did. So do most other people. But it could be the other way round. There is no real fact to contradict such a possibility.

I will check the manuscript to see if the march exists in any form other than the full score. If it does not then it must realistically have been written only weeks before the premiere. For Mozart expressly says at that time that he has not yet written the score.

This would certainly explain why Kraus does not mention Mozart at all in 1789 - it was never Mozart's march in the first place.

There is too the possibility that the march was only added to the Vienna arrangement of 1786. That too must be considered.

So, on balance, I don't think this is quite as ridiculous as you seem to be suggesting.

It's not until these basic assumptions are questioned that the chance increases of there being a solution.

Dear Robert;

Kraus held Mozart in great revere as demonstrated by the beautiful song Kraus wrote on 5 January 1792 upon hearing of Mozart's death in Vienna "Ofver Mozart's dod 'Mozart, man din gruft upplater'" (VB 115).

As I said before, copying was a form of flattery then, and Kraus picked up many gems during his 4-year tour of Europe, including a fugue by Albrechtsberger that Kraus would incorporate in a symphony, "Sinfonia da Chiesa" in D-minor VB 147.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

The list is astonishingly long of works today attributed to Mozart which contain clear proof of similarity often bordering on outright plagiarism. Just this very evening there was a post on mozartforum by an Italian woman who records two clear examples, a very serious case in 'La Finta Gardinera'and also discovery of the score of a symphony in 1997 of Alfonssi at a church. Its Andante movement is extremely like part of 'Mozart's Requiem' KV626 composed a decade and more later. This is the sixth major irregularity in K626.

I note what you say of the fugue but with respect that particular composer is implicated in far more than than that.

I believe the reputation of Mozart was manufactured to an astonishing degree virtually from his childhood onwards. I will argue this in some detail soon. I can't do more now. The question of the march is far from finished yet. Thanks for the useful information.

Best regards

Robert

[HaydnFan]

Again, with the conspiracy theories...someone with more knowledge than Mr. Newman needs to step in here and set things straight.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


The list is astonishingly long of works today attributed to Mozart which contain clear proof of similarity often bordering on outright plagiarism.

It seems to me that musical borrowings are being taken out of context. It is a practice that all great composers have indulged in, whether consciously or unconsciously. Let me quote Franklin Zimmerman - Musical Borrowings in the English Baroque.

"Although musical borrowing has become suspect during the past 200 years, it was a commonly accepted aspect of music from the time of Quintilian through the Baroque period. Parody was the most important technique for the use of borrowed material, from both an aesthetic and an historical perspective. Purcell publicly avowed his intention to imitate Italian composers, improving upon his models in most circumstances. Purcell and his contemporaries also used English compositions as models. Handel was extremely prolific in his use of borrowed material and, like Purcell, usually improved upon his models.
Four types of borrowings in Handel's music can be identified: (1) overt plagiarisms; (2) re-workings of components of work other than the melody; (3) parodies; and (4) borrowings of scene, mood, atmosphere or affect re-used in a different context. When turning to Purcell for material to borrow and rework, Handel was much more subtle than with other composers, primarily utilizing the last technique. The conspicuous lack of the first three types of borrowings from English composers in Handel's output constitutes strong evidence that Handel was wary of being found out by the London public. He knew that any borrowings from English composers would likely be recognized, and especially those of Purcell."

In Beethoven's case 3 glaring examples come to mind - the Eroica and Mozart's Bastienne, the Consecration of the House and Handel, the Pastoral symphony and a similar earlier work by Joseph Knecht.

A glance at the numerous examples found at this site will confirn that the practice was not restriced to Mozart and Haydn. http://www.music.indiana.edu/borrowing/index.html

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-04-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
Again, with the conspiracy theories...someone with more knowledge than Mr. Newman needs to step in here and set things straight.

Mr.Robbins-Landon perhaps!

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


The state of Haydn attribution is perhaps the most tragically farcical in the whole history of western music.

