JM Kraus - Symphonies

[robert newman]

Hofrat,

I've tried to post on to the thread without success so I've tried here to make a new thread.

A search online has given 3 interesting bits of information -

1. The current Wilkipedia article on Joseph Martin Kraus refers to a Mozart symphony being introduced in to Stockolm in 1789

2. In an article from June of 2004 entitled 'The Case of the Circumstantial Meeting between JM Kraus and WA Mozart in Vienna' (published by Cambridge University Press) and written by Bertil von Boer he says that the symphony was performed some 4 months after the famous 'Idomeneo' march, that is, later in that same year of 1789

(see journals.cambridge.org - June 2004 - 1.85-90 C.U.P.

3. A possible Italian connection which has been argued for in connection with a Kraus symphony is that Kraus's Symphony in F was actually composed by Giuseppe Cambini (see www.artaria.com/Stopress/reviews.htm)

Robert

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

A search online has given 3 interesting bits of information -

1. The current Wilkipedia article on Joseph Martin Kraus refers to a Mozart symphony being introduced in to Stockolm in 1789

2. In an article from June of 2004 entitled 'The Case of the Circumstantial Meeting between JM Kraus and WA Mozart in Vienna' (published by Cambridge University Press) and written by Bertil von Boer he says that the symphony was performed some 4 months after the famous 'Idomeneo' march, that is, later in that same year of 1789

(see journals.cambridge.org - June 2004 - 1.85-90 C.U.P.

3. A possible Italian connection which has been argued for in connection with a Kraus symphony is that Kraus's Symphony in F was actually composed by Giuseppe Cambini (see www.artaria.com/Stopress/reviews.htm)

Dear Robert;

I am familiar with the Wilkipedia article on Kraus. You have a few things backwards.

First, when Kraus was on tour in Europe (1782-1786), he met Haydn and gave Haydn a symphony in D-major (VB 143. VB stands for Bertil van Boer, a leading scholar of Swedish music and catalogger of Kraus' works). Haydn, although he proclaimed Kraus as "one of the greatest geniuses he ever met," published this symphony as his own. This dovetails nicely with other deceitful practices we now know Haydn committed.

Second, Kraus wanted to publish a symphony when he was in Paris during his tour of Europe. The Paris publisher had a problem: the symphony was very good but the composer was totally unknown. So, the publisher printed it as a symphony by Cambini, a composer who was quite a hit in Paris at that time, despite the vast difference in styles. For two centuries, this symphony remained credited to Cambini and only recent scholarship has corrected this wrong.

With respect to Mozart, one of his symphonies was first premiered in Sweden in 1789. It will be very hard to determine which one due to the fact that music journalists were terrible with identifying details when they reported on musical events at that time. When Eggert premiered Beethoven symphonies in Sweden in 1808, one was simply called a "grand symphony," while the other was called "another symphony by Beethoven." Since we know "Eroica" did not premiere until 1817 in Sweden, it is assumed that Eggert conducted the 1st and the 2nd symphonies, but no one knows in which order. So, with Mozart having written a few more symphonies than Beethoven, it will be extremely difficult to pin-point which.

I do not think I will bother Professor van Boer with the question which Mozart premiered in 1789. Had he known, he most certainly would have denoted the Koechel number in his article.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Hi Hofrat,

1. The idea of the Kraus symphony in F being written by an Italian is not mine.
I personally neither accept nor reject it. (How can I, since I have not looked at the evidence ?)> I refer to it simply to illustrate a possible Italian connection.

2. If any symphony by Mozart (or today attributed to Mozart) was performed under JM Kraus in 1789 it would be reasonable to believe that orchestral parts were made for such a performance. In spite of the difficuly of identifying which symphony we are actually talking about, it nevertheless seems to be true (which was my original point) that such a claim is 'out there' and is not simply an invention made by me. But on what actual basis do Kraus scholars claim as they do ?

