Mozart's "viola" concerto

[Hofrat]

Mozart's clarinet concerto in A major K.622 was composed in the autumn of 1791 for Anton Stadler. The work was first performed in Prague on 16 October 1791, followed by a performance in Vienna on 18 November 1791.

Stadler then toured Europe with the work, but it would not appear in print until 1802. Three publishing houses issued it for the stardard clarinet (Stadler used an unusual hybrid clarinet that did not catch on). At the same time, Breitkopf brought out an arrangement for the flute, and Andre published a transcription for the viola. It is the viola transcription that is of interest to us. The score indicates that the musician who transcribed the solo to the viola is "un amateur," but there are suggestions that Ludwig van Beethoven could possibly be responsible for it.

Does anyone have information on this?

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Mozart's clarinet concerto in A major K.622 was composed in the autumn of 1791 for Anton Stadler. The work was first performed in Prague on 16 October 1791, followed by a performance in Vienna on 18 November 1791.

Stadler then toured Europe with the work, but it would not appear in print until 1802. Three publishing houses issued it for the stardard clarinet (Stadler used an unusual hybrid clarinet that did not catch on). At the same time, Breitkopf brought out an arrangement for the flute, and Andre published a transcription for the viola. It is the viola transcription that is of interest to us. The score indicates that the musician who transcribed the solo to the viola is "un amateur," but there are suggestions that Ludwig van Beethoven could possibly be responsible for it.

Does anyone have information on this?

Hogwood has recently made a fool of himself by echoing this claim. But it is 100% unsubstantiated. Beethoven had nothing to do with this arrangement.

[Keats]

I've always found this story of Stadler and the Clarinet Concerto very strange. How can Stadler have 'toured Europe with it' if, in fact, nobody seems to have seen it or written about it until 1802 (with the exception of Stadler, that is). If the piece was performed repeatedly across Europe for more than a decade before it appears (in various guises) there must have been at least one set of orchestral parts, yes ? Does Stadler refer to them at any time ? And how does one explain the sudden printing of various versions by different sources if, at the time, the work had been lost ?

Christopher Hogwood is not the sort of person who would invent the idea of a Beethoven relationship with that work. Is it possible (just perhaps) that the publisher Simrock (in Bonn) has some part in the strange history of this piece appearing in public ?

Finally, I am a student of the clarinet and note that after the English premiere of this piece (which was not well received by the London audience despite it featuring a leading German soloist at its first UK performance) a contemporary newspaper there described the origin of this work not as one by Mozart 10 years dead and more but as one born 'from the laboratory of Andre' (at Offenbach). Strange yes ?

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

I've always found this story of Stadler and the Clarinet Concerto very strange. How can Stadler have 'toured Europe with it' if, in fact, nobody seems to have seen it or written about it until 1802 (with the exception of Stadler, that is). If the piece was performed repeatedly across Europe for more than a decade before it appears (in various guises) there must have been at least one set of orchestral parts, yes ?

Yes, and what? Do you think that Stadler left them behind after the performance?

Does Stadler refer to them at any time ? And how does one explain the sudden printing of various versions by different sources if, at the time, the work had been lost ?

There was no printing of 'different sources'. Only one arrangement was printed.

Christopher Hogwood is not the sort of person who would invent the idea of a Beethoven relationship with that work.

Of course he isn't. This idea is ages old and Hogwood (who seems to have lost every contact with recent Mozart scholarship) simply copied it from the old and flawed literature.

[Hofrat]

Dear Keats;

Stadler possessed the manuscripts of Mozart's clarinet concerto and clarinet quintet, both of which he lost. Since the concerto was performed twice in the autumn of 1791, parts must have been prepared that Stadler used from 1791 until the concerto was published in 1802. These parts were the probable source for the publicated score.

[Keats]

Well, I certainly need some clarification on what has been said so far. As I understand from Hofrat's original post (which I've no reason to doubt), 'Three publishing houses issued this work for the standard clarinet .... But, at the 'same' time, Breitkopf (publisher) brought out an arrangement for the flute, and Andre (publisher) published a transcription for the viola'.

