For Cetto von Cronstorff - Koechel

[robert newman]

You asked me in the Bach thread to identify at least 30 works that are currently in the main section of Koechel which are definitely not by Mozart (or, as you put it, to quickly provide a further 10 to the 20 supposedly now being removed by its editors for the new edition).

I've given some thought to your challenge and although a list could be drawn up of far more than 30 works in the main section that are not by Mozart such a thing would need the justification of very long posts, considerable debate, and would have little prospect of finding agreement from conservatives within Mozart research. It would be far better, far more constructive, to devise a method of cataloguing the works of Mozart, one that saves us all from the growing confusion/multiplication of entries etc.

Here is my brief suggestion how future editions of the Koechel catalogue should be constructed, so as to make it possible to make changes with minimum disruption to the existing systems.

Koechel's original idea was never realised - that of a chronologically based catalogue with a main section and others related to it by means of a numbering system from 1 to 626.

I would restore to the main section of Koechel a full list numbering from K1 to K626, so that EVERY number (whether it is agreed to be a work of Mozart, an arrangement by him, or the work of someone else etc.) is at least readily available to readers in that list. Now, leaving aside the question of sub-sections for a moment, this main section would allow a given Koechel number to have one of a series of possible suffixes.

For example, K291 is a Fugue in D Major. Despite having once been attributed to Mozart it has subsequently been proved that it is actually a work claimed by Michael Hadyn, a version of which is the finale to a symphony.

K105 (61f) is a group of 6 Minuets. But it's not a work by Mozart despite the fact that it has previously been catalogued as such by Koechel. (In fact a keyboard version of these minuets exists in the hand of Nannerl Mozart in which the pieces are attributed by her to Joseph Haydn - this despite the fact that these minuets are now said to be works, again, by Michael Haydn).

The Koechel system is rapidly becoming unmanageable. So the main section should be fully restored in numbers K1 to K626. This is the first point.

Secondly, as previously mentioned, each K listing of this main section of Koechel should allow a letter of the alphabet to be added to it, if so required. Such a letter would indicate to the reader that the piece is not by Mozart but has previously been wrongly attributed to him. Therefore we would have, for example, K291/MH - and readers would immediately understand that this work, this fugue, once wrongly attributed to Mozart as a composition of his, has been recognised as being, in fact, a composition that should actually be attributed to 'MH' (Michael Haydn).

It is not difficult to think of a short list of names -

L - Leopold Mozart
K - Kraus
MH -Michael Haydn
Mv - Myslivecek
B - JS Bach
X - (Unknown but definitely not by Mozart)

etc.

In this way the original numbering system can at least be preserved, even although, of course, it can never vindicate Koechel's original assumption that these numbers are faithfully chronological.

The alternative (which is what we have at present) is a hybrid that is becoming ever more confusing to amateurs and professionals alike and a Koechel list which jumps numbers in its lists without explaining clearly what the justification is in each case.

Changes in attribition will of course occur from time to time, but such a system allows for these changes to be made with minimal confusion.

The other sections of Koechel also require restructuring but this can be done far more simply if the main section of the catalogue is first restored as per Koechel's original idea (K1 to K626).

All the other alternatives seem (to me at least) to offer no other prospect than ever more confusing references and ever more complex forms of identity in the main section and in all other sections. If the main section is simplified in this way all the other sections can be coherent and cross-referenced if necessary also. But as things stand the main section is like a goronzola cheese, full of holes, consisting often of entries which cause ever greater confusion, and which, over time, must surely lead to further confusion.

K104 (at present said to have 2 minuets that are actually by Michael Haydn) becomes K104/MH. Etc.

It's entirely possible to have a main section which contains the space to have suffixes that also identify whether the work is an arrangement, a work that is doubtfully Mozart, spurious, fragmentary etc. etc. These outer sections can be indicated in lower case letters after the K number.

So the main section is truly a main section despite it being a key to all other sections.

Ideally, the main section of a music catalogue should contain exclusively works that are agreed to be by Mozart. But there seems to be no will within Mozart research to delete from the main section of the catalogue works such as the first few piano concertos. Therefore, these concertos and other works can be retained in the main section though (I suggest) with the suffixes to show they are actually arrangements.

I'm sure this compromise can put a stop to the gradual disintegration and clumsiness of the Koechel catalogue.

Even as a fierce critic of the official version of Mozart's compositions I think every person would benefit by these simple but effective changes in the way these works are presented and discussed.

Rgds

R


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-30-2006).]

