Announcement

**Chris** · 02-09-2006, 07:17 PM

Interesting, thanks for passing that on.

**robert newman** · 02-09-2006, 11:25 PM

Thanks to Chris for passing on this interesting information from Professor Bertil van Boer (some of whose articles I am already familar with in connection with Joseph Martin Kraus). My regards to him.

I would like to comment on his two points. Prof van Boer says the likeliest symphony performed for the first time in Sweden during 1789 was Mozart's 'Paris' (No.31). That is most interesting. He also suggests in reference to the Kraus March that 'when Kraus completed his March, the foundation was Mozart's 'Idomeneo'. (In effect, he believes (as do most people, for sure) that 'Idomeneo' written during early 1781 provided the March from which Kraus simply made an arrangement some 8 years later in Stockholm). One that he failed to attribute to Mozart himself.

But the problems in arguing this way are already well known to Professor van Boer. Let me quickly summarise them. Firstly, there is strong evidence (I believe) that the 'Paris' symphony was not even composed by Mozart (No.31) despite the fact that its been attributed to him virtually since the time when Mozart claimed it as his own in Paris. In support of this I would point out the embarrasing exit from Paris days later of Mozart, the collapse of his relations with his Paris-based sponsor, Baron Grimm, and the fact that Mozart left the city in such a hurry that his own father was puzzled enough to write asking for an explanation - one that was never provided (at least in writing) by Mozart. Leopold writes to his son -

'I still do not understand why Grimm has compelled you to leave in such a shameful way - it would have been a good thing for you to stay some days longer in Paris' (Leopold to Wolfgang 19th October 1778)

I submit that Mozart had been supplied this work (this symphony) by its true composer (Andrea Luchesi) since there is today at Regensburg (at the library of Thurn and Taxis) a copy of this same 'Paris' (K297) symphony there which has the name of 'Mozart' plainly written over a still legible name - 'Luchesse'. (It contains the original slow movement which, so we are told, was changed by Mozart in Paris). Furthermore, a version of K297 (one that clearly precedes in its scoring the Paris performance) can be seen today at Estense Library in Modena, Italy. (It's reference there is E-160). But that manuscript is there with a great deal of other music that was once part of the music archives of Bonn - having been transfered there to escape the invading Napoleonic armies (who came to Bonn in 1794). It, like many other works from the Bonn archive was never returned. It exists today at Modena attributed to Mozart. (So do no less than 8 other symphonies which are today said to have been composed later than 1784). But this version of 'Mozart's Paris Symphony' cannot be a Mozart work. For, in the last inventory made at Bonn chapel in 1784 not a single work by Mozart is listed of any kind. This 'Paris' symphony was written by the then (Italian) Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)and it was one of several such transactions. Thus, from two separate angles (and there are others) the evidence is surely in favour of it being correctly attributed to Luchesi and not to Mozart.

Furthermore, I suggest that by the early 1780's the name of Mozart (i.e. at the time when he started to live in Vienna) was a veritable 'brand name' in many parts of musical Europe. This may explain why many works attributed to Mozart are not, in fact, compositions of Mozart. One could give a long list. The recently discovered symphony K16a from Denmark (written on paper from the year 1779 and attributed there to 'Mozart') is only one such example from Mozart's mid-career period. But let me note also the following (all of which indicates music associated with Kraus has somehow ended up in association with Mozart - this besides the famous March from Idomeneo) -

A Song with Piano accompaniment ('Die Nase') found today in one of the Koechel list appendices and published in 1840 in Germany as a work of Mozart (reference Anh C8.01) is of course a work by the same Joseph Martin Kraus and had been published in the name of Kraus at Stockholm decades before. (I am sure the Professor will confirm this).

Here, once again, we are faced with the fact that no meeting between Mozart and Kraus is known to have occurred. And yet here, again, a work by Kraus has been attributed wrongly to Mozart which he, Kraus, wrote.