This information seems to indicate (unless I've misunderstood) that this one piece not only appeared in print for the first time from various publishers in its usual form of a clarinet concerto, though now transposed in to A Major at around the same time and, at virtually this same time, it also appeared in print in the form of viola concerto and also as a flute piece. Yes ? Or have I misread what has been said ?

Andre published a 'transcription for the viola'. But didn't he do so (as said) at roughly the same time as the first appearance in print of the A clarinet concerto version by various publishers ?

And yet, according to Cetto von Cronstorff -

'There was no printing of different sources'.

I would therefore like to ask how several music publishers, all around the same time, seem to have managed, around 1802, to produce printed versions of the clarinet concerto version (to say nothing of other versions) if, at this time, there was only one source at best - the one owned in manuscript by Stadler but supposedly lost 'a few years after its composition in 1791'. ? If Stadler did not negotiate with several music publishers 10 years after its composers death how can they have virtually simultaneously produced versions of this work - all of them fully a decade after Mozart's death and many years after the supposed loss of the original manuscript ? What sources did these different publishers use ? That for Basset Horn in G which exists in the form of a 'Mozart sketch' ?

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Well, I certainly need some clarification on what has been said so far. As I understand from Hofrat's original post (which I've no reason to doubt), 'Three publishing houses issued this work for the standard clarinet .... But, at the 'same' time, Breitkopf (publisher) brought out an arrangement for the flute, and Andre (publisher) published a transcription for the viola'.

This information seems to indicate (unless I've misunderstood) that this one piece not only appeared in print for the first time from various publishers in its usual form of a clarinet concerto, though now transposed in to A Major at around the same time and, at virtually this same time, it also appeared in print in the form of viola concerto and also as a flute piece. Yes ? Or have I misread what has been said ?

Andre published a 'transcription for the viola'. But didn't he do so (as said) at roughly the same time as the first appearance in print of the A clarinet concerto version by various publishers ?

And yet, according to Cetto von Cronstorff -

'There was no printing of different sources'.

I would therefore like to ask how several music publishers, all around the same time, seem to have managed, around 1802, to produce printed versions of the clarinet concerto version (to say nothing of other versions) if, at this time, there was only one source at best - the one owned in manuscript by Stadler but supposedly lost 'a few years after its composition in 1791'. ? If Stadler did not negotiate with several music publishers 10 years after its composers death how can they have virtually simultaneously produced versions of this work - all of them fully a decade after Mozart's death and many years after the supposed loss of the original manuscript ? What sources did these different publishers use ? That for Basset Horn in G which exists in the form of a 'Mozart sketch' ?

Robert, your spelling again betrays you. It's boring, do give it up! This is a Beethoven list anyway.

[Hofrat]

Dear Keats;

I started this thread to discuss the possibility that Beethoven may have been the arranger of the viola transcription, not to discuss any Mozart plots.

[Keats]

Yes Hofrat. And you see how any suggestion of that kind was squashed without reason by Cetto ? We are not discussing 'Mozart plots'. We are trying to see HOW the story of Beethoven's involvement in 'Mozart's clarinet concerto' first originated. I've suggested that Simrock in Bonn may be a possibility worth considering. So I feel I've at least been constructive with your question.

Since we come closest to the truth by examining the available evidence fairly and honestly, I leave with the following comments -

Cetto's latest post must have some signficance for 'Mozart expertise' these days, though I don’t consider myself to be an expert. Strange that it doesn't deal with various questions raised of this important issue of the true origin of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto.

And there's more -

1. Mozart wrote music to earn money. At the time he is said to have composed it (late 1791) he needed money. Lots of it. But he earned none from KV622, did he ?

2. For Mozart to have written KV622 as a concerto for Basset Horn in G is very strange - since that instrument was uncommon and writing a concerto for it offered little potential for a publisher or composer to make money or to have it performed. Indeed, the first published versions of the concerto that appeared years after Mozart’s death needed to be transposed - all around the same time into a concerto for clarinet in A. And even appearing as a version for viola, flute, etc.