3. I entirely agree with what you wrote on Haydn.

Robert

[robert newman]

How are we to know that any symphony attributed today to Mozart was actually premiered in Stockholm in 1789 ? On what grounds is this claimed ? It seems to me until we have some contemporary reference to this claim we could just as well say that no symphony was premiered in Stockholm that year ?

Does the name of Mozart appear in Swedish sources of the time ? This seems to me a reasonable question, especially if it appears on the JM Kraus website.

Regards

R

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

First, when Kraus was on tour in Europe (1782-1786), he met Haydn and gave Haydn a symphony in D-major (VB 143. VB stands for Bertil van Boer, a leading scholar of Swedish music and catalogger of Kraus' works). Haydn, although he proclaimed Kraus as "one of the greatest geniuses he ever met," published this symphony as his own. This dovetails nicely with other deceitful practices we now know Haydn committed.

Second, Kraus wanted to publish a symphony when he was in Paris during his tour of Europe. The Paris publisher had a problem: the symphony was very good but the composer was totally unknown. So, the publisher printed it as a symphony by Cambini, a composer who was quite a hit in Paris at that time, despite the vast difference in styles. For two centuries, this symphony remained credited to Cambini and only recent scholarship has corrected this wrong.

Hofrat

In fact the symphony written for Haydn was published in Paris. A number of Kraus’s symphonies were published in Paris, bearing the names of Haydn and Cambini as the composers. As you acknowledge, the practice of affixing the name of an established composer to music by a relative unknown was fairly common in the 18th century, and was done to stimulate interest in and sales of the music.

Yet you conclude that Haydn was deceitful, but justify the practice in Cambini's case!


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

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:




3. I entirely agree with what you wrote on Haydn.

Yet without looking at the evidence you agree with the comments on Haydn! Kraus's symphonies were published in Paris under the names of Haydn and Cambini to attract sales - this was the publisher's deceit.

Interesting also Robert how you want to believe that Cambini was the real composer of the Kraus symphony - anyone is under suspicion unless they're Italian!


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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-03-2006).]

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

If any symphony by Mozart (or today attributed to Mozart) was performed under JM Kraus in 1789 it would be reasonable to believe that orchestral parts were made for such a performance. In spite of the difficuly of identifying which symphony we are actually talking about, it nevertheless seems to be true (which was my original point) that such a claim is 'out there' and is not simply an invention made by me. But on what actual basis do Kraus scholars claim as they do?

Dear Robert;

From my research on the Swedish composer Eggert, I can say categorically that the existence of orchestral parts does not necessarily prove that a work was performed. The various national collections in Sweden are full of many scores and parts of works that were not performed.

I looked at the website of the international Kraus Association. They do not mention the performance of a Mozart symphony in 1789. There is an illuminating essay in the Mozart Forum by Gary Smith about Mozart-Kraus corroboration, but it deals with the "Idomeneo" march and does not go into the Mozart symphony issue.

The most likely source that a Mozart symphony was performed in 1789 would be the Swedish daily newspaper "Dagligt Allehanda" (The Daily Potpourri) that appeared in Stockholm between 1769 and 1944. This newspaper would announce concert programs at that time. Of course, you will encounter 18th century music journalism as the reporter (most probably Kraus himself) announces that a "grand symphony" by Mozart will be performed. Unless something very descriptive is mentioned, it will be impossible to identify which "grand symphony" was performed.

An example of this is Eggert's conducting debut of 14 May 1807. "Dagligt Allehanda" announced that an Eggert symphony dedicated to the Royal Music Academy with a funeral march and a double fugue will be performed. That is most descriptive and can only mean that Eggert performed his E-flat symphony. But the same concert announcement says that "an aria by Kraus will be song." Which aria?? Your guess is as good as mine.

Why do you not initiate a discussion of the Mozart forum about this symphony??

Hofrat

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Peter:
In fact the symphony written for Haydn was published in Paris. A number of Kraus’s symphonies were published in Paris, bearing the names of Haydn and Cambini as the composers. As you acknowledge, the practice of affixing the name of an established composer to music by a relative unknown was fairly common in the 18th century, and was done to stimulate interest in and sales of the music.

