-On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period and other Matters –

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:


To write music in the style of Mozart is a relatively easy thing. To write music in the style of, say, the mature Beethoven, is far, far more difficult. Is that not a fact ?

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-31-2006).]

I would like to see you write something in the style of the Jupiter Symphony, but unique, as well as something in the style of one of Haydn's final symphonies, and be unique. It is not as easy as you might think.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:



This is a hugely complex puzzle. But I'm confident that in the short time its been out in the open we are approaching it correctly by not rushing in to it too fast. I bet this will be solved quite soon. But how all the pieces fit is a real mystery.

Well Robert sometimes the simplest explanation is the best - Mozart wrote the Marriage of Figaro and this work was premiered in Vienna in 1786.

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

[robert newman]

Well Peter, if it was so simple. But what is the piece now under discussion ? Was this by Mozart ? And, if so, why is it not part of the story ?

If the Frankfurt work has no relation to that of 1786 we seem to be saying that there was more than one work of that name, both approved by the Emperor Joseph and both performed within virtually a year of each other. If so, why is there no reference to this earlier one by Mozart or his contemporaries ?

To me, I think we are here discussing a work performed in German. That could be the key to solving this.

But, yes Peter. If as you say the simple answer is that Mozart wrote the opera in 1786 is it your view that he wrote this, at Frankfurt, in 1785 ?

(ha !!!)

[robert newman]

Hi Sorrano,

I take your point. You will agree perhaps that the 'Jupiter' is not typical of the symphonies of Mozart, even if we (temporarily) attribute it to him.

There are reasons to put it in a special category, just as there are reasons not to. For example, the 'Jupiter' is claimed to have been written in the summer of 1788 and is entered in to Mozart's thematic catalogue of one of three great symphonies of a 6 week period. So we have (according to convention) symphonies 39, 40 (the G Minor) and lastly 41, this, the 'Jupiter'.

There is no record of any performance of any of these 3 symphonies during Mozart's lifetime. Nor were they published. And nor were they commissioned. (40 exists in two version, one of them with woodwinds).

I don't suggest that writing works 'a la Mozart' is simple. But there are a number of sources for that style that has become his and it's a style, after all, that is not a million miles from that of Haydn. Late Haydn is notably very similar to late Mozart.

Now, this similarity, this likeness, is real. (Some say the reason is because both come from the same source). That Hadyn was actually getting these pieces via Bonn. As was Mozart. But I agree that it would not be simple for anyone to produce a final movement similar to that of the 'Jupiter'. It stands out, even amongst all the other symphonies.

I am sure Mozart was the person who added clarinets to Symphony No.40 - but he had a long history of re-arranging works in this way. He had done so with many earlier works. The symphonies 31 and 35 are obvious examples.

Interestingly, the version of 35 'Haffner' now at Modena is the version that seems to have existed before it was officially a 'Mozart' symphony. That work began as a serenade for Salzburg. Later with added movements and re-orchestrated as a symphony which he, Mozart, had performed as a symphony in Vienna.

Curious but true that no symphony by Mozart was ever published in his lifetime with the exception of the highly disputed 'Paris' (31).

Regards


p.s. In a further two works of 'Mozart' (But in fact wholly or partially derived from the Italian composer Quirino Gasparini (1721-1778) - these listed in Mozart literature as -

KV195/186d 'Litaniae Lauretanae' and -

KV327 'Adoramus Te'

we have elements that have always been stylistically regarded as Mozart's own though actually derived from Gasparini. (Gasparini had also been, like Mozart later, a pupil of Padre Martini in Bologna).

One Mozart 'trademark' within works called his was his use of a two chord phrase in various compositions (one that involved using an augmented sixth (in various ways, some of them with 4 notes rather than the original 3 of the Italians) - followed immediately by a major resolution). This device is definitely of Italian origin (later modified in to German and other forms of the same) and it features in various works of Mozart. These devices are not hard to regard as 'Mozartean' though they are, in fact, not really his. Many other examples could be supplied of things seen today as distinctively Mozartean but which, in fact, are derived from models in use before him.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-01-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Well Peter, if it was so simple. But what is the piece now under discussion ? Was this by Mozart ? And, if so, why is it not part of the story ?

If the Frankfurt work has no relation to that of 1786 we seem to be saying that there was more than one work of that name, both approved by the Emperor Joseph and both performed within virtually a year of each other. If so, why is there no reference to this earlier one by Mozart or his contemporaries ?

To me, I think we are here discussing a work performed in German. That could be the key to solving this.

But, yes Peter. If as you say the simple answer is that Mozart wrote the opera in 1786 is it your view that he wrote this, at Frankfurt, in 1785 ?

(ha !!!)