Furthermore, the Professor will be aware that the score of 'Idomeneo' was not published in the lifetime of Kraus and nor was it published during the lifetime of Mozart. So we are again begging the question of how Kraus could possibly have known this unpublished March if the two men never met.

There is in my mind no doubt at all that Kraus was writer of the March in Stockholm. I also believe (though it would take quite a long post) that he, Joseph Martin Kraus, supplied Mozart with the March we hear in 'Idomeneo' - probably in the revival of that opera which Mozart is known to have overseen in Vienna in 1786.

I strongly believe Mozart's family were being supplied by new music from many different sources in Vienna (not least via Salzburg) and that Kraus was only one of those sources. I further believe that other composers supplied music to Mozart also - which in many cases Mozart orchestrated or arranged before claiming them and even entering them as his own compositions.

Far from being trivial or normal practices, I believe that the true story of Mozart's debt (and that of his family) to other composers in the building of Wolfgang's reputation has hardly been told. And that JM Kraus was an important part in that story. So too Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi at Bonn and several other composers elsewhere in Europe. Involved was also Vogler, Leopold Mozart, and a series of other famous people of the time. The reputation of Mozart (and indeed of Haydn) was to a very great extent dependent on the secret input of other composers.

I believe Mozart and Kraus DID meet though not according to our 'official' version of Mozart's career.

Regards

Robert

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-09-2006).]

**Hofrat** · 02-10-2006, 05:35 AM

Dear Robert;

I have forwarded your comments to Professor van Boer. I do not know if the professor will respond directly or if he will respond through me.

Hofrat

**robert newman** · 02-10-2006, 07:48 PM

Thank you Hofrat. The Mozart revision of 'Idomeneo' made in Vienna (1786) included two new arias being added (these being recorded in Mozart's thematic catalogue) and known today as KV489 and KV490.

The Professor has already shown that after his return to Sweden from his tour of Europe Kraus became (according to his pupil Per Frigel) 'a passionate Mozartian'. But if this is true (and there is no reason to doubt it) we have several years (1786, 1787 and in to 1789) when it becomes amazing that no contact between Kraus and Mozart occurred. How did Kraus become a 'passionate Mozartian' if, in fact, there was no such contact ? How is possible for the only Mozart music in Sweden to be a symphony first performed in 1789 if, during those years before the performance, Kraus was a 'passionate Mozartian' ?

Finally, the proof that Kraus and Mozart had some sort of close relationship is surely contained within the letter Kraus wrote to his sister from Paris in September 1785 in which he (nearly 6 months before the first performance of 'The Marriage of Figaro') speaks of Mozart composing this opera ? Such a thing is clearly contradicted by the documented report of Lorenzo da Ponte (its supposed librettist) that the music was actually written by Mozart in only 6 weeks ?

Kraus writes -

'...Er arbeitet nun en seinen 'Figaro' eine operetta in Autzuhgen, warauf ich mich herlizch freu'

'He is working on his 'Figaro'

How could Kraus in Paris know about Mozart writing this opera ? This is amazing. For, as everyone knows, the genesis of this opera was a complete secret, even in Vienna.

Furthermore, there is no history at all of Mozart ever writing an opera without being commissioned to do so. But he received no commission to write 'Figaro'. Indeed, the official story is that da Ponte obtained the permission of the Emperor (through Rosenberg) to stage this banned play. But if this is true then the libretto would need to have been submitted and approved by the censors long before the date when Kraus wrote from Paris. Thus, by any fair reckoning, the date when 'Figaro' was written must have been months before September 1785, and even then, there is no record of this at all.

In such a case why does da Ponte specifically say the music was written only in 6 weeks ? It is plain (and I will not develop this here) that there existed between Kraus and Mozart a relationship far, far deeper than has ever been accepted. Furthermore, Kraus was of course only one of many composers whose input in the Mozart story has never been appreciated in real detail.

