I aim by next Tuesday evening to submit here an article 'Did Mozart write the Opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and, if not, did JM Kraus ?'. In the meantime here is a Preface to it -
...........
'DID MOZART WRITE THE OPERA 'LE NOZZE DI FIGARO' AND, IF NOT, DID JM KRAUS ?'
Preface
I submit this short article on the subject of Mozart's (supposed opera), 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in the certain knowledge that it will be rejected outright by almost everyone who reads it. Its critics will respond in their time-honoured fashion by saying that it lacks what they love most, 'scientific evidence', and they will say that nothing here comes close to justifying a major revision of the traditional view that Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte were the true creators of that work. Some readers will have sympathy with the fact that time has been spent in the preparation of this article while others will breathe a sigh of relief that recent attacks on our conventional Mozart have finally been shown to be baseless. Still others will tell us that my article has some value in showing how such articles should NOT be written. And so on. But, having also studied the life and career of Mozart myself (and this for a good few years) I already feel justified to make these few preliminary remarks.
Frankly, I know of no other area of musical history so deeply infected by pseudo-science, exaggeration, myth, dogmatism and illogicality then that of the life and career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I also find it to be the LEAST well documented life and career of all the great composers - this contrary to conventional belief.
It's something unique to see example after example of Mozart's reputation being defended on grounds that are, frankly, spurious. If, for example, 'Mozart's' Requiem has (as it does) on its title page a fraudulent signature and a text in the same hand saying that the piece was written by 'me' (meaning Mozart) this, in itself, amazingly, does not prove fraud in terms of Mozart studies. No - for the first thing you must realise (if you are a neutral reader) is that Mozart studies don't work like that. If the editors of Koechel issue their latest version of Mozart's works and it still contains within its main section works that are actually by other composers, well, this too is not to be viewed as a further example of absurdity. For the first thing you as a neutral reader must realise is that Mozart studies don't work like that. It is not for you, dear reader, to speak of absurdities in such an expert area of study. You must accept them but must accept too that the conventions remain. And thus, like Confucious, no change is good except that which consolidates tradition.
If it can be shown that Mozart, the man, lied on a whole series of issues that have a bearing on his musical career such evidence, in itself, though true, is not enough for you to say that he is a liar. If we see example after example of censorship or the deliberate tampering of manuscripts in the area of Mozart studies (some of this done even within the lifetime of the composer) such things, though true, must nevertheless not shake your confidence in the traditional view of his life and career. And if, in fact, paper studies and handwriting studies and a whole range of unsympathetic evidence is not sufficient to bring major changes to our view of Mozart and his career then, I say, the iconic status of Mozart today is no more valid, in fact, than that of his supposed career itself.
This historical/musicological/biographical area of study has come close to becoming a paradigm on its own terms - impervious to criticism, reason, common sense and to the mountain of evidence that stands today against many of its most cherished assumptions.
For all these reasons I know in advance that my article must fail. But I focus now on Figaro and do so away from the Vienna where it was first premiered on 1st May 1786, since virtually the whole story of that play and even of that opera came from places and contexts that are alien to those who have argued for the 'traditional' view of its genesis.
In arguing that credit for composing this remarkable opera is due to Joseph Martin Kraus I am saying that such a view is more consistent with the known facts of those times from many areas of study than is the version that is traditional.
I have found no document, no Kraus confession to having written this opera. Nor have I found correspondence in favour of Kraus of the kind that clearly supports the traditional attribution. Still, I have a case to present and here it is -
//
Robert
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-07-2006).]
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-07-2006).]
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-07-2006).]
...........
'DID MOZART WRITE THE OPERA 'LE NOZZE DI FIGARO' AND, IF NOT, DID JM KRAUS ?'
Preface
I submit this short article on the subject of Mozart's (supposed opera), 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in the certain knowledge that it will be rejected outright by almost everyone who reads it. Its critics will respond in their time-honoured fashion by saying that it lacks what they love most, 'scientific evidence', and they will say that nothing here comes close to justifying a major revision of the traditional view that Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte were the true creators of that work. Some readers will have sympathy with the fact that time has been spent in the preparation of this article while others will breathe a sigh of relief that recent attacks on our conventional Mozart have finally been shown to be baseless. Still others will tell us that my article has some value in showing how such articles should NOT be written. And so on. But, having also studied the life and career of Mozart myself (and this for a good few years) I already feel justified to make these few preliminary remarks.
Frankly, I know of no other area of musical history so deeply infected by pseudo-science, exaggeration, myth, dogmatism and illogicality then that of the life and career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I also find it to be the LEAST well documented life and career of all the great composers - this contrary to conventional belief.
It's something unique to see example after example of Mozart's reputation being defended on grounds that are, frankly, spurious. If, for example, 'Mozart's' Requiem has (as it does) on its title page a fraudulent signature and a text in the same hand saying that the piece was written by 'me' (meaning Mozart) this, in itself, amazingly, does not prove fraud in terms of Mozart studies. No - for the first thing you must realise (if you are a neutral reader) is that Mozart studies don't work like that. If the editors of Koechel issue their latest version of Mozart's works and it still contains within its main section works that are actually by other composers, well, this too is not to be viewed as a further example of absurdity. For the first thing you as a neutral reader must realise is that Mozart studies don't work like that. It is not for you, dear reader, to speak of absurdities in such an expert area of study. You must accept them but must accept too that the conventions remain. And thus, like Confucious, no change is good except that which consolidates tradition.
If it can be shown that Mozart, the man, lied on a whole series of issues that have a bearing on his musical career such evidence, in itself, though true, is not enough for you to say that he is a liar. If we see example after example of censorship or the deliberate tampering of manuscripts in the area of Mozart studies (some of this done even within the lifetime of the composer) such things, though true, must nevertheless not shake your confidence in the traditional view of his life and career. And if, in fact, paper studies and handwriting studies and a whole range of unsympathetic evidence is not sufficient to bring major changes to our view of Mozart and his career then, I say, the iconic status of Mozart today is no more valid, in fact, than that of his supposed career itself.
This historical/musicological/biographical area of study has come close to becoming a paradigm on its own terms - impervious to criticism, reason, common sense and to the mountain of evidence that stands today against many of its most cherished assumptions.
For all these reasons I know in advance that my article must fail. But I focus now on Figaro and do so away from the Vienna where it was first premiered on 1st May 1786, since virtually the whole story of that play and even of that opera came from places and contexts that are alien to those who have argued for the 'traditional' view of its genesis.
In arguing that credit for composing this remarkable opera is due to Joseph Martin Kraus I am saying that such a view is more consistent with the known facts of those times from many areas of study than is the version that is traditional.
I have found no document, no Kraus confession to having written this opera. Nor have I found correspondence in favour of Kraus of the kind that clearly supports the traditional attribution. Still, I have a case to present and here it is -
//
Robert
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-07-2006).]
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-07-2006).]
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-07-2006).]
Comment