Firstly Robert we do not know for certain that an opera was peformed at all in Frankfurt. Secondly if it were, why are we to assume that the music had to be Mozart's? This is why the playbill is so important. You would surely agree that if it were an opera it would be highly unusual not to mention a composer, singers or librettist? Is it likely that it would have been presented to the public in Frankfurt as by an anonymous composer? So if everyone believed the work to be Mozart's in Frankfurt, do you not think there would have been some contemporary comment concerning the presentation of an entirely new Figaro opera in Vienna by the same composer a year later? Frankfurt was not some inconspicuos hamlet - it was the seat of the Holy Roman Emperors, and part of the most important Electorate Mainz.

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

[robert newman]

Yes, all true Peter.

It is surprising but playbills of the late 18th century do not always provide the name of the composer. In other cases (e.g. 'The Magic Flute') the name of the composer is given, though sometimes as a sort of afterthought - almost like 'Oh, by the way, the music is by Herr Mozart' in small print.

I agree that any production at Frankfurt of a work (singspiel or otherwise) in 1785 of Figaro could hardly have occurred without some reference existing beyond that of a mere playbill. All the more so if it was a premiere, as this seems to have been.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Yes, all true Peter.

It is surprising but playbills of the late 18th century do not always provide the name of the composer. In other cases (e.g. 'The Magic Flute') the name of the composer is given, though sometimes as a sort of afterthought - almost like 'Oh, by the way, the music is by Herr Mozart' in small print.

I agree that any production at Frankfurt of a work (singspiel or otherwise) in 1785 of Figaro could hardly have occurred without some reference existing beyond that of a mere playbill. All the more so if it was a premiere, as this seems to have been.

Yes the composer tends to appear in small print right at the bottom as though he were of little significance! This happens for the playbills of Aus dem Serail and Don Giovani. Interestingly both are described as Singspiels and for Don Giovani the wording is in both Italian and German.

I agree with you that we need to establish exactly what was performed at Frankfurt.

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

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes the composer tends to appear in small print right at the bottom as though he were of little significance! This happens for the playbills of Aus dem Serail and Don Giovani. Interestingly both are described as Singspiels and for Don Giovani the wording is in both Italian and German.

I agree with you that we need to establish exactly what was performed at Frankfurt.

Dear Robert and Peter;

Let us not get stuck on the word "singspiel." It seems to me that the writers of the playbills were strictly interpreting the early and simple definition of "singspiel" which is "a play with singing." Following that definition, any opera could be a singspiel, as well as any play in which a song is sung.


Hofrat

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Hi Sorrano,

I take your point. You will agree perhaps that the 'Jupiter' is not typical of the symphonies of Mozart, even if we (temporarily) attribute it to him.

There are reasons to put it in a special category, just as there are reasons not to. For example, the 'Jupiter' is claimed to have been written in the summer of 1788 and is entered in to Mozart's thematic catalogue of one of three great symphonies of a 6 week period. So we have (according to convention) symphonies 39, 40 (the G Minor) and lastly 41, this, the 'Jupiter'.

There is no record of any performance of any of these 3 symphonies during Mozart's lifetime. Nor were they published. And nor were they commissioned. (40 exists in two version, one of them with woodwinds).

I don't suggest that writing works 'a la Mozart' is simple. But there are a number of sources for that style that has become his and it's a style, after all, that is not a million miles from that of Haydn. Late Haydn is notably very similar to late Mozart.

Now, this similarity, this likeness, is real. (Some say the reason is because both come from the same source). That Hadyn was actually getting these pieces via Bonn. As was Mozart. But I agree that it would not be simple for anyone to produce a final movement similar to that of the 'Jupiter'. It stands out, even amongst all the other symphonies.

I am sure Mozart was the person who added clarinets to Symphony No.40 - but he had a long history of re-arranging works in this way. He had done so with many earlier works. The symphonies 31 and 35 are obvious examples.

Interestingly, the version of 35 'Haffner' now at Modena is the version that seems to have existed before it was officially a 'Mozart' symphony. That work began as a serenade for Salzburg. Later with added movements and re-orchestrated as a symphony which he, Mozart, had performed as a symphony in Vienna.

Curious but true that no symphony by Mozart was ever published in his lifetime with the exception of the highly disputed 'Paris' (31).

Regards


p.s. In a further two works of 'Mozart' (But in fact wholly or partially derived from the Italian composer Quirino Gasparini (1721-1778) - these listed in Mozart literature as -

KV195/186d 'Litaniae Lauretanae' and -

KV327 'Adoramus Te'

we have elements that have always been stylistically regarded as Mozart's own though actually derived from Gasparini. (Gasparini had also been, like Mozart later, a pupil of Padre Martini in Bologna).