But one step at a time - I believe that 'Figaro' is a bombshell like so much else that has been assumed in the life and official career of Herr Mozart.

The key to unravelling so much of this mystery is surely found in a network of composers who included Kraus, Vogler (who himself came to Sweden), Luchesi and others, men whose official relations with each other are either denied or suppressed.

Take the case of Vogler. He appears in the Mozart correspondence as a total incompetent composer. In fact he was a hugely celebrated composer, teacher, theorist and inventor of a system of harmony that was accepted right across Europe. Mozart hated him (officially) and yet Vogler had studied at the same school as Mozart himself (under Padre Martini in Bologna). It was Vogler who received the same award from the Pope as Mozart. It was Vogler who studied in Padua at the same school as Andrea Luchesi. It was Vogler who was employed at Mannheim in the post that Mozart supposedly sought. It was Luchesi who was Kapellmeister at Bonn in the postion that Mozart supposedly sought also. But Mozart goes out of his way to discredit Vogler, to put distance between him and the much older man. This is why the 'official' version of Mozart's career has led so often to a cul de sac. In actual fact, Vogler taught pupils who were later at Salzburg under Michael Haydn. And, again, Peter de Winter is portrayed as a man who hated Mozart - despite the fact that he was still another pupil of Vogler.

Here was a Jesuit network of composers which continued from the time the Order was officially banned in 1773 to exist as a sort of fraternity - endearing themselves to the Emperor by promoting the status of both Haydn and Mozart. This is the reason, I believe, why works such as the symphony K16a could be written in the name of 'Mozart' on paper from 1779 when, in fact, the work is definitely NOT by Mozart. It explains too why Kraus (himself Jesuit educated) should be so curiously detached from Mozart and yet so strangely aware of his career.

And, of course, it was from Paris that came Monsieur Beaumarchais, writer of the play that eventually became the opera 'Figaro' - the same city from which Kraus wrote in September 1785 with details on the opera which reveal that he knew very well its true history.

Regards

RN

**Hofrat** · 02-11-2006, 03:27 AM

Dear Robert;

The following is Professor van Boer's response:

"My thanks as well to both Robert Newman and Hofrat (Hovråd?) for their rather interesting and thought provoking thread. While I cannot partipicate more fully in the continuation, I'd like to contribute some further thoughts, (and of course a return of regards to Robert Newman, whose discussions have been wonderful to read). First, I agree wholeheartedly with Robert that Mozart and Kraus certainly met; moreover, on probably numerous occasions, even though everything is currently based upon circumstantial evidence. And, as I wrote in my article on the two in Eighteeenth Century Music (Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 85-90) , there would be enough evidence to "convict" in a court of law. First and foremost is the fact that, for a period of several months (April-July 1783) they lived around the corner from each other (Kraus at Kohlmarkt 134 and Mozart at Kohlmarkt 1179), second that they frequented the same Masonic Lodge Zur gekrönte Hoffnung (Kraus was not as passionate a Mason as Mozart, but there is his signature in a book of Kronauer and his silhouette in the membership records there). This proximity alone would have insured a meeting unless both were deaf, dumb, blind, mortal enemies or idiots, which of course neither were on any of the accounts. (All right, I was a bit more circumspect in the article, but this is the gist). That there is no documentary evidence may not be surprising; after all, we would have had no knowledge that Kraus and Reichardt met in Vienna either had it not been for the latter's own diaries published in 1813 in the AmZ! The fact is that we have little actual correspondence by either composer from this period, save what has survived mostly through serendipity; the letters to Kraus's parents/acquaintances saved by the family (and now in Buchen or excerpted by Silverstolpe in 1833) and similarly with Mozart. THis does not mean that it does not exist (nor for that matter any putative correspondence between the years 1783-91), simply that it has not survived or not yet been found. So there is hope something else will come forth in the future.

