'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos

[WoO]

Leopold Mozart writes to his daughter in november 1785:

"Endlich habe vom 2ten Novemb: einen Brief von deinem Bruder erhalten und zwar in 12 Zeihlen. Er bittet um Verzeihung, weil er über Hals und Kopf die opera, le Nozze di Figaro, fertig machen muss."

...Leopold tells Nannerl he received a letter from Wolfgang: he is busy writing Le Nozze di Figaro...

Mozart - Briefe und Aufzeichnungen (MBA)
Band III, p.443, letter 897 (11 november 1785)

Regards,
WoO

[Selby A]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Dear Agnes;

May I add, Naxos has recorded four CD's of symphonies by Kraus, good performances with a pocket-friendly price. And recently, they came out with a CD of his piano music.


Hofrat

_______

Thank you for the information. I will certainly look into it.

Regards,
Agnes.

[HaydnFan]

Originally posted by Peter:
Kraus's best known opera 'Proserpina' falls short of Gluck, let alone Mozart.

Yes, and Gluck is not much to listen to if you ask me...I've heard Orfeo...oh dear, find me a pillow and blanket. His music is charming in its own way...

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
Yes, and Gluck is not much to listen to if you ask me...I've heard Orfeo...oh dear, find me a pillow and blanket. His music is charming in its own way...

Dear HaydnFan;

Although we all revel upon hearing the masterpieces of music's grand masters, let us not forget the multitude of "minor masters" and "second tier composers" who supplied music for the masses, and many times under very severe conditions. Because these "minor masters" like Kraus and Luchesi were so good, they made our "grand masters" like Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn even grander still.


Hofrat

[atserriotserri]

Looking on the internet for resources to increase my musical knowledge, I found this article which, besides providing some information on the works and travels of Mozart in that 1791, finds memes in the priests' marches from Idomeneo (1781) and Die Zauberflote. http://www.goldbergstiftung.org/file...rtcomplete.pdf
The same author has another study that can be found in http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/2000/vol4/jan_s.html
In this one, the author points out examples of memes in other Mozart's and other composer's works.

Besides that, Robert, speaking in general terms and if I remember well, having being said from other posters, I think that you've inverted the order of the factors to bring your theory to the forum. The discussion in this topic would have been different (perhaps with less tension) and more productive, deeper or more detailed if you had started the topic with a more "finished" theory, since it looks you're polishing it as you're being replied (if it isn't so, please excuse me but it's my impression, being I more an spectator than a contributor since any of you have studied more than I've done the subject), which does nothing more than diminishing your credibility.
Even more, since it has arisen the court-trial metaphore in this topic, allow me to question your strategy. You have explained a theory and to any reply you receive, your standard reaction is asking for the font or source for that reply, when up to now you're basing this topic in your interpretation of what really happened.
I mean, you're doing few more than ask "where where you when the crime happened?" and when answered say "do you have witnesses?", you're not producing evidence for yourself but still looking for inconsistencies, which is far for being sufficient whan you're accusing one of the most relevant citizens in Musictown, W.A.Mozart.

[robert newman]

Dear Atserriotserri,

Thanks for these good points. I think we need to make a distinction between a theory and the way it is presented. Of the theory itself, (that the careers of Haydn and Mozart were largely manufactured) the thing is easily enough said. But how to avoid pages and pages of footnotes ? How to make a start to showing this ? The answer (as I see it) is to set Mozart in the context which gave rise to such a thing and have footnotes for anyone who bothers to give a reaction.

In the specific case of 'Figaro' (detached by two centuries as we are from the realities of those times) we think it strange that any such things should be proposed as fakery, or fabrication. But that's the price we pay for living in our time, not theirs.

In answer to your point of refining ideas here online, yes, for sure. Mozart is definitely, as you say, one of the big names. But I see examples where the rules of criticism are bent time and time again to preserve views of him and his career that are, frankly, very unfair. I sacrifice footnotes because this angle represents an attempt to sketch a whole context within which (later) you can have all the footnotes you wish.

The one think I've tried to avoid is sloppy reasoning. Whether this theory is right or wrong I've tried to judge it at each step before reaching any general statement. And now its a general statement with (I hope) enough substance to make it coherent for anyone who might care to consider it.

But I wouldn't write something of that kind if I didn't think that it can survive criticism, even in such an informal style.

