For Cetto von Cronstorff - Koechel

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by 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

-----------

Dear Robert,

I am sorry, I cannot offer you a refund.

You see, I strongly believe that Mozart's music was composed by Mozart himself and not by
Luchesi, Kraus or Myslevichek. Neither of these gentlemen have produced music which can be even slightly compared to the beauty of Mozart's compositions. Why then did they
not publish their own works instead of allowing Mozart to defraud them? Think about and don't blind yourself with Mr. Toboga's ideas.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]Is it not Koechel ?B]

No, because K6 is based on K3, which was fraught with mistakes in the first place. The Koechel catalogue is not an *authorative* but a provisory list. A kind of scholarly 'work in progress'. Sources reappear, watermark studies have revealed new insights. Every edition is a step further and the 'New Koechel' will be the next one.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by 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).]

Robert,
I have only a minute right now, but I would like to use it to make the point that music publishers of the 18th & 19th centuries, and record publishers of today, have this major thing in common: they are in business to make money, not to advance scholarship. If putting the name Mozart will sell more units than putting "Composer unknown, once attributed to Mozart", and it will of course, then that is what they will do, truth be damned.

And it IS important what edition of Köchel that you use. The rather flawed K3 replaced the very flawed K1 way back in the 1930's, and was itself replaced by K6 in the early 1960's. Many of the errors that you note have been corrected many times over, and by saying it doesn't matter you are throwing away the last 75 years of scholarship, and then attacking the mistakes that have been cleared up by them. I am quite sure that you don't wish to do that...

Cheers,
Gurn

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
No, because K6 is based on K3, which was fraught with mistakes in the first place. The Koechel catalogue is not an *authorative* but a provisory list. A kind of scholarly 'work in progress'. Sources reappear, watermark studies have revealed new insights. Every edition is a step further and the 'New Koechel' will be the next one.

Dear Cetto;

The purpose and objective of the Koechel catalog was to collect and sort from the all the editions which had appeared up to that time the compositions which had been issued far and wide under Mozart's name; to verify those which were his; to reject those which wrongfully bore his name, thereby bringing order into the complete works; and further, to search out the works which had disappeared and aquaint posterity with Mozart's entire artistic production and preserve it.

That is a direct quote from the Koechel catalog itself!!


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Hofrat is right. And yes, Koechel is 'work in progress'. Since updated versions appear from time to time, and since by this process the laudable aim remains to obtain a more and more accurate picture of works which are really by Mozart etc. we surely obtain as a direct consequence a more and more accurate picture also of those which are NOT his. The problem is that if the great orchestras of Germany, and of the classical musical world in general allow works to be performed in Mozart's name over which it is agreed by Koechel that he, Mozart, was not their composer then, surely, the best remedy is to see what the relationship actually is (or should be) between the Mozarteum, Koechel, and the musical world as a whole.

One analogy could be that Koechel is the recognised authority in these issues of attribution in the same way that the bible is to a church, or that of dictionaries to those who study literature. Such an analogy is of course not pefect, since different versions of the bible appear from time to time without the need to make structural changes, but different versions of Kochel can and even should appear which allow major changes. But (unless I am mistaken) the Mozarteum exists to disseminate knowledge on Mozart and to foster deeper appreciation of him and his musical legacy. An obvious relationship therefore exists between the Mozarteum and Koechel despite the fact (as Cetto says) that Koechel is privately published. The proofs of this ongoing relationship are indisputable - consisting in the main fact that Koechel IS today (as it has always been since it first appeared) the chief source of authority on these issues.

The other relationship (between the Mozarteum, Koechel and the wider musical public) is not easy to define (since it's true that the making of money is the main aim of certain works NOT by Mozart being promoted by recording companies and theatre managers as his). Is it asking too much that the great orchestras and soloists should help in resolving this problem also ? For them not to do so is to undermine the very reason for Koechel's existence and is to make that publication of no authority in actual practice. It is also to grossly inflate and to exaggerate Mozart's real achievements as a composer.

It seems clear enough that the solution to these issues is to be found by all parties committing themselves to 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. And I DO respect (of course, the founding aims of all parties concerned).

[robert newman]

Agnes writes -

'I strongly believe that Mozart's music was composed by Mozart himself and not by Luchesi, Kraus or Myslevichek'.