Yet you conclude that Haydn was deceitful, but justify the practice in Cambini's case!

Dear Peter;

When Haydn submitted Kraus' symphony as his own for publication, he was deceitful. Haydn received money for it without doing an iota of work while Kraus received absolutely nothing for his efforts.

When the Paris publisher published Kraus's symphony as Cambini's, he was deceitful. Although Kraus received money from the Paris publisher, Kraus was cheated out of the notarity he expected from publishing a work in one of the major music capitals in Europe.

Just because this was a wide spread practice does not mean it was right. The European nobelity had a wide spread practice of "first night rights." No one will say that was right.


Hofrat

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Just because this was a wide spread practice does not mean it was right. The European nobelity had a wide spread practice of "first night rights." No one will say that was right.


Hofrat

No the practice wasn't right, publishers had no qualms at printing pirated editions usually obtained from dishonest copyists. In their dealings with publishers, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (and most composers of the time) were simply playing them at their own game. When it comes to Haydn having himself submitted this particular Kraus symphony to Paris, is there any evidence such as letters and receipt?




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

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Peter:
No the practice wasn't right, publishers had no qualms at printing pirated editions usually obtained from dishonest copyists. In their dealings with publishers, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (and most composers of the time) were simply playing them at their own game. When it comes to Haydn having himself submitted this particular Kraus symphony to Paris, is there any evidence such as letters and receipt?

Dear Peter;

There seems to be a bit of confusion. I said that Haydn submitted for publication as his own the D-major symphony that he received from Kraus. I never said that Haydn submitted it to a Paris publisher.

Kraus submitted to a Paris publisher several symphonies for publication. The symphony he gave to Haydn was not amongst them. The Paris publisher published the symphonies he received from Kraus under the name of Cambini.

I hope that clarifies the situation.


Hofrat

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Dear Peter;

There seems to be a bit of confusion. I said that Haydn submitted for publication as his own the D-major symphony that he received from Kraus. I never said that Haydn submitted it to a Paris publisher.

Kraus submitted to a Paris publisher several symphonies for publication. The symphony he gave to Haydn was not amongst them. The Paris publisher published the symphonies he received from Kraus under the name of Cambini.

I hope that clarifies the situation.


Hofrat

The earliest edition (1786/1787) of the Symphony in D major (VB 143), was published under Haydn's name in Paris. This edition was pirated by two other publishers, including one in London. Kraus’s autograph of the symphony, however, was extant in Stockholm up to 1825, when it was destroyed in the great fire of the Royal Dramatic Theatre.

Odd that the 'deceitful' Haydn mentioned to Kraus' biographer Fredrik Silverstolpe that Kraus had composed a symphony especially for him and the Esterháza orchestra.

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

[robert newman]

My last post for some time. (Too much scribbling to do and a hundred other things),

Several people say the Kraus symphony published in Paris in Haydn's name had been commissioned by Haydn himself. Of course even if this is true it does not justify it appearing in Haydn's name.

But there are some strange things about 'Idomeneo' and I want this last post for a while to be about Kraus/Mozart and the puzzle of the march.

It's generally believed that Mozart's march is the one Kraus made an arrangement of in Stockholm for 1789. Well, I won't go in to much detail but there are certainly other solutions besides that one.

For example, the general belief is that Kraus somehow got hold of this march from
Mozart or one of Mozart's friends during his stay in Vienna and that he, Kraus, in 1789, was unable for Stockholm, years later, to write one himself. Thus Kraus is assumed to have arranged and passed off a version of Mozart's 'Idomeneo' march. How Kraus supposedly received this march in such a solution has never been satisfactorily explained despite all sorts of interesting theories.

But what if the March from Mozart's 'Idomeneo' was not actually composed by Mozart but by Kraus himself ?

Such a solution sounds extremely improbable at first. It contradicts popular assumptions. But there are some facts we can bear in mind that may have a bearing on this issue when viewed in this way.

Kraus arrived in Stockholm in 1778 - almost 2 years before 'Idomeneo' was first staged.