[Hofrat]

Dear Robert;

Another problem with chronological catalogs is getting the chronology right. If every composer were like Schubert who dated 98% of his manuscripts, there would be few problems with chronology. But, alas, that is not the case with many composers.

Another problem with chronological catalogs is correcting the chronology when errors are discovered. For example, what should be done if it was proven that K.123 should actually come between K.77 and K.78 (please, dear forum, I am making an example not stating a fact!!)?

Music cataloggers have found it easier to catalog by genre rather than by chronology.


Hofrat

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
You asked me in the Bach thread to identify at least 30 works that are currently in the main section of Koechel which are definitely not by Mozart (or, as you put it, to quickly provide a further 10 to the 20 supposedly now being removed by its editors for the new edition).

I've given some thought to your challenge and although a list could be drawn up of far more than 30 works in the main section that are not by Mozart such a thing would need the justification of very long posts

You are obviously unable to name 30 works in the current Koechel catalogue that are not by Mozart.

I'm the wrong addressee for your musings. As I said you should offer your knowledge to Professor Zaslaw: http://www.arts.cornell.edu/music/faculty/Zaslaw.html

[robert newman]

You say I'm 'obviously' unable to list 30 works in the current Koechel that are not by Mozart. You are of course refering only to the main section of Koechel ? If that's your challenge I can do this easily. But I'm in no great hurry to start even more lengthy (and sometimes angry) exchanges. The state of early 'Mozart' symphonies alone is a mess. So too many, many other works. Let me start with K626. How about K622 ?

It's Sunday so I thought I would give you an easy job.

Robert

p.s. I have previously written to Neal Zaslaw several times and have exchanged emails with him once on Mozartforum reference Constanze Mozart and 'The Magic Flute'. Honestly, I think the man is surely doing a great job. Besides, he has moved on from Mozart to other composers and he cannot be singlehandedly responsible for the current mess that is the traditional attribution. I would simply ask him to get time to give us his verdict on the Bonn archives at Modena.

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-30-2006).]

[robert newman]

Hi Hofrat,

I appreciate what you say. But the case with Mozart is very different. We have works concreted in to the main section which are at best arrangements by Mozart (and probably not even that). This is ridiculous but it's one of those things that we've ended up with.

I think Koechel's idea was basically a good one but as you say relatively few works have been dated. Then there have been paper and handwriting studies - these have seriously affected the listings as you know. On top of this is the common use now of two simultaneous Koechel numbers for the same work (sometimes even three). And so on.

One cannot be dogmatic. I think the current system can only be rescued by returning to a basic central section that is numbered from K1 to K626, even if it serves only as a brief index point for works that are assigned to other sections in many cases. In this way the listings can be periodically changed with minimal confusion. I think most fair minded people would agree that the current situation is really a mess.

Regards

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hi Hofrat,

I appreciate what you say. But the case with Mozart is very different. We have works concreted in to the main section which are at best arrangements by Mozart (and probably not even that). This is ridiculous but it's one of those things that we've ended up with.

I think Koechel's idea was basically a good one but as you say relatively few works have been dated. Then there have been paper and handwriting studies - these have seriously affected the listings as you know. On top of this is the common use now of two simultaneous Koechel numbers for the same work (sometimes even three). And so on.

One cannot be dogmatic. I think the current system can only be rescued by returning to a basic central section that is numbered from K1 to K626, even if it serves only as a brief index point for works that are assigned to other sections in many cases. In this way the listings can be periodically changed with minimal confusion. I think most fair minded people would agree that the current situation is really a mess.

Regards

Dear Robert;

Which edition of the Koechel catalog do you look upon as the definitive basis of your catalog??


Hofrat

[robert newman]

A random selection of works I think should never have been in the main section of the Koechel list.(Koechel based his list on the assumption that there are at least 626 works attributable to Mozart). Some items will be highly contentious. Others have (finally) been acknowledged as errors. Still others remain glued to the main Koechel list despite being universally acknowledged as not by Mozart (and known as such for a very long time. The first 4 'Mozart' piano concertos is a prime example). (This list represents roughly one half of the list that could be made) -

K17,K18,K37,K39,K40, K41,K46,K52,K55,K56,
K57,K58,K59,K60,K61,K64,K91,K92,K93,K98,
K104,K105,K106,K115,K116,K122,K140,K142,
K149,K150,K151,K152,K177,K187,K197,K198,
K211,K216,K218,K219(?),K221,K226,K227,
K233,K234,K235,K268,K289,K291,K292,K324,
K325,K326,K327,K340,K350,K351,K444,K492,
K510,K514,K622,K626.