Anyway, there is quite a lot of information on this and I hope it's interesting enough for those interested in the subject.

Regards

[robert newman]

To finish the article on 'Figaro' by tomorrow evening (my time) seems hardly possible. It's not that things are not written down - I have to hand reams of notes. I think that most questions that could be raised on the subject would be able to be answered. But writing it down in to easily readable sections is proving to be no easy thing to do.

At the risk of annoying people I submit below the introduction and a section dealing with the question of style in 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (since traditionalists will see this as clear proof that Mozart was the true composer of this opera). I disagree.

I will work on other sections (including the role of the Jesuits in the 'Weiner Klassik', 1750-1806, and Kraus/Beaumarchais and 'Figaro' but it would be best if I do this without giving myself unrealistic time committments.

Sorry for this but you have my promise that I will submit as soon as I can on those other sections. In the meantime here's the introduction and the section on stylistic evidence -

‘Le Nozze di Figaro’

For over 200 years Mozart (1756-1791) has been credited with having composed the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ (premiered as it was on 1st May 1786 at the Vienna Burgtheater) and this tradition includes crediting the writing of its libretto to the poet and fugitive priest Lorenzo da Ponte (born Emanuele Conegliano), (1749-1838).

In spite of its supposed impregnability I wish to call in to question this traditional attribution by suggesting this most famous opera was actually composed by Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792) with its libretto written not by Da Ponte but by the Italian librettist Carlo Goldoni (1707-1793). It’s fully accepted from the outset that a great deal of evidence (documentary and of other kinds) supports the traditional view just as it must be accepted that evidence is itself subject to criticism. There are many cases where a surviving version of events, though dating from a time contemporary with the events it describes and even written by people involved in them has later been proved to be false, defective, or unreliable.

That crimes have been committed which lack documentary evidence of their planning is an indisputable fact. To point out that monuments have often been built to heroes who, in later years, have been proved unworthy of such honour is, similarly, beyond question. Therefore the mere existence of a body of favourable evidence (documentary and/or other kinds), even though it may seem unanimous on an important issue is not sufficient for us to assume that the traditional authorship of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ is, when questioned, an open and shut case. The first thing is that, of course, to question is to say that, temporarily at least, the case is not ‘open and shut’. In addition, many events (particularly those in times of war) lack evidence of any kind to support what is believed of them other than that written by the victorious side, and these often in exaggerated or unreliable forms. There are however 3 points on which it must be agreed that the traditional views of this opera have a huge advantage -

1. The traditional view is hugely supported by documentary and other evidence
2. The onus is (correctly) on those who disagree with it to persuade a ‘court’ of their own (contrary) position.
3. It ‘s most unlikely that a deep seated tradition (one that finds the support of documentary evidence) can be overthrown by the mere fact that it is challenged unless evidence can be presented of a kind whose consistency and verifiability is found to be superior. .

THE STYLISTIC ARGUMENT

In this first section we focus on the ‘stylistic argument’, consisting as it does of the undeniable fact that music contained within ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ is more ‘Mozartean’ in style than ‘Krausean’. The same must also be admitted of a number of other stage works written by Mozart before the 1786 premiere of ‘Figaro’ (all of them traditionally attributed to Mozart also) for they too have a have musical content that is stylistically and very distinctly ‘Mozartean’, far more so, again, than is found in the known stage music of Joseph Martin Kraus. I mean specifically the three works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ (K422) of 1783, ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ (K430) of 1783?/4 and the one act Singspiel ‘Der Schauspielkdirektor’ (K486) of early 1786.

Critics will say I am ‘digging my own grave’ by conceding so much ground to tradition. They will say my reference to these three works merely reinforces their already strong case. My reply is that a verdict on such issues is surely delivered by a jury at the end of a case and not at its beginning.