One Mozart 'trademark' within works called his was his use of a two chord phrase in various compositions (one that involved using an augmented sixth (in various ways, some of them with 4 notes rather than the original 3 of the Italians) - followed immediately by a major resolution). This device is definitely of Italian origin (later modified in to German and other forms of the same) and it features in various works of Mozart. These devices are not hard to regard as 'Mozartean' though they are, in fact, not really his. Many other examples could be supplied of things seen today as distinctively Mozartean but which, in fact, are derived from models in use before him.

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-01-2006).]

I'm afraid that until there is concise evidence that Mozart did NOT compose the last few symphonies I cannot accept even the term "temporary". The burden of proof lies with you on this and you have not even instilled "reasonable dooubt" in my mind. I see a lot of circumstancial issues (I won't even refer to that as evidence) and a lot of inconsistencies in existing materials in relationship to the theories you present. For example, the issue I bring up in regards the various styles that Luchesi would have to compose in--and they are considered advanced styles of the period. The late symphonies of Haydn and Mozart are not common classical fare. They are primary reasons that Haydn and Mozart are referred to as Geniuses. It is NOT an easy task for one person or several to successfully compose in these various styles and produce the masterpieces that exist. The proof is in the pudding; I am convinced that Luchesi could NOT have composed all of those works that you would attribute to him. It simply is not reasonable.

And how many of Schubert's works were performed in his own lifetime? I don't see unpublished works as any evidence that someone else wrote them. Personally I feel that there is a great deal of difference between Haydn's late works and Mozart's late works. There are similarities that are defineable by the accepted norms of the musical styles of the day, but EVERYONE was doing that.

I remain completely unconvinced by your circumstances. You are simply guessing and conjecturing.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
I don't suggest that writing works 'a la Mozart' is simple. But there are a number of sources for that style that has become his and it's a style, after all, that is not a million miles from that of Haydn. Late Haydn is notably very similar to late Mozart.

Now, this similarity, this likeness, is real. (Some say the reason is because both come from the same source). That Hadyn was actually getting these pieces via Bonn. As was Mozart.

For my part I think the two composers sound very distinct. Aside from very different orchestration there is a greater chromaticism in Mozart, both melodically and harmonically - I think Mozart reveals a richer palette of sound. Haydn's work shows far more interest in structure than Mozart. Haydn's music lacks the ambiguity of mood that permeates Mozart.

Let me quote from the Mozart companion:

"It is however extremely difficult to express in concrete terms the stylistic differences between Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. It is obvious that the theme of the Largo of Beethoven's sonata Op.10/3 could never have been written by Haydn or Mozart; the theme of the Andante from Haydn's last symphony could never have been written by Mozart or Beethoven; the theme of the adagio of Mozart's clarinet concerto could never have been written by Haydn or Beethoven; to say this is to say the obvious. Wherein do the differences lie?

For his symphonies, Haydn constructed his own sonata form scheme, which as a rule did not even have a second subject. And he applied this scheme generally to all his last 20-25 symphonies. Beethoven's first two symphonies take over Haydn's form, but Mozart's last three deviate from it quite extensively.

For the late Mozart, the manner in which he built up his slow themes into movements is just as significant as the style of those themes themselves.

....In details there execution is of an overwhelming richness in melody, harmony, rhythm, structural metamorphoses and variations, in shading and figuration, which has no parallel in either Haydn or even Schubert.......

Mozart's late slow movements always achieve a consummate unity of their thematic content, of their development and their external form.....this kind of development of a movement is clearly different from that of the late Haydn."

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-01-2006).]

[Sorrano]

Thank you, Peter for that quote from the Mozart Companion. I certainly could not have said that better and herein lies my foremost objection to the "proposal" of authorship to the late works of Mozart and Haydn and the early works of Beethoven. Other objections lie in the obvious lack of concrete evidence--only circumstances that can be interpreted different ways.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Other objections lie in the obvious lack of concrete evidence--only circumstances that can be interpreted different ways.

Which is exactly why I've said all along the proof can only ultimately be found from the music itself, though there is the usual lack of spine here from those concerned when it comes to making a purely music assessment. I for one am never shy to put my head on the block.

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

[robert newman]

1.There is no dispute Schubert wrote the symphonies attributed to him. But there IS dispute that Mozart wrote many, many symphonies (from all periods of his supposed career) listed in Koechel. In respect of 'his' mature symphonies (i.e. those supposedly written from the time of the 'Paris' onwards we even have documentary and other evidence indicating he did NOT write these works. The same is simply NOT true of symphonies by Schubert. In the case of 'Mozart's' last 3 symphonies (all alleged by Mozart to have been composed by him in the summer of 1788 and entered in to his thematic catalogue that same year as his) we have contrary evidence in Bonn archive material now at Estense Library in Modena, written on paper not even being produced in 1788. On these grounds alone (and there others too many to mention here) it is fair and reasonable to say these 'Mozart' symphonies cannot be compared to those of Schubert, the writer of which has never been disputed on any grounds.