As to Kraus being a "passionate Mozartean," all this means is that he probably extolled his music as a colleague/friend with whom he found sympathetic rapport. The tone of the letter to his sister (which, incidentally, encourages her to get ahold of Die Entführung), not to mention the very "Mozartean" lament "Mozart din grift upplåter" is fully indicative that this relationship was probably very close. Robert is perfectly correct in stating that Kraus could not have known about Figaro at the early date without some direct meeting, nor could Kraus have obtained the March from Idomeneo without the same, since its dissemination was decisively limited until after Mozart's death. All of this is outlined in the article above, and it is compelling and convincing evidence, albeit still technically circumstantial. Why did he not perform more Mozart? Well, Frigel's statement in the 1789 Åminnelsetal on Kraus implies actually that they did, though not at the more formal public concerts. Kraus himself rarely conducted these (and no wonder, with his duties split between rehearsals for the mainstage revolving repertory two days a week, administrative duties at the Royal Academy, and various other tasks)--that was usually left to the devices of Zander, et al. This did not mean that Mozart was absent from Sweden, only that what music might have been performed was probably done in more private settings. Since the song noted above was written for the Palmstedt literary circle, one can suggest that this is where some of this occurred, not in public. In any case, we do not have any of this material, so hard evidence is missing as to which pieces may have been done. (The "Nase" song was attributed only in the 1840s, and here too we don't have the model, so information is rather non-extant). Gösta Morin wrote a rather good article on this subject many years ago.

I checked with several colleagues who have access to the Idomeneo materials; the march was indeed included in the 1782 version, so one should probably assume Mozart wrote it. But it is very different from Kraus's later version, and no one should really worry whether or not "credit" was given. Such foundational creativity was commonplace, and no one even really thought about the concept of true proprietary originality. A rather pertinent example can be found in the Magnificat by CPE Bach which was later purloined wholesale by his younger brother. But influence is another matter. I think it safe to say that musical discussions between two composers, if mutually stimulating, results in both material and intellectual exchange. In the case of Mozart, one notices immediately that his music takes on a rather different colour and formal complexity after 1783 (see the Linz Symphony), while Kraus's music begins to be much more lyrical (here the late A. Peter Brown has written on the case of the Kraus symphonies in C# and C minor, the latter of which is derived (but not the same) from the former). Evidence for mutual interaction? Again, this is entirely speculative, but a situation well worth exploring from an analytical point of view.

As for the Luchesi, that this may not be a Mozart work is a fascinating idea. About the 1789 performance, however, it must be stressed that this was the only symphony produced under Mozart's name in published form at that time, so this is the work that must be referred to IF (and this is the crux) a published score/parts were used. If the work was in manuscript, all bets are off; it could have been anything. It may be splitting hairs, but if the titlepage said Mozart, chances are that it would be performed as Mozart, regardless of who actually wrote it. In the practical setting of the weekly concerts, no one then had the time to verify the authenticity of the music. But I hope that Robert pursues this question, for it could have immense effects on our knowledge of Mozart and his Paris years.

I also agree with Robert that composers networked (as they do even today). Mozart was not an obscure name, nor was Kraus. They met people, had their music heard and performed, and generally studied each others works. Some they liked, some they didn't. Some people they got along with, some they didn't. These human interactions should never be taken for granted (or granite), but were as changeable as the wind depending upon circumstances and even one's state of mind (or dare I even say, the state of the level of liquid in the wine/punch/beer glass). Often, we don't actually remember in our writing that these were real human beings with real emotions and creative thoughts, enmities, etc. that make each character a much more complex individual that mere biographies tend to show.

That is is for the moment. I wish everyone the best regards and fortune in the continuation of the thread.

Bertil van Boer

**robert newman** · 02-11-2006, 06:50 AM

I'm grateful to this site to have read the remarkably detailed and learned letter here of Professor van Boer. Very thought provoking posting ! It seems we are like stones who can sharpen each other with such rare exchanges (though I appreciate the Professor cannot extend this thread further). In reply, I do have some important points to add which the Professor might hopefully find relevant.