Consider what Mozart’s operatic achievements prior to May of 1786 would be if he had not composed ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’. Is it not argued that these two works are examples of that style which we find in ‘Figaro’ (and no-one else’s) ? Fairness, even logic, dictates that if these two earlier works are powerful examples of Mozart’s style, a style we see in ‘Figaro, then, Mozart’s authorship of these two works themselves is, temporarily at least, as crucial a question as that of ‘Figaro’ itself. But we can go further. If it were not for the fact that these two unfinished operas survive from 1783-4 and are frequently portrayed as ‘dry runs’ for the eventual composition of ‘Figaro’ would we not marvel at the existence of any distinctively Mozartean style in ‘Figaro’ ?. We can and should ask what was the source of that style and in which works we can see and hear it. Is it to be found, perhaps, within ‘Idomeneo’ of 1781? Again, is Mozart’s operatic style distinctive in stage works attributed to him before 1781 ? If so, in which before 1781 can we hear it ? And yet, between 1781 and 1786 (but not before) we see ‘Mozartean’ style emerge and this through the two fragmentary works now under discussion. But with these two projects what emerges, frankly, is very different, stylistically, from those that preceded it. It can hardly be otherwise. The two operatic fragments of ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ are the ‘real Mozart’ we all know and love. Is it not true therefore that this fully developed style has arrived, in fact, suddenly ?.

Let me make another brief but related point. I didn’t ask you to consider ‘Der Schauspieldirektor’ (this being a one act singspiel dating from the early months of 1786). But listen to it and you will be as surprised by its musical content as by the sudden arrival of ‘Mozartean style’ in ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and a year later in ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’. In this small work we hear no expertise at all. We hear instead a Mozart strangely at odds with what we’ve just heard – one who has musically gone in to what we can only describe as regression. ‘Der Schauspieldirektor’ is a rather large musical disappointment. With the exception of its jolly overture it’s rarely inspiring and no music lover, no lover of Mozart’s music, has ever ranked it amongst his good works let alone amongst his best. And yet it was written years after both these earlier works and literally months before the premiere of ‘Figaro’.‘Der Schauspieldirektor’ must surely be rated on musical musical grounds below either ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ or ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’. How is one to account for this ?

Since stylistic arguments are evidence of a kind let such a question be faced honestly. Here in ‘Der Schauskpieldirektor’ is music of surprisingly poor quality. But students of Mozart know this work, small in size, had huge, undeniable significance for Mozart’s public career. Written in February 1786 and premiered on the same day and at the same event as a competing Italian opera by Salieri this poor work reveals something very different from what ‘traditionalists’ suggest. (The work was commissioned from Mozart by the Emperor Joseph 2nd as was the Salieri opera premiered alongside it to provide entertainment to visiting relatives of his at Schonnbrun). The reason for such a double commission is a matter of musical history - it was intended to reflect to its audience the state of artistic rivalry in stage works at that time (1786) and to show two different schools were still competing for supremacy. Italian opera and German Singspiel. How then, given this fact, are we to account for the remarkably poor stuff that Mozart has written here ? How are we to explain that Mozart, here in a situation where his compositional brilliance is most in need of being illustrated/demonstrated in public, has so spectacularly failed ?

In 1784 (this fully 11 years after education in the Holy Roman Empire had been taken away from the virtual monopoly of the Jesuit Order by dissolution of that Order in papal Rome) the Emperor Joseph issued a decree in favour of German language being taught in all places of learning. He also decreed that all government announcements over territories where he was in authority were to be printed in German and ordered that, from that time onwards all government servants were to be able to speak it. And Joseph, by doing so, had demolished (successfully) the traditionally dogmatic teaching of that Order who till their dissolution insisted solely on Latin being the medium of academic instruction. (Joseph was both emperor of Austria and, of course, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire). It was Joseph’s mother, Maria Theresa, who had banned them (this supported by the rulers of many other states). And it was her son Joseph 2nd who had commissioned from Mozart ‘Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail’ for his pet project of establishing a German theatre – a project which, even in 1786, Joseph still hoped would finally prevail.

In which location is this 1 act singspiel of Mozart’s set ? It’s not in Austria. No – it’s a comedy set in the Principality of Salzburg – a Principality that the Emperor Joseph 2nd ruled over only not as part of the Austrian empire but as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. This is an important point. By setting this work in Salzburg (and it is said that Joseph himself suggested the plot to the librettist) the message would not have been lost on that audience that Joseph in 1786 had every intention of making German the lingua franca not only of Austria and its territories but of the Holy Roman Empire. These political/even religious undercurrents featured in that dual of music on that day in February 1786, a few short months before the premiere in Vienna of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

The ‘traditionalist’ will find it hard to contemplate the possibility that these Mozart works stretching back to 1781 (and therefore consisting of ‘Idomeneo’, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’) may not actually be compositions of Mozart despite the fact (the indisputable fact) that Mozart worked on them, arranged them, and has always been credited with being their composer. But sudden arrival of his distinctive style suggests some explanation must be sought for these two works featuring in Mozart’s life before ‘Figaro’ – an explanation we must discover by more closely studying the known facts of these two works. There is, in short, no problem in attributing ‘Der Schauspieldirektor’ to Mozart. But by automatically attributing 3 of these works that preceded 'Figaro' we may be ignoring extremely important facts.