So the basic chronology goes something like this -

1. Kraus arrives in Stockholm 1778
2. Mozart commissioned to write 'Idomeneo' for Munich 2 years later (in late 1780) by Karl Theodor, Elector of Bavaria.
3. Mozart leaves Salzburg for Munich on 5th November 1780 with 'Idomeneo' not even nearly complete. (This is fully 4 months after he had already received the commission, remember).
4.Premiere of 'Idomeneo' (Munich) 29th January 1781

Mozart writes to his father in late December 1780 (weeks before the premiere) that he has not yet written the score despite (he says) the work itself being virtually finished. Was the March in the first performance in Munich ?

Why ask the question ? Well, we also know that Mozart himself made major changes to 'Idomeneo'in Vienna 5 years later (during 1786). For example, several new arias were added (KV489 and KV490) and other parts changed. This second version of 'Idomeneo' is clearly a major revision. Was the March first introduced in to THAT 1786 version ? By Kraus ?

Such a thing is entirely possible. For we know that still another version, a third, is staged in 1806 in Vienna (May of that year), this repeated in Berlin (August) the same year. This time there are also insert arias by Paer, B.A. Weber, Righini and even an Oboe Concerto by Righini (1756-1812).

The insertion of new arias and movements in to operas by other composers was a quite common practice at the time. Mozart himself had provided several insert arias for operas by other composers.

Kraus had real financial difficulties in his early years in Sweden. He could easily have written the march at that time - i.e. even before Mozart wrote 'Idomeneo'. The Kraus commission to write the parliamentary music in Stockholm for 1789 was high profile stuff. It therefore makes little sense that he as a hugely talented composer in his own right (already acknowledged as such by Haydn, Gluck and others) would use a march by another composer (Mozart) in such a situation. Kraus's score emphatically says 'March /by/ Kraus'.

Going back to the first performance in Munich of Idomeneo, we know the librettist (Varasco) was paid for this work by the Munich court. We even know how much. But we have no record of what was paid to Mozart.

Furthermore, the score of 'Idomeneo' was first published in 1792 (the year after Mozart's death and during the year of Kraus's death) but NOT the full orchestral/choral score. It was, in fact, only a piano score, this requested by Mozart's widow, Constanze.

The first full score appears to have been published by Breitkopf and Hartel though I am not yet sure of the date.

One thing is already quite clear - the person in Stockholm who wrote the note on Kraus's music (i.e. who attributed the March to Mozart) did so fully 10 years and maybe many more after Kraus's death. Thus, the existence of that note certainly does not prove that the March came from Mozart. It merely proves that he, the writer in Stockholm, and long after Kraus's death, had now seen the full score of Mozart's 'Idomeneo' which by that time was available to him in Sweden. Only in this way could that writer have known that Kraus's march was 20 bars longer than in Mozart's 'Idomeneo' score.

We know of a vocal score of Idomeneo being printed in 1822.

Therefore, I see no reason to rule out the possibility that this puzzle can be solved by Kraus having been the true composer of the march that he himself first used in 1789 but which he had also supplied years earlier for Mozart's 'Idomeneo'.


Equal credit should be given to both possibilities since Kraus was dead before 'Idomeneo' was published. The fact that evidence of correspondence between the two composers does not exist neither proves nor disproves Mozart's authorship of the March. And it remains to be seen whether the March was actually in the premiere performance of Idomeneo in 1781. If it was, there is still the possibility that it was Kraus who wrote it and not Mozart.

Kraus, like Leopold Mozart in Salzburg, had studied at a Jesuit school. So if the two composers were in contact of any kind this fact can surely be significant in ensuring contact between the two from then on. After all, Mozart was under pressure to get the work finished. He had not come remotely close as he left Salzburg for Munich. Thus, just perhaps, Kraus supplied the March. Or he supplied it for the 1786 version in Vienna.

In this way (the opposite of what is normally assumed) Kraus may indeed be the true and original composer of that March in Idomeneo and also that version which he, Kraus, was to use in 1789.

Best regards and thanks

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-03-2006).]