The first is to mention (though it's already well known) that Kraus gave Joseph Haydn one of his symphonies in Vienna and had such high regard for it (speaking of it being the product of a great genius) that it seems virtually impossible Mozart could have been unaware of him in Vienna, even on the reputation of that one symphony. (It was of course this same symphony that was wrongly published later in Haydn's name ! - but that too is another story - one that seems all too common whenever music gets close to either Haydn or Mozart - as Kraus himself had experienced in Paris, by all accounts).

Regarding the 'Paris' Symphony (K297) the Professor asked for more information that might be of relevance to support the view that this is not a symphony by Mozart. Well, please excuse the length of this post but I'll do my best here to support this view.

At the Estense Library in Modena is a catalogue from the Bonn chapel whose upkeep was the responsibility of the Kapellmeister. (It's reference there is C.53.1). It was started in 1785 and was kept until at least 1792 (two years before the Bonn chapel was hastily evacuated in 1794). One of the reasons we know this is that it contains reference to several early works by the young Ludwig van Beethoven.

But this same catalogue (whose upkeep was within the remit of Kapellmeister Luchesi) and which was definitely started the year after the last inventory at Bonn (1784) contains no less than 14 symphonies that are today 'officially' (note this word please) works by Mozart. I will use their Koechel Numbers as follows -

K320
K338
K203
K200
K385
K319
K425
K201
K250
K297
K504
K551
K543
K182

Of the above list we know that 4 of these were genuinely received at Bonn between 1784 and closure of the chapel in 1794. These are known to have been symphonies K250,338,425 and 543. But these are the very symphonies missing from the Bonn music now at Estense library in Modena. Thus, there are today at Modena not 14 'Mozart' symphonies as in the catalogue C53.1 but only 9. (For one other symphony is K551 'Jupiter' - though it's explanation for being independently at Modena would require a detailed and quite separate post to tell). Suffice to say that the 9 'Mozart' symphonies now there came from Bonn and they include the 'Paris' (K297).

Now, this fact would normally not be a problem if we were not first made aware of certain facts. The first (sorry to repeat it) is that in 1784 the inventory made that year (at the accession of Max Franz as Elector of Bonn) makes no mention of ANY work being there by Mozart. (Nor any mass or chamber work). The records at Bonn speak only of 4 symphonies of Mozart being introduced in to the chapel archives AFTER 1784 (i.e. in years after the last inventory had been made) - the 4 already refered to above. Furthermore, the symphonies now in Modena have somehow become 'Mozart' symphonies. (Previously at Bonn the archivists of 1784 simply called them 'by various authors'). This was so curious that some sort of explanation must be found.

The conservative response to 'Mozart' symphonies from Bonn now being in Italy has been (so far) to first ignore the simple facts. This stragegy worked for a few decades. For example earlier versions of Koechel tell us nothing of these Modena manuscripts. The next 'explanation' offered (this grudgingly and made in the mid-20th century) was that these documents at the Estense library must surely be copies of Mozart symphonies that were made in Italy around the early 19th century and therefore have no relevance to the archives of Bonn. But, in fact, detailed analsysis of the paper on which these symphonies are written and also of the contents of the 1784 inventory plus the entries in catalogue C53.1 at Modena (this brilliantly made by pioneering researchers such as Giorgio Taboga of Italy etc) have shown clearly that watermarks are from copies that came to Modena from Bonn. Other evidence supports this fact (including attempts to inventory them in to some sort of numerical order - this made on at least 3 occassions prior to their actual arrival in Italy). This despite the fact that covers have often been ripped off or first pages have been removed etc. so as to obscure the significance of these works.