In the case of ‘Idomeneo’ the Munich opera composer Peter de Winter (himself author of more than 20 stage works at the time) is recorded as accusing Mozart of plagiarism during the time when he was in Munich. (Winter claims Mozart deliberately added music to his opera that was Handel’s). And we must still explain the arrival of Mozart’s distinctive style that emerges from around 1781 onwards.

Again, neither the fragmentary ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ nor ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were commissioned. And yet we have involvement in both these works of librettists. (Works uncommissioned - something we find again, of course, in ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’). Taking all these things together a remarkable fact emerges that Mozart seems to have been happy to launch in to writing these two operas (and later ‘Figaro’ itself) without apparent commission and with two (at least) librettists working in collaboration with him in such behaviour. ‘Figaro’, is therefore to be seen as the third opera he writes within a 3 year span without commission. In defence of tradition it’s often argued that Mozart, tiring with these two works from 1783/4 and seeing little artistic merit in proceeding with either, simply abandoned them. So easy an answer. In fairness, wouldn’t such behaviour be the musical equivalent of an architect twice beginning (through a contractor) the building of a house, twice, only to tire of both by the time they were partially constructed ? Such things occurring twice in quick succession with different librettists is highly unusual. How much more so if we add ‘Figaro’ to the equation ?

The traditionalist points next to the fact that Mozart is recorded as searching high and low for good operatic libretto. He will argue (and often has) that Mozart, finding none, made the best of what was available. In point of fact, a great number of operas have been written using librettos not ideal though made great by a composer’s music.

Again, in the months before the premiere of ‘Idomeneo’in 1781 Mozart found time to write page after page of detail to his father from Munich describing meticulous care he is taking on that work – a series of letters that have our admiration but for the fact that they conceal the far greater reality that he, Mozart, at this time was months behind in fulfilling his commission to the Elector of Bavaria and had rushed to Munich because he had been able to achieve very little in the months before at Salzburg. Mozart writes that although he has written virtually nothing at the time when he leaves Salzburg for Munich (late 1780) he will nevertheless ‘write it all down’ when he gets there. He already has the libretto and has had it for months.. Such is his confidence, in his own words.

Near catastrophe is suppressed by a new story that the real problems facing Mozart in Munich were those given to him by the libretto of Giambattista Varesco and none of his own making. The same Mozart who tells us how he suffers at the hands of Varesco, how unsuitable Varesco's text is, and how he, Mozart, must make changes that only he can understand. Mozart even describes Varesco as ‘knowing nothing at all of the opera or the stage’. (Such a bald statement is manifestly untrue since it was the same Giambattista Varesco who in 1775 had collaborated with Mozart by providing the libretto for ‘Il Re Pastore’ (K208), itself derived from a very well known libretto (used for similar works by no less than 5 composers before this date) and on which there’s good reason to believe Mozart was helped in its composition by the then Kapellmeister of Salzburg, Dominico Fischietta (1720-1810). To question Varesco’s competence and to run in to huge problems with its text at this late stage is but one example of how unreliable the Mozart correspondence can be at times when Mozart’s own abilities are under scrutiny. We saw the same thing at Mannheim in 1778 where, again, Mozart is quick to condemn Abbe Vogler as a charlatan – a man whose musical method was published and approved by first France and later by the Royal Society of London. But Vogler (later to become a leading keyboard player and in later years to be compared only to the young Beethoven) is in Mozart’s eyes no composer nor even a competent organist or keyboard player. (G. Taboga came to the same conclusion with regard to ‘Il Re Pastore’ by saying, ‘Kapellmeister Fischietta honoured the Prince Max Franz’s visit to Salzburg in 1775 with a specially composed serenade and also helped the young Mozart in composition of ‘Il Re Pastore’, a work that had been already set to music by many composers including Fischietta himself in the Venice carnival of 1762 for the theatre group of Bassano del Grappa). Whatever way we approach this we see the same Mozart who left Salzburg in 1780 saying that nothing more needs to be done than ‘writing it down’ but finding himself in Munich in a situation where he is almost out of his depth. What caused this need for major change ? Why the panic ? Is this not is the behaviour of a person waiting for help ? A person who is trying to do something beyond his own capacity. Until the music score arrives in his hands.