[HaydnFan]

Firstly, I want to say that it should not strike you as odd that as of November 1780, Mozart had little of the work finished and then it was "magically" completed by January. We all know Mozart could write at an alarming pace.

Also, when you say it is unlikely that Kraus would have to borrow from another composer because of his enormous talent, well then what about Mozart? Are you saying he was less talented and that he had to borrow (and Kraus did not)?

This last point is a little ridiculous, obviously out of the two, Kraus was ARGUABLY less talented...who would be more likely to use another composer's work?

As you can tell, I am not too find of conspiracy theories because it seems that the main goal of most of them is to gain attention by trying to "de-throne" our most beloved musical heroes. (with little evidence, I might add)

My point is that if new and convincing evidence came to light that Mozart and Haydn were basically hacks (pretty much as some people have suggested over this and esp. previous threads), then I will accept it like a bitter pill. But I have yet to see this evidence and the rest is just rambling.

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Kraus had real financial difficulties in his early years in Sweden. He could easily have written the march at that time - i.e. even before Mozart wrote 'Idomeneo'. The Kraus commission to write the parliamentary music in Stockholm for 1789 was high profile stuff. It therefore makes little sense that he as a hugely talented composer in his own right (already acknowledged as such by Haydn, Gluck and others) would use a march by another composer (Mozart) in such a situation. Kraus's score emphatically says 'March /by/ Kraus'.

Dear Robert;

Now you have entered the theater of the absurd!! Are you saying that Kraus, an unknown composer living in total obscurity in Stockholm in 1778-1779, wrote the Idomeneo march for Mozart? If Kraus was obscure in Stockholm, who would know of him in Vienna or Munich at that time?

From my research into the life and times of the Swedish composer Joachim Eggert, I learned that music and musical trends trickled slowly to Sweden from continental Europe; music and musical trends did not trickle from Sweden to Europe.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Dear HaydnFan,

With a pen-name like yours you should be capable of believing anything ! The state of Haydn attribution is perhaps the most tragically farcical in the whole history of western music. But I must applaud you all the same for sharing your views.

You say that I and others wish to 'de-throne' your most beloved music heroes (with little evidence).

HaydnFan, how can a hero be dethroned if as you say there is no evidence ? Such a thing is a virtual impossibility, isn't it ? In such a case it would be like trying to knock over a hippo with a pea-shooter. Or trying to win a grand prix with a taxi cab.

I don't know how recently you did it, but you might consider visiting the large numbers of websites devoted to Haydn just to see how Haydn's works are the subject of the most extraordinary confusion. Can anyone tell us how many symphonies alone are actually credited to him ? Is it 1200 or 47484945959 ? And is the figure accepted today close to that which was accepted in, say, the 19th century ? How about the figures that existed at the time of Haydn's death ? Or those that we can find from collectors during his lifetime ? You cannot seriously be denying that your hero has the ability to change his form in the most astonishing way. And will you deny that in his later years Haydn is occupied with making autograph copies of symphonies that are full of errors, these for so long regarded as 'originals' ? Really, I think that Hadyn lovers should at least come to terms with those sorts of facts first, so that fools like me do not need to remind you of them.

Am I saying that Mozart and Haydn were basically hacks ? Well, in my understand of that term this implies sub-standard work. I do not think this is an appropriate term to use for either Haydn or Mozart. They were both extremely competent arrangers and orchestrators, for example. Mozart could take a work and produce a version of it that was in many cases superior. That isn't hack work.

Were both these composers passing off large numbers of works by other composers as if they were their own ? Yes, I do believe so, although the full extent of this remains to be shown. If you are specially interested in Haydn I will be happy to post here on his Masses, for example (though I must shortly finish posts here because of other things).

The music of Mozart and Haydn (i.e. that which is today officially attributed to both these composers) is often quite wonderful. But whether it was composed by them is the issue. Like yourself, it would be pointless to criticise unless one had something better to put in its place. In my view that 'something better' is to give credit to those many others who, till now, have either enjoyed none or very little.

Regards

Robert