The Koechel catalogue (6th edition of 1964) shows the same conservatism towards the Modena archives in not even refering to the fact that there is at Modena a manuscript of K504 'Prague' and an anonymous copy of K551 'Jupiter'. The reason for this oversight is quite simple - the editors of Koechel were well aware that the very presence of these two works at Modena contradicts the assumption that they were composed by Mozart in Vienna after 1784. For these symphonies were not attributed to anyone in 1784 despite them being by 'Mozart' by the time of their eventual arrival at Modena. In fact the Bonn archives were not examined until the 1850's in Modena but were simply stored away.

Thus, Kapellmeister Luchesi (who was unfortunately absent from Bonn at the time of the 1784 Inventory) was not attributed these very works. And despite the fact that no inventory of any value would ever label 10 symphonies as 'anonymous' without good reason or would fail to attribute them as a matter of course to the current Kapellmeister - they are nevertheless 'Mozart' symphonies. Of which the 'Paris' is one.

But Mozart (as the professor has already told us) was not known to publishers as a composer of symphonies. In fact, with the exception of the 'Paris' he goes remarkably unmentioned in European publishing circles as a symphony writer throughout his whole lifetime. This despite the fact that men such as the now 'anathema' Andrea Luchesi was famed in Germany and France at the time as a well known writer of symphonies in great demand (most of these, coincidentally, having 'mysteriously disappeared').

The available evidence suggests Luchesi supplied Mozart with K297 in Mannheim before Mozart left for Paris in April of 1778. He recopied it in his own hand on paper that seems to have been sent to him with the original manuscript (for we know the watermarks of the paper Mozart used to copy it are of a kind in common use at Bonn - 'Nic Heisler). Also, in its original form the second movement of this symphony was substituted in Paris at the request of Le Gros. This is why it differs from copies known today at Harburg/Wallerstein (which has an Andante in 6/8 time) compared to that at Regensburg (Thurn and Taxis) with its Andante in 3/4 time.

Le Gros asked Mozart to change the 6/8 Andante when he first heard it in rehearsal at Paris (saying it was too long and too modulating). So Mozart offered him a second (3/4) version - passing all the work off as his very own. Or trying to. But on 25th September something serious happened between the two men that caused Baron von Grimm, his Paris sponsor, to become very angry and to send Mozart away from Paris by the first available Strasbourg stagecoach. (Grimm also broke off relations with Leopold Mozart). Or so it seems.

At Regensburg (which, again, is a copy not even acknowledged to exist by Koechel editors) is clear evidence that this was once attributed to Luchesi. Traces of Luchesi's name are still clearly visible here as is the original slow movement. (I have a photocopy of that versions first page). This was provided to me by Mr Giorgio Taboga (whose work in this area and many others related to it is truly extraordinary).

If this 'Paris' affair had been an isolated incident in the symphonic career of Mozart one could overlook it. But, unfortunately, it is not. Setting aside the cavernous problems with the early 'Mozart' symphonies we see that things simply continued in the middle and later period as far as symphonies are concerned. For example, the thematic catalogue begun by Mozart in 1784 contradicts (very seriously) evidence that indicates his symphonic creations from even that date onwards came from other sources.

Take, for example the great G Minor Symphony (Symphony No.40) - one of the 3 reputed to have been written by Mozart (for no real reason) in 6 weeks during the summer of 1788. That work is very heavily reliant on material written by the Italian composer Traetta for a new comic work 'Knight Errant' written in 1778, fully 10 years earlier. To the point of outright plagiarism. And Traetta's work was itself based on a work written in Parma 18 years before that -'Stordilano, Grenada's Prince'. (See R. Zanetti's 'La musica italiana del 700 Busto Arsizio, 1977, p.483 onwards).

I want to finish here by some comments on K16a which, though not a Mozart symphony is nevertheless helpful in illustrating the degree of problem we have here in resolving these problems of Mozart attribution. This work called K16a (whose score was found in 1943 at Odense in Denmark and whose parts were found there some years later) seems superficially to be a dead end. We could easily overlook it as being a simple error of attribution to Mozart made by the Danes in the early 19th century.