Fine. Which music is that ? There are thousands of recordings out there of 'Mozart' works which, in fact, are NOT by him. The time must surely arrive where the Koechel list is respected by restoring the whole main section in such a way that numbers K1 to K626 appear in sequence as a feature of the main section - i.e. in a way that general and expert readers can easily see where things actually stand in the eyes of scholarship as regards the attribution question of each and every piece. This information can and should be updated with each version of Koechel. Not to provide such information as the principal aim of Koechel would be to preside over the sure corruption of the entire aim of an authoritive catalogue for experts and enthusiasts alike.

[robert newman]

Dear Gurn,

If the principle aim of most people in the music business is to make money, then let us attribute each and every currently unattributed musical work written between 1756 and 1792 to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - since a few thousand new works in that name would do wonders for the bank balances of EMI, Koechel's publishers, and the Mozarteum.



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

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Gurn,

If the principle aim of most people in the music business is to make money, then let us attribute each and every currently unattributed musical work written between 1756 and 1792 to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - since a few thousand new works in that name would do wonders for the bank balances of EMI, Koechel's publishers, and the Mozarteum.

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

Well, Robert, sarcasm notwithstanding, my comments on the aims of the music business stand. While not precisely at odds with academia, they will invariably follow whichever path is the most potentially lucrative. By way of example, this very morning I received in the mail a box set of the Piano Concerti by English CO/Tate/Uchida. And every KV # was K1. And this set was just released (in its present 8 disk iteration) last week in the USA. Will this ever change then? I doubt it.

Cheers,
Gurn

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Gurn,

If the principle aim of most people in the music business is to make money, then let us attribute each and every currently unattributed musical work written between 1756 and 1792 to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - since a few thousand new works in that name would do wonders for the bank balances of EMI, Koechel's publishers, and the Mozarteum.

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

What about Beethoven Anh5 - the two sonatinas - both of them probably spurious? One of them is set this year for the Associated Board grade 4, and they are still published in collected editions of Beethoven sonatinas. Annoying that each time I teach these pieces I have to explain that they probably are not by Beethoven at all, and usually the pupils are most let down! This happens Robert for the reasons Gurn suggests, not because the composers concerned set out to deceive.

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

[robert newman]

True Peter. There will always be works on which there is uncertainty. But it seems to me that Beethoven's list of works (i.e. those which are given opus numbers) are not under dispute. The same cannot be said of Koechel numbers. In fact, with the passage of time we seem to have ever more changes.

The WoO and other lists are at least open to question and alteration and no opus number has been attributed to Beethoven's works which has been reversed. At least, in recent years.

It's a big concession but works that have wrongly been given Koechel numbers should remain in the Mozart catalogue provided that it is clearly stated these are NOT works by Mozart, and provided that the Mozarteum actively informs the music industry that these works should not be falsely attributed to Mozart in performance, recordings or in promotions. If this can be done then the Koechel list will continue to be of great value. To abandon the Koechel list altogether would be impractical and would throw the subject in to total confusion.

So I favour retaining a Koechel catalogue but feel the Mozarteum has a real duty in educating and reminding the music industry on these issues. Who but them could do so ?

Regards


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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
What about Beethoven Anh5 - the two sonatinas - both of them probably spurious? One of them is set this year for the Associated Board grade 4, and they are still published in collected editions of Beethoven sonatinas. Annoying that each time I teach these pieces I have to explain that they probably are not by Beethoven at all, and usually the pupils are most let down! This happens Robert for the reasons Gurn suggests, not because the composers concerned set out to deceive.

Peter you shouldn't keep writing off these sonatinas just like that, unless you can provide reasonable evidence to the contrary (if so you can compare notes with Robert!). Certainly there is nothing blatantly unbeethovenian in them to my ears and No2 in particular is a very nice piece. The two were included in the first complete Beethoven edition. I could be wrong but my memory is telling me that the scores were found in B's effects after his death.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Peter you shouldn't keep writing off these sonatinas just like that, unless you can provide reasonable evidence to the contrary (if so you can compare notes with Robert!). Certainly there is nothing blatantly unbeethovenian in them to my ears and No2 in particular is a very nice piece. The two were included in the first complete Beethoven edition. I could be wrong but my memory is telling me that the scores were found in B's effects after his death.

It isn't myself who writes them off - the Beethoven compendium lists them as spurious, therefore Barry Cooper is the man you need to ask for evidence.

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