3. The appearance of this work in print actually occurred earlier than the above thread suggests - 1801 - almost simultaneously by André, Sieber, and Breitkopf & Härtel What explains that ??What source did these very different publishers have ? Again, Cetto does not tell us.

4. Hogwood suggested Beethoven was involved in arranging KV622. This Cetto rejected out of hand. But he does not tell us why the idea surfaced in the first place. One thing is clear. Both Beethoven and the Bonn publisher Simrock were alive in 1801. Mozart was not.

5. A modern claim is made that this concerto was premiered in Vienna shortly before Mozart's death. But, actually, this is not true. It's merely an assumption.

6. Stadler is said to have played KV622 in Riga (Latvia) in 1794 - 3 years after Mozart's death. I believe the available evidence indicates the work we know today was actually composed in late 1789/early 1790 (during Mozart's lifetime) but not by Mozart.

7. Surely significant is that a musical review that appeared shortly after its wider publication (dating from 1802) suggests the piece was NOT first composed for Basset Horn in G but, instead, for a clarinet specially adapted to produce the low C - the instrument today known as a Basset Clarinet.

8. The 'Mozart sketch' is very fragmentary. 'Scant' is a valid description isn't it ?

9. There is as much evidence that this work began its life as a concerto for viola or for a chamber ensemble with keyboard as for Basset Horn or Clarinet.

10. And finally, there's the much suppressed fact that a version of this work was made for piano and string quartet by Christian Friedrich Gottlieb Schwencke (1767-1822) and was published as early as 1799. THAT version (which therefore precedes the appearance in print of other versions by several years) is in the key of A Major - earlier than any version of the 'clarinet concerto'. for Basset Horn or Basset Clarinet.

10. The piece by Schwencke raises very serious questions about the entire piece.

11. When we consider all the available evidence (including of course the linked history of KV581) it indicates that Andre is the key to this mystery. It further suggests that the work began its history as a viola concerto or as a quintet for viola, keyboard and strings. This around 1789/90. And not by Mozart. That is why, eventually, Andre produces, years later, a version for viola. In Mozart’s name.

[Hofrat]

Stadler had devised a form of the clarinet with a downward extension that allowed him to play four semitones below what is now the normal clarinet range. His instrument is nowadays referred to as a "bassett horn," but Stader never used that term. What is interesting here is the fact that Stadler's clarinet had the exact same lower compass as the viola: down to C below middle C.

[Hofrat]

I found this on the Internet:

Stadler basset clarinet in A

For historically informed performance of the Mozart Concerto, Quintet and late operas, this is a speculative reconstruction of the basset clarinet used by Anton Stadler and pictured on his now well known Riga concert program from 1794 (see below).

In the absence of any exact original examples, it is based on an amalgamation of two specimens-

- a 5 key clarinet in A by Kaspar Tauber of Vienna (Nicholas Shackleton collection), whose clarinets were very similar to those of Theodor Lotz, the builder of Stadler's clarinets prior to 1792;

- for the extended range section, a basset horn in F by Johann Georg Braun of Mannheim (Universität Leipzig Musikinstrumenten Museum), as described on this site, which is from a somewhat later date but very closely matches the drawing of Stadler's clarinet.

It has a minimum of keys in the upper sections (though more can be requested), a chromatic extension to low C and a bulb-shaped bell (which we now know, from examination of the Braun basset horn as well as from the Riga drawing, should point backwards).

Low B below bottom C is playable if the vent hole in the bell elbow joint is closed by pressing it against the leg; at least two passages in the Mozart Concerto (1st mvt. bar 295 and 3rd mvt. bar 147) seem to require this. A key for low B as on the Braun basset horn would be possible, but it does not appear on the Riga drawing.

The normal tonality is A, but Bb is also available. The usual pitch is A430.




Price:
In A or Bb, 9 keys, boxwood Can. $3,700.00

-------------------------------------------

On the website, there are pictures and drawings!!