But I've looked more closely at this matter. It turns out that K16a was undoubtedly a work published by Breitkopf and Hartel - for it is refered to in a catalogue made by them from the 1790's along with 3 other symphonies - one which is today regarded as a genuine Mozart symphony. But all 4 of these 'Mozart' works are listed as coming from a dealer in Hamburg. (K16a arrived in Denmark 2 years after Mozart's death - in 1793).

The paper on which K16a is written is French. It comes from a factory at Annonay in southern France owned by the Montgolfier family (whose sons are famed for the first manned balloon flights in the late 18th century). That paper mill began producing paper in 1761.

But bear in mind an important fact. The Jesuits were banned in France at this time - since 1762 - (and they had been 'officially' in Austria and Germany also in 1773). And, in 1779 (at the time K16a was being written down on that paper) a new Jesuit college - one where music was taught along with art had been opened to consolidate Jesuit losses, one at Liege in Belgium. That college (and the archbishop who oversaw its opening,) insisted on using only acceptable models as the guide for producing and learning both art and music - though the art was also contemorary in its content. (Diderot's best friend in Paris was none other than Baron Grimm).

This new fashion was called 'emulation' and it had found its first expression in Paris with the opening of the 'Societe Libre d'Emulation' (1776) and similar other centres elsewhere in France soon after.

In fact 'emulation' (or the forced copying of topically acceptable models) is described by one writer as -

'a key precept in early 17th century Jesuit colleges, with its copying of exemplary models. And 'emulation' was an essential quality of the free citizens developed during the French Revolution' (Kaplan N - 'Virtuous Competition among citizens - Emulation in Politics and Pedagogy during the French Revolution - '18th century studies' - Vol.36 No.2 (Winter 2003) - p.241-248.

This trend for 'emulation' in music worked both ways. What of the little known Johann Schobert (1720-67) ? Mozart's family are known to have used (even misused) his compositions on their early tours and his works had considerable influence on Mozart's music. (Leopold speaks very disparagingly of him too).

The same can be said of Hermann Friedrich Raupach (1728-1778) whose sonatas were embedded within 'Mozart's' first 4 concertos but who is described by Baron Grimm in Paris as being an outstanding keyboard improviser.

It's a curious fact too that as late as 1774 the 18 year old Mozart is still playing these first 4 'Mozart' concertos at Munich ! For in that year he makes a new cadenza for K40.

The truth is that Mozart and his relationship with France was to continue much later than has been generally recognised. And it was to Hamburg that the fleeing Beaumarchais would come in 1792, the year after Mozart's death.

To tie all this together, I think Mozart studies must in the near future come to terms with certain hard facts - some of which will require the rejection of certain deep seated assumptions on his life and career. There is ample evidence that many works credited to Mozart (even among those which he claims to have written from 1784 onwards) were not so much composed by him as supplied to him.

This break with convention can be compared to the affair of the so-called '12th Mass of Mozart'. (It's a curious fact that one of the most important works that made Mozart famous in English speaking lands during the 19th and even well in to the 20th century - this '12th Mass of Mozart' was a church work that was not even of his own composition. But who in Germany or Austria pointed that fact out ??

I want to end here with a typical example of the material with which we must work if we are to really get to the truth.

In the Koechel appendixes is a work catalogued as Anh C 15.12 (3 Cadenzas for 2 Violins in A). The manuscript is today in Hamburg University and it has long been described as containing on it a note in the hand of Constanze Mozart saying that these cadenzas are by Mozart. Normally, such a small matter would not be important. But, in fact, recent research has shown that the handwriting on the piece is actually that of Leopold Mozart. As for the cadenzas themselves, well, they have nothing at all to do with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Yet another example of the manufacturing of reality by those close to the Mozart scene.

Kraus and his part in 'Figaro' - now THAT would be a story, for sure !

Regards

Robert

Announcement

Mozart, Kraus, and the Idomeno March

Mozart, Kraus, and the Idomeno March

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment