For Hofrat (Kraus/Vogler etc)

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

I was a little suprised where you wrote -

'I still am waiting for Robert's paper on the Kraus-Vogler-Figaro conspiracy'.

Well, I promised myself some days away from new posts etc. but your comments made me wonder if I've done my best. You are clearly under the impression that much more needs to be said on Kraus/Vogler to give credibility to the idea (the theory) that both were involved in 'The Marriage of Figaro'. Fine.

Put it this way Hofrat - just a day or so ago a post on Mozart forum focused on the fact that still another piece by Kraus was wrongly attributed to Mozart. This the third.

My view is that if there is one person largely overlooked in the history of the 1st Vienna school it is Georg Vogler. There IS still much to tell of him but I hardly have time to develop it because of other committments. As a student of Kraus you know I would gladly say more if it did not block the chance of getting more material - something I am really active in doing whenever I can. Sometimes it's better to work towards a strong case than just to share hunches or considered opinions. And this is one such case. I assure you this subject is of real significance, not just for Figaro - and that, actually, is the reason I didn't pursue certain things in a casual sort of post.

Vogler did a lot of damage. Have you studied, for example, the disputes surrounding his effect on Swedish church music ? Bear in mind that, at this time, what he really represented was, officially, not even in existence. Vogler could go virtually anywhere in Europe and obtain commissions for new music from those circles in which he moved. That was his role, his function. Kraus knew his place within such a network.

Let me give you just one example from recent posts. It will surpise you but it might show what I mean. Where do you think, really, that Hadyn got the commission for that music for Cadiz, the '7 Last Words' on which I made a thread just the other day ? Who arranged it, I mean - who arranged for Haydn to get such a commission, such prestige ? It was Vogler. For Vogler was himself in Cadiz.

That is what I mean.

I did not post more on Figaro for good reason. First, because I am shortly to get some new information myself on the events of 1786, second because I really am busy, and third because there are three or four loose ends that I must tie up before posting again on such a controversial issue. But if you ask whether the Kraus theory has more to support it than has been posted, yes, it does. It's just a case of finding the time and the opportunity to get things right. The Frankfurt event of 1785 - that too is a curious thing. Again, it has some place in this story. Exactly what is still under study.

So you see I haven't exactly rushed in to this, and with good reason.

Regards

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Put it this way Hofrat - just a day or so ago a post on Mozart forum focused on the fact that still another piece by Kraus was wrongly attributed to Mozart. This the third.

Dear Robert;

I am at a lose as to what you are trying to prove by this. The first misattibuted Kraus work is a symphony in C minor. The manuscript in Milan is clearly one of the Johann Traeg copies (a Viennese publishing house) that the locals misattributed. No real reason for this, and no one believed it anyway.

The second misattibuted Kraus work is a song "Die Mutter bei der Wiege," which was attributed only upon publication in 1842 in Caecilia. But it was published under Kraus' name as part of the "Airs et Chansons" back in 1797.

And thirdly, we have "Miserere," which was misattributed in 1823 or so by Georg Pölchau in Berlin. Professor van Boer wrote of this way back in 1978 for the Mozarteum Mitteilungen.

All three works were misattibuted long after Mozart's and Kraus' death in 1791 and 1792 respectively. There was no collusion between Mozart and Kraus. Nor was this an attempt by Mozart to publish someone else's work as his own.

And one final point, these misattributions can not be a Vienna school conspiracy since two misattibutions were done by Italians and one by a Berliner!!


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

I understand you are at a loss as to what I am trying to prove in my last post. Well, it was not intended to 'prove' anything, but simply to say why I had not posted further on Figaro - a question you raised recently on this forum but not directly to me.

Of course I agree with the cases you have provided. But (I believe) there are no less than 8 musical works that have at one time or another been attributed to Mozart though, in fact, they were compositions of JM Kraus. There are the ones you correctly mention but there are also also others that, to this day, are attributed (wrongly) to Mozart. One of them is the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. That is my position.

You illustrate with your examples just how common it was to attribute works by others to Mozart and just how common it is to marginalise Kraus, even to this day.

Now you, as an admirer of Kraus's music, knowing as you do of strong circumstantial evidence for a relationship between Mozart and Kraus are nevertheless in limbo as far as, for example, the March from Idomeneo is concerned and Kraus's supposed use of it in Sweden many years later.

You would do a great service to Kraus, and to music, if you would, instead of being intimidated by the Mozart lobby regard Kraus as a claimant to being composer of that march in Idomeneo, at least. For, as things stand, Kraus is portrayed by his use of it in Sweden as a plagiarist in all but name. That is grossly unfair and if students of Kraus do not address this issue by examining the nature of the Kraus/Mozart relationship who will ? You can start at Munich.

Yes, I am sure Kraus is the composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. In fact, I am so sure of it that in a list of candidates for that honour I would place Mozart no higher than fourth. But I will not write on this subject more here, being tied up with other things.

Best regards

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

You would do a great service to Kraus, and to music, if you would, instead of being intimidated by the Mozart lobby regard Kraus as a claimant to being composer of that march in Idomeneo, at least. For, as things stand, Kraus is portrayed by his use of it in Sweden as a plagiarist in all but name. That is grossly unfair and if students of Kraus do not address this issue by examining the nature of the Kraus/Mozart relationship who will ? You can start at Munich.

Dear Robert;

Please quote your exact source that portrays Kraus as a plagiarist. Does this source also portray Beethoven as a plagiarist? How about Mozart? Mendelssohn? Brahms? Tchaikovski? Or the many other composers that used others' themes in their works?


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

Simple job. Please check what I actually wrote about the Kraus march. I said (at the fourth time of repeating it) that Kraus is not called a plagiarist. That would be too strong. The establishment would not call him that. They say he 'borrowed' or 'acquired' or 'used' the March. In point of fact he created an entire movement. He rewrote the entire March and produced a larger version of it. That is not 'using a theme'.

Had this March in Sweden become popular Kraus would have been accused of plagiarising the work of Mozart. It's really very simple.

But Kraus borrowed nothing from Mozart. It was he, Kraus, who wrote the March and nobody else. Not Mozart. Only him. Joseph Martin Kraus. He wrote it twice. Once for Mozart and again in his work for the Swedish parliament. Simple really.

Regards