2. That the 9 'Mozart' symphonies now at Modena came (indisputably) from Bonn despite the fact that no work by Mozart is even refered to in the inventory made at Bonn in 1784.

3. That covers have often been removed and forms of identity obscured in the Bonn material now at Modena so as to make it extremely difficult (but not impossible) to determine the true origin of those works as having been at Bonn in 1784.

4. That many other lines of evidence indicate that Mozart, by 1784, was not (with the exception of the disputed 'Paris' symphony) a published composer of symphonies and had not, in his career received any commission to write symphonies for any patron or publisher.

5. That in the case of, say, the G Minor Symphony (No.40) there is indisputable evidence that this material originated with a work of many decades prior written by Traetta and performed in Italy.

6. We could discuss stylistic similarities between Haydn and Mozart till the cows came home. There are countless allusions to Haydn in Mozart. The difference between them in style exists, but so too do the striking similarities. The two men were close. They shared a remarkably similar career and were in contact regularly. Of the two composers, there is no doubt that Mozart's works are stylistically more subtil. But these matters are of degree. The actual substance is remarkably similar. A single composer of late Haydn and late Mozart is entirely possible. These two men, after all, are, musically, most similar of virtually any other pairing of composers one could name from that period.

And finally,

The evidence suggests that, in his entire career, Haydn had various Italian sources of 'his' symphonies, including Sammartini, Luchesi, Boccherini and others. The same is true of Haydn masses. The same is true when we discuss the particulars of Mozart's supposed output also. Indeed, the evidence that Mozart was composer of the first 25 or so symphonies today attributed to him is laughably small. This situation continues, as stated, in those supposedly composed by him in his maturity. Now, either there is a track record here justifying suspicion, or there is not. The Modena material is symptomatic of a disease that plagues Mozart's whole career, and not just part of it. Therefore, seen in overall context (the whole 'official' career of both Haydn and Mozart) there are fair and reasonable grounds for saying we are here discussing fraud on a large scale having featured in the 'official' career of both Haydn and (later) Mozart, regardless of the fact (the indisputable fact) that tradition and published lists seem (at least superficially) to rule it out.


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

[Sorrano]

So far, all I have seen from your "indisputable evidence" is heresay. I don't buy it.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:


The evidence suggests that, in his entire career, Haydn had various Italian sources of 'his' symphonies, including Sammartini, Luchesi, Boccherini and others. The same is true of Haydn masses. The same is true when we discuss the particulars of Mozart's supposed output also. Indeed, the evidence that Mozart was composer of the first 25 or so symphonies today attributed to him is laughably small. This situation continues, as stated, in those supposedly composed by him in his maturity. Now, either there is a track record here justifying suspicion, or there is not. The Modena material is symptomatic of a disease that plagues Mozart's whole career, and not just part of it. Therefore, seen in overall context (the whole 'official' career of both Haydn and Mozart) there are fair and reasonable grounds for saying we are here discussing fraud on a large scale having featured in the 'official' career of both Haydn and (later) Mozart, regardless of the fact (the indisputable fact) that tradition and published lists seem (at least superficially) to rule it out.


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

I'm still looking for the evidence. In regards to Giovanni Sammartini it is not likely that he would supply any of his music to Haydn. He had no need.

"Giovanni Battista Sammartini (1700 or 1701 – 1775 in Milan) was an Italian composer, organist, choirmaster and teacher. He counted Gluck among his students, and was himself a prolific composer of 3 operas, over 70 symphonies, concertos and chamber music, which show, the symphonies especially, the beginnings of a change from the brief opera-overture style and the introduction of a new seriousness and use of thematic development that prefigure Haydn and Mozart. His earliest music was for liturgical use." (This is from the wikipedia article.)

"Giovanni Sammartini lived his entire life in Milan and was that city's most famous composer in the eighteenth century. By the time he was named maestro di cappella of the Congregazione SS Entierro in 1728, he was already "famous" as a composer of sacred music, most of which, unfortunately, is lost. He held the post at SS Entierro until ill health likely forced him to retire in 1773." This is from http://www.answers.com/topic/sammart...vanni-battista and if Sammartini was already known before Haydn's birth why should he secretly supply Haydn with music? Nothing makes any sense as to what you indicate. There IS NO evidence that Haydn was supplied a constant source of music from any region--Italian or other. However, the growth of style is readily apparent in the music of Haydn just as it is in Beethoven and Mozart. No, my friend, the concrete evidence is in opposition to your propositions.