But you know that there are many factors accounting for this. Burning of the Esterhazy library, works by other composers deliberately published using Haydn's name (without his knowledge), pirated editions, many of the pre 1770s works published without Haydn's knowledge. You are also aware that as late as 1940 only 10% of Haydn's accepted output had been published.

You are also aware that at least 150 symphonies previously thought to have been by Haydn have been discredited - what sort of a conspiracy does this imply on behalf of today's music scholars? I am not aware of any leading Haydn or Mozart authority who believes in the conspiracy and scale of deceit you and Mr.Taboga propose.

Regarding Mozart there is no point in you providing further 'evidence' for 2 reasons. Firstly no one here has the relevant documents and papers to question your findings and secondly I'm sure the Mozart forum would be the best place. Even if it turned out that you were right, Mozart's reputation would still survive as his greatest work is in the piano concertos and operas, so you will have to come up with more than that to achieve your aims.


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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-04-2006).]

[robert newman]

Firstly, Peter, the 'conspiracy' to which you refer is, thankfully, not the norm in our times. The reputations of Haydn and Mozart have already long ago been elevated to such a colossal status within our civilization that the project to get them there has long ago succeeded. The Mozart Year of 2006 is simply its most recent manifestation. Critics will of course speak of 'conspiracy theory' as being somehow involved in attempts to dismantle such status. In fact, time after time, it is shown that the only conspiracy in our times is that conservatism which refuses to see who is producing evidence after evidence and who is not. We happily live in far too enlightened times to subscribe to any conspiracy theory. A reluctance exists, of course (this understandable) within Haydn and Mozart studies for its chief experts to come to terms with recent discoveries in the area of manuscript research, critical analysis and to admit to the direction in which the mass of such an evidence is moving as a whole etc. But the trends of revision, which I think are irreversible are both just and welcome.

Certainly, parody has always featured in music history. That's indisputably true. By itself this is of course a major explanation for many such cases. But in the case of Haydn and Mozart careers can be shown (beyond reasonable doubt) to have been manufactured and truth of them and their lives distorted to a degree that is becoming ever more plain in our own time. We today have access (as others did not) to documentary and other evidence, fair and open discussion etc. which, till now, was simply not available. All these things are the very opposite of conspiracy theory.

A man can hide in his house and refuse to believe the sun is shining. He can complain he is somehow the victim of a conspiracy theory. But, in reality, the business of establishing facts and truth is a natural consequence of freely and openly sharing evidence.

The catalogue of works for both composers is and ongoing process that is of course to be welcomed. Let it consist in practice of providing for music lovers a list of works composed by Haydn and Mozart in its main sections which have been proved so and everyone would be pleased enough. Whatever crisis exists now or in future in these academic studies has come about only by taking the ultra conservative view that 'it's not broken, why try to fix it' ? My reply (and that of others) is that what we are dealing with here is a structure that is largely untrue to history, to individuals who have never been credited, and one that is contrary to the actual lives and careers of Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Robert

[robert newman]

Peter,

You are of course right in listing these things that have in their own way caused such confusion within Haydn studies. This clearly indicates how tenuous, how shaky, these reputations actually are. I also agree that no single factor accounts for the current reputation of Haydn or can explain its shortcomings. The issue (from my perspective) is to address the question of whether, in fact, the reputation of Haydn was falsely manufactured both during his life and since.
The same question is asked of Mozart.

I would like to focus in future on both the piano concertos of Mozart and also on his operas. Here too there are a whole host of little known facts that have a bearing on these subjects and which surely have relevance in our appreciation/understanding of his reputation in those forms.

Thanks and best wishes

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Firstly, Peter, the 'conspiracy' to which you refer is, thankfully, not the norm in our times. The reputations of Haydn and Mozart have already long ago been elevated to such a colossal status within our civilization that the project to get them there has long ago succeeded. The Mozart Year of 2006 is simply its most recent manifestation. Critics will of course speak of 'conspiracy theory' as being somehow involved in attempts to dismantle such status. In fact, time after time, it is shown that the only conspiracy in our times is that conservatism which refuses to see who is producing evidence after evidence and who is not. We happily live in far too enlightened times to subscribe to any conspiracy theory. A reluctance exists, of course (this understandable) within Haydn and Mozart studies for its chief experts to come to terms with recent discoveries in the area of manuscript research, critical analysis and to admit to the direction in which the mass of such an evidence is moving as a whole etc. But the trends of revision, which I think are irreversible are both just and welcome.

Certainly, parody has always featured in music history. That's indisputably true. By itself this is of course a major explanation for many such cases. But in the case of Haydn and Mozart careers can be shown (beyond reasonable doubt) to have been manufactured and truth of them and their lives distorted to a degree that is becoming ever more plain in our own time. We today have access (as others did not) to documentary and other evidence, fair and open discussion etc. which, till now, was simply not available. All these things are the very opposite of conspiracy theory.

A man can hide in his house and refuse to believe the sun is shining. He can complain he is somehow the victim of a conspiracy theory. But, in reality, the business of establishing facts and truth is a natural consequence of freely and openly sharing evidence.

The catalogue of works for both composers is and ongoing process that is of course to be welcomed. Let it consist in practice of providing for music lovers a list of works composed by Haydn and Mozart in its main sections which have been proved so and everyone would be pleased enough. Whatever crisis exists now or in future in these academic studies has come about only by taking the ultra conservative view that 'it's not broken, why try to fix it' ? My reply (and that of others) is that what we are dealing with here is a structure that is largely untrue to history, to individuals who have never been credited, and one that is contrary to the actual lives and careers of Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Robert

The allegation af a manufactured reputation is indeed strange considering the virtual oblivion Haydn fell into after his death up until the 1950s. Indeed even Mozart suffered at the hands of the Romantics who were only interested in a handful of his works.

It is also odd that musicologists such as Hoboken and Robbins-Landon who did so much to identify misattributed and genuine works are now vilified by yourself and Taboga, especially as you state "the 'conspiracy' to which you refer is, thankfully, not the norm in our times." I would be interested to know if you can name any other eminent musicologists who share Taboga's extreme views?

Incidentally Haydn's reputation hardly nose-dived with the removal of 150 or so symphonies from his ouevre. Indeed it was enhanced because most of these works by other composers are not of the first order. Indeed when we look at the works of Kraus, Hoffman, Wagenseil, Monn, Stamitz, Cannabich to name just a few, we genuinely find good well crafted music, but not on the level of Haydn's London symphonies or Mozart's operas and piano concertos, and it is primarily from these works that Mozart and Haydn have their well deserved reputations acknowledged.



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

[robert newman]

Manufactured reputations are products of many things. We see this all the time in the recording industry, for example. Hype replaces substance. But in the 18th century I think there was a genuine attempt to find works of the best quality from many different sources before attributing them to Haydn and even before giving them Mozart. We see this as an ongoing affair in the case of Kees, who, in Vienna, is receiving works that are, when approved, added to the 'official' list of Haydn's symphonies.

The origins of Mozart's operas is another case in point as are the origins of both the violin concertos and of the piano concertos. How much is generally known of these ? Surpringly little. All of them deserve looking at.

Mozart's works show a sudden qualitative leap from 1784 onwards. From the very time, in fact, when he begins to keep his thematic catalogue in Vienna. The very same time that Max Franz takes control at Bonn chapel.

Such reputation was very real for Mozart too. How could it be otherwise with such a glorious string of compositions ?

But, eventually, other factors had influence on the Vienna classical period. Not least the French Revolution, the death of Joseph 2nd in 1790, the reversal of all his reforms by his successor, a curb on the press, censorship, suppression of the Freemasons, and, finally, the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and the arrival arrival of secular government across large areas of central and southern Europe.