RN

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by robert newman:

A random selection of works I think should never have been in the main section of the Koechel list.(Koechel based his list on the assumption that there are at least 626 works attributable to Mozart). Some items will be highly contentious. Others have (finally) been acknowledged as errors. Still others remain glued to the main Koechel list despite being universally acknowledged as not by Mozart (and known as such for a very long time. The first 4 'Mozart' piano concertos is a prime example). (This list represents roughly one half of the list that could be made) -

K17,K18,K37,K39,K40, K41,K46,K52,K55,K56,
K57,K58,K59,K60,K61,K64,K91,K92,K93,K98,
K104,K105,K106,K115,K116,K122,K140,K142,
K149,K150,K151,K152,K177,K187,K197,K198,
K211,K216,K218,K219(?),K221,K226,K227,
K233,K234,K235,K268,K289,K291,K292,K324,
K325,K326,K327,K340,K350,K351,K444,K492,
K510,K514,K622,K626.

RN

Robert,
I would have to second Hofrat's query. What edition of Köchel are you looking at? Those K1 numbers are mainly consisting in works that were removed years ago! For example (and I am not going through the entire list here), K 17 & 18 are symphonies #2 & 3 so-called (by Brietkopf & Hartel in their early 19th century collection). No one in the last 50 or more years has believed that these were by Mozart.

Of course, the best we can do right now is K6, which was published in the early 1960's I believe. K 17 & 18 appear in an Anhang there, solely for the purpose of explaining that they are now considered to be by someone else. Thus, they do not appear in the "Main Body" of the current (albeit obsolete) Köchel for that reason.

K1 was an anachronism as far back as the early 20th century. K3, the work of Alfred Einstein, is also mainly obsolete. Certainly, neither of them can be your guiding light when it comes to discussing what are considered today to be works of Mozart. But then, you knew that...

BTW, the definitive list (IMO) of Beethoven's works, Biamonti, also has an Anhang (2 of them, in fact), and they are a considerable list of works once attributed to Beethoven.

Cheers,
Gurn

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited 05-02-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Gurn,

Thanks. I'm not trying to be difficult here. But we are talking here of the Koechel list, yes ? Koechel (for the benefit of any who might not know it) is the name of the person who first printed a catalogue of Mozart's works. And editions ever since have paid respect to him by prefacing Mozart's works by the prefix 'K' or, sometimes, 'KV'. Yes ?

In answer to Hofrat's question (repeated by your goodself), I am not refering to the 6th or any other edition of Koechel. I am simply asking what seems to me a simple question, whether works by composers other than Mozart ought to be included in the main section of the catalogue of Mozart's works that goes by the name of Koechel - that version which is as you know sanctioned by bodies such as the Mozarteum in Salzburg.

Are music lovers entitled to know that the symphonies you refer to (K17 and K18) are NOT by Mozart ? If so, do you think that the Mozarteum should tell this to their friends in the recording industry, who stubbornly refuse to stop recording these works as 'early Mozart symphonies' ? I mean for example -

CATALOGUE NR: 82876587062
RECORD LABEL: Deutsche Harmonia Mundi
FORMAT: 2 CD Set
PRICE: £ 25.99 including VAT, or £ 22.12 excluding VAT
RELEASE DATE: 13-Sep-2004

COMPOSER: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
TITLE: Early Symphonies
TRACKS: Symphony No.1 in E flat K16. Symphony No.2 in B flat K17. Symphony No.3 in E flat K18. Symphony No.4 in D K19. Symphony No.5 in B flat K22. Symphony No.6 in F K43. Symphony No.7 in D K45. Symphony No.8 in D K48. Symphony No.9 in C K73.
CONDUCTOR: Nikolaus Harnoncourt
ARTISTS: Concentus Musicus Wien

Regards

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-02-2006).]

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
In answer to Hofrat's question (repeated by your goodself), I am not refering to the 6th or any other edition of Koechel. I am simply asking what seems to me a simple question, whether works by composers other than Mozart ought to be included in the main section of the catalogue of Mozart's works

You didn't answer Gurn's question. Which edition of Koechel are you talking about?

Originally posted by robert newman:
that goes by the name of Koechel - that version which is as you know sanctioned by bodies such as the Mozarteum in Salzburg.