I suggest what really occurred with ‘Idomeneo’ is very, very different from what ‘tradition’ suggests. The compositional reputation of Mozart, having been largely manufactured and exaggerated from his childhood and through his youth, was, in 1780, being further ‘groomed’ by his receipt of a commission to write ‘Idomeneo’ – a task he was hardly able to achieve , and that this accounts for the fact that no record exists in Munich for payment by the court to Mozart for the work, and for the expenses he incurred in leaving Salzburg that winter for Munich.

Why should this matter ? Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’. Mozart, already cultivated to some degree by his father, by Abbe Bullinger and now through Abbe Vogler, has been selected on account of his indisputable musical talent to bring honour and praise to Austria (and to those Jesuits who sponsored him). That ‘apprenticeship’ consisted amongst other things of his perfecting a style of composition that would be uniquely his – this tested out in these two fragmentary operas of 1783/4, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’. For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ – in all three cases creating arrangements that were to be uniquely his from that time onwards. These works were never intended to be finished. Salzburg, the place where so much of Mozart’s reputation was stage managed.

The fact that Varesco (Court Chaplain to the Prince Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg) and Lorenzo da Ponte (renegade priest) are both associated with these two vital ‘dry runs’ for ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ is really not surprising. Salzburg, centre of the emerging myth of Mozart as a boy and a youth is in the early 1780’s the place from which (in reality) his reputation could be further enhanced. Salzburg, centre too of the future manufacture of a whole series of works in his mature name including, of course, many piano concertos and others. The same Salzburg that was home to Michael Haydn and other composers whose influence on Mozart even as a child is indisputable. The Salzburg of Leopold Mozart, Jesuit taught, and also a vital place for Mozart’s chief musical ‘minder’ at this time (Abbe Vogler) – made so in 1773 by the pope in Rome at the very time when the Jesuit monopoly on music and art was about to be crushed by dissolution of the Order. Vogler the ‘godfather’ of Mozart’s mature career and the man whose role in the career of Haydn was similar.

It’s my contention that the true reason for the existence of these two fragmentary operas was an attempt to create for Mozart a style of orchestration/arrangement that would be uniquely his and which would be used to its greatest effect, in due course, on the vital political project that went far beyond the career of any one composer - the staging of the operatic version of that most controversial play, ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. By 1783 Mozart (and soon Varesco followed by Da Ponte) would begin working together on these two test pieces – and Mozart would eventually have presented to him (by late 1785) a finished manuscript from none other than its true composer, Joseph Martin Kraus. It is also my contention that Joseph Martin Kraus had aided Mozart’s operatic career from as early as 1781 in providing at least the March in 'Idomeneo' – a March he, Kraus, was again to use (quite rightly without attributing it to Mozart) in Sweden in 1789.

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

That Mozart had already proved himself by the early 1780’s able to produce outstanding arrangements of works by other composers is proved beyond reasonable doubt by a series of symphonies/serenades and by the fact that today, at Estense Library in Modena, are copies of 9 symphonies traditionally attributed exclusively to Mozart but which actually came there from Bonn (having been inventoried there in 1784 without even one of them being attributed to him at that time). The 9 symphonies which can be strongly argued were really compositions of the Kapellmeister at Bonn, Andrea Luchesi. Study of the ‘Haffner’ Symphony or several others (this time including versions in Modena) can establish this quite clearly. It also confirms Mozart's remarkable ability to turn serenades in to symphonies and vice versa. Mozart the arranger. The simple fact is (and Taboga has already shown so beyond reasonable doubt) many of Mozart’s mature symphonies were really arrangements of works by Luchesi – this entirely relevant to the issue at hand – of us determining the true (though different) composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