Even Mozart's music suffered from such turbulent times. A planned publication of Mozart's complete works by Breitkopf and Hartel was abandoned. It was to take decades before attempts were made to remember Mozart's music. In Salzburg the greatest opposition to the erecting of a statue in his honour was resisted by the population itself and by the church authorities. I think all these things deserve to be mentioned.

I'm pleased with now being able to hear these wonderful works and pleased that Haydn's music (falsely attributed or not) is available to us. But the same is true of Mozart. We have with these two composers some of the greatest music of all time. Bach and Beethoven also. But I think their stories are very different.

[HaydnFan]

Mr. Newman, have you ever heard the phrase "The most simple explanation is the most likely"? What I mean by this is that attempting to explain away the credibility of every detail of Mozart and Haydn's works is far-fetched and very clearly to everyone on this forum (except yourself apparently) a sign of desparation. Why can you not accept the greatness of these composers and that most of their best works (attributed to them by historical evidence and scholarly research)are indeed, their own?

Nobody doubts that there are works in the catalogues of Haydn and Mozart that were not written by them but these are very very unlikely to be their best-loved and most superior works.

You have provided no concrete evidence thus far to support your theories (your case is purely circumstancial--ie. just because Mozart's work increased in quality around the middle of the 1780's, it does not mean that it can only be explained by stealing compositions. To the rational world, it is likely that Mozart learned something new or tried something new or worked really hard)

I sincerely doubt that anyone would go to all the trouble to distort historical evidence just to raise the reputations of Mozart and Haydn and push out the REAL talent. I say, let the music speak: The compositions which we know are by Haydn and Mozart are their best and their reputations are built on these (as Peter has already said).

[robert newman]

Sounds fine to me.

If I was being given the finest wines from all around the world by a wealthy patron and had them privately labelled as my own vintage I would be regarded as one of the finest vineyard owners in the world.

My wine would be the talk of everywhere.

But if they built a statue to me as one of the greatest wine growers in the history of the world - what then ?

And if bus loads of pilgrims came to see the place where the great winer grower lived - what then ?

Simple as that really. People today want geniuses to be defrosted out of a fridge. They don't want to accept the hardship, the corner-cutting, the tough reality. And so certain things are simply airbrushed out. This gives them comfort. Like a fluffy toy.
Or a chocolate box image. Great. Fine.

These great composers are fascinating people and it's just as fair to examine their lives and careers in detail. Sometimes that means criticising myths. But that too is only fair.
Every civilization has its myths. Who knows, maybe one day they will discover that Mozart, Haydn and even Beethoven were human after all. That would be great, to find the real people regardless of their faults. The music itself is exquisite. We all agree on that.

R

[HaydnFan]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Simple as that really.

No. I don't believe for a second that Mozart and Haydn and any other composer are famous for no reason. As I already said, I'm sure they did borrow and copy but it does NOT cast serious doubt on their entire catalogues. There is not yet any evidence to suggest that these composers are not who we think they are. But alas, there is no point in arguing with you because it has made absolutely no impression on you so far and also, I am not qualified enough to speak in-depth on this subject.

You were praising Bach in another thread (I love Bach also), but just how many of the works attributed to him are not really written by him? I would suspect a lot more than are falsely attributed to Mozart (as others have pointed out, Haydn might be different story).

[robert newman]

Dear HadynFan,

You may not have noticed the huge contradiction in your last post. You say there is no reason to question the basic integrity of the catalogues of either Mozart or Haydn. You then say in your next paragraph that perhaps Haydn is different.

Honestly, study a little more the catalogue versions of Mozart since they first appeared, recognise the hundreds and hundreds of changes, the false attributions, and recognise too his supposed childhood compositions being largely unfounded. Add to this the plain fact that today the 'Mozart' catalogue contains many works which are mere arrangements of works by others. And still we have not nearly come close to describing it.

As for Haydn, well, even you yourself go in to overdrive on the massive contradictions.

What more does one need to say ?

Robert