The Mozarteum in Salzburg is not (and never has been) the editor of the Koechelverzeichnis. The Mozarteum has no obligation whatsoever to interfer with the ignorance of the recording industry. You might direct your suggestions to the members of the scholarly staff of the Mozarteum: http://www.mozarteum.at/06_Stiftung/...4893717&PAGE=4

[robert newman]

I am speaking of the Koechel catalogue overall - as a production in any edition, from the first to the most recent.

You are offended when I say that the Mozarteum, the leading centre of Mozart study, sanctions each edition of Koechel's catalogue. You even say they are not responsible for the ignorance of the recording industry in stubbornly persisting in producing recordings of works in the name of Mozart, though they are, in fact, NOT by Mozart.

Should I make a list here of just how common this fraud actually is ? If a symphony is NOT by Mozart but is being repeatedly released for sale in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart by Viennese, German and other - orchestras/soloists/ensembles am I not entitled to a refund if I take my recording back to the shop, this on the grounds that a fraud has occurred ? For, if this music is being sold under false pretence, what is this but fraud ?

And what will we say if, in the main section of the new Koechel there appears, yet again, works which are NOT by Mozart, despite them being (at least officially) recognised as such ? This is an absurd situation. It's a dishonest situation. And there is no excuse to say 'It's not the responsibility of the Mozarteum to correct the recording industry'. Is it not the responsibility of the Mozarteum to be a clear, concise and honest source of information on matters related to Mozart - a responsibility that does not, it seems, even apply to the orchestras of Vienna, Berlin, London, and virtually everywhere else ??

This is an absurdity. It is grossly misleading. And it is wilfully misleading the music-loving public. To say that the Mozarteum should be indifferent to this scam would be foolish.

But here, I think clearly, is a true picture of just how rotten the whole subject of what Mozart wrote and what he did not, actually is in real terms.

What value then is Koechel, or what value is the Mozarteum, if they are not in unity on these issues and if they are not actively informing the leading musicians and the leading orchestras of these things ? In such cases we can almost ask what the point of Koechel actually is, if not to inform, to serve as a reliable reference, and for the Mozarteum to do the same. The current situation is an incestuous scam, in which year after year and despite the actual truth, the name of Mozart is used (often by the leading musicians) under false pretence with nobody accepting responsibility for the fact that it's a huge problem.

These works are NOT by Mozart. They may be by Cetto von Cronstorff, or by Thomas Paine, even by George Washington. But they are certainly NOT by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.


Robert


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-02-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

All works should from now on be renumbered
as:

R.N.: Luchesi 1 - ...

Don't you think so, Robert?
A.S.
--------------------

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

If the musical achievements of a composer are being grossly inflated by the recording industry (as is undeniably occurring with Mozart) and by orchestras and musicians under contract to them, is it not fair and reasonable that this fraud should be acknowledged, stopped and that those who are doing such things should
stop doing them ?

Agnes, answer me this, is a customer entitled to a refund in such cases ?

Thank You

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
I am speaking of the Koechel catalogue overall - as a production in any edition, from the first to the most recent.

You are offended when I say that the Mozarteum, the leading centre of Mozart study, sanctions each edition of Koechel's catalogue.

Why should I be offended? Your statement is simply not true and I really don't care because you yourself are responsible for your education. The Koechelverzeichnis is not a publication of the Mozarteum. It's a publication of Breitkopf & Haertel, edited by a Mozart scholar.

Originally posted by robert newman:
You even say they are not responsible for the ignorance of the recording industry in stubbornly persisting in producing recordings of works in the name of Mozart, though they are, in fact, NOT by Mozart.

They are not responsible because they are not the 'Mozart police'. Recording producers do as they like and rightly so, because they are obliged to make money.

Originally posted by robert newman:
To say that the Mozarteum should be indifferent to this scam would be foolish.

It would be, but that doesn't change the situation. Every recording producer can look into the NMA at anytime. The Mozarteum was founded to pursue other activities than to censor the production of Mozart CDs.

[robert newman]

The 'censoring' (as you use the word) is no censorsing at all. It's a simple issue of honesty and integrity. Works should surely not be recorded or performed in the name of Mozart, often by the great orchestras and soloists of Germany, Austria, the UK and elsewhere, often through the recording industry (all those being in charge of such productions well aware of the Mozarteum, of Koechel and vice-versa) if those works are clearly not by Mozart. I can only describe this indifference by all parties to be a mutual and incestuous fraud that has taken liberties from the music loving public - the same public whom they profess to be serving.

P.S. You say that the Mozarteum does not sanction the Koechel list. If this is true, let me ask you which version of Mozart's works they consider to be authoritive ?? Is it not Koechel ?


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-02-2006).]