How does one manufacture a musical style ? One doesn’t. It is discovered. Mozart discovered his on the two fragmentary operas, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’. The fact that he was aided before that time and would continue to be aided after it should not obscure what for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

THE ROLE OF THE JESUITS IN THE ‘WEINER KLASSIK’ (1750-1806)

//

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-10-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

How does one manufacture a musical style ? One doesn’t. It is discovered. Mozart discovered his on the two fragmentary operas, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’. The fact that he was aided before that time and would continue to be aided after it should not obscure what for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

THE ROLE OF THE JESUITS IN THE ‘WEINER KLASSIK’ (1750-1806)

//

Robert

Oh dear Robert - another tome without facts as expected. It is NOT established beyond reasonable doubt that Luchesi was the composer of 9 great Mozart symphonies. You really must stop presenting as fact that which is not.

On to your stylistic argument - you forget that we are dealing with a composer who died young - 35 - he was still developing and who knows where he would have been had he reached 70! If you are using stylistic inconsistency as an argument then take Beethoven - you credit him with none of the important Bonn works that are considered as his, so why don't you question the sudden arrival of the Op.1 trios, Op.2 sonatas and Op.9 string trios? What is there to prepare us for the Eroica? After writing the first 8 symphonies how come the sudden dip in quality with the overtures Ruin of Athens and Namensfeier? How are the composer of the 7th symphony and the Battle of Vittoria one and the same?

If Kraus were the true composer of Figaro why on earth would he not want the glory for himself? Why would Gustav not want this for Sweden? Why would Luchesi not want credit for the Jupiter symphony and why as an Italian would he betray his own countrymen? Why are all the other composers you claim as the true authors of Mozart's music happy to let a mere arranger take the credit for the crowning achievements of 18th century classicism? Why waste so much of their 'genius' on Mozart who according to you was a fraud and pretty mediocre, as there were surely other composers in Vienna of far greater merit? I could go on pointing out the absurdity of your theory but to no avail as I am convinced you have blinded yourself to reality.

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

[robert newman]

Peter,

Correct me if I am wrong. Tradition (in words that are cushioned so as not to give offence) says that Joseph Martin Kraus is a plagiarist. It says that he did not write the March in Idomeneo. It says that he, despite being commissioned by the King of Sweden, stole/used/plagiarised the March found in Idomeneo from 1781. Is that not true ?

As far as documentary evidence is concerned, let us see how many Mozart scholars have actually studied, let alone appreciated, the 9 symphonies now at Estense Library at Modena. How many versions of Koechel will be printed without noting the existence there of works by 'Mozart' which have previously not even been recognised as copies ? And the same of the 'Paris' copy at Regensburg. No, you ask for documentary evidence and when it's presented your natural inclination is to reject it outright.

The Jesuits did not care for personal achievement. They were a military order whose aim, collectively, was to first restore themselves as an Order, having been extinguished by papal order in 1773. The history of their influence in music beyond that date, and the way in which they gained influence in Austria by supporting Mozart and Haydn's careers is an untold story.

Yes of course, such things are said to lack evidence. I think they lack no evidence if evidence is really the issue.

Regards

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Atserriotserri,

Thanks for these good points. I think we need to make a distinction between a theory and the way it is presented. Of the theory itself, (that the careers of Haydn and Mozart were largely manufactured) the thing is easily enough said. But how to avoid pages and pages of footnotes ? How to make a start to showing this ? The answer (as I see it) is to set Mozart in the context which gave rise to such a thing and have footnotes for anyone who bothers to give a reaction.

In the specific case of 'Figaro' (detached by two centuries as we are from the realities of those times) we think it strange that any such things should be proposed as fakery, or fabrication. But that's the price we pay for living in our time, not theirs.

In answer to your point of refining ideas here online, yes, for sure. Mozart is definitely, as you say, one of the big names. But I see examples where the rules of criticism are bent time and time again to preserve views of him and his career that are, frankly, very unfair. I sacrifice footnotes because this angle represents an attempt to sketch a whole context within which (later) you can have all the footnotes you wish.

The one think I've tried to avoid is sloppy reasoning. Whether this theory is right or wrong I've tried to judge it at each step before reaching any general statement. And now its a general statement with (I hope) enough substance to make it coherent for anyone who might care to consider it.

But I wouldn't write something of that kind if I didn't think that it can survive criticism, even in such an informal style.

Anyway, there is quite a lot of information on this and I hope it's interesting enough for those interested in the subject.

Regards

Robert,
First of all, thanks for your reply and understanding. Certainly there is a lot of information.
In this context, I think we should distinguish between footnotes (info subordinately related to a larger work) and relevant info sustaining a theory. Perhaps it's a matter of personal feeling, and you've mentioned several times you'll post extensively, so I leave it aside.

Back to the point, Anne Sophie Mutter mentions that "The French influence is becoming apparent in the concerts KV 216 and KV 218, among other things, by terminology and the enclosed final movements (rondeau). Perhaps the changes that Mozart made in the concert KV 218 are due to this influence. Since Mozart played this concert in Augsburg himself, he also had the note materials with him and perhaps, what he indicates in his letter from Paris to his father, dated 11 September 1778, is true especially for KV 218: "...when I have the time I arrange numerous violin concerts – I shorten them – even though at home in Germany the long ones are in style, however, a concert is better when it is short and good..."."
The possibility that the Mozarts were writing each other "in code" and that W.A. was implicitly showing to his father his dissatisfaction for what the "hired" composer presented is too round-about for me.
( http://www.anne-sophie-mutter.de/me_mozart_life.php )

[WoO]

Leopold Mozart writes to his daughter in november 1785:
"Endlich habe vom 2ten Novemb: einen Brief von deinem Bruder erhalten und zwar in 12 Zeihlen. Er bittet um Verzeihung, weil er über Hals und Kopf die opera, le Nozze di Figaro, fertig machen muss."

...Leopold tells Nannerl he received a letter from Wolfgang: he is busy writing Le Nozze di Figaro...

Mozart - Briefe und Aufzeichnungen (MBA)
Band III, p.443, letter 897 (11 november 1785)

Regards,
WoO

[Teresa]

Originally posted by WoO:
Leopold Mozart writes to his daughter in november 1785:
"Endlich habe vom 2ten Novemb: einen Brief von deinem Bruder erhalten und zwar in 12 Zeihlen. Er bittet um Verzeihung, weil er über Hals und Kopf die opera, le Nozze di Figaro, fertig machen muss."

...Leopold tells Nannerl he received a letter from Wolfgang: he is busy writing Le Nozze di Figaro...

I don't know how you can get any more "cut and dried" than this..."

Mozart - Briefe und Aufzeichnungen (MBA)
Band III, p.443, letter 897 (11 november 1785)

Regards,
WoO

[Teresa]

Originally posted by WoO:


...Leopold tells Nannerl he received a letter from Wolfgang: he is busy writing Le Nozze di Figaro...

Mozart - Briefe und Aufzeichnungen (MBA)
Band III, p.443, letter 897 (11 november 1785)

Regards,
WoO

Sorry, I put my comment in the wrong place in WoO's post. Thanks, WoO, for the information!

[Hofrat]

The Staatstheater of Stuttgart will perform "Aeneas i Cartago" by Joseph Martin Kraus on 2 July 2006. It will be the premiere performance of this opera by this company.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

One woman wrote to me today asking why, if I view the compositional fame of Haydn and Mozart as having been due to composers other than themselves I didn't say anything of the amazing similarities that everyone hears in both Mozart's and Haydn's musical styles. 'Surely', she said, 'you are missing a major point in failing to highlight such a thing when you speak of stylistic matters', etc.

I replied saying that all she wrote was true and that a joke was popular in early 19th century Vienna to the same effect in listeners not knowing who was who. But I argued that, stylistically, Mozart's music is generally more sophisticated as a version of a given piece than that of Haydn.

Of course its truly remarkable that these two giants, whose relations with one another were so close, shared styles so similar in so many respects. Few would deny it. But in searching for what we mean by 'Mozartean' or 'Haydenian' I mean, most of all, things that a music arranger or an orchestrator (rather than a composer as such) uses. I mean that both composers use devices that can and did transform the works of others in to arrangements, and in so consistent a way that we, on hearing them, can even identify Mozart or Haydn because of it.

Both composers were quite conservative in many respects, harmonically. But in the case of Mozart, his exquisite choices of instruments, his ability to use rubato in a written form, and his orchestration - it's in these things, surely,where we find and recognise his musical fingerprint.

Robert