Mozart a fraud?

[Herman]

You here again Herman ? Well, in my book, attention seekers should be ignored, especially if they've nothing to contribute. Why, only the other day I watched a speech being heckled by a man who insisted on heaping abuse at the speaker. It turned out that he, the heckler, didn't even understand English.

So I guess the best thing is to ignore hecklers. What do you say Herman ?

Newman, I started contributing to GMG in 2004; you did so two days ago, to much alarm and chagrin of GMG regulars who know of your history of attention-seeking, antagonizing and, finally, getting banned.

You may have something to contribute, i.e. material about composers you admire, like this Cantilierri. You cannot however expect to spread false allegations (and spread them out so thinly, with you five-step arguments) without protest, or even heckling.

If you canb't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Just go and write your "book", please.

[DavidRoss]

How true Gurn, why, only the other day I was lamenting the end of vinyl records and valve amplifiers.

I guess consistency is a virtue, of sorts (the hobgoblin of small minds, said Emerson).  He's as wrong about both of these claims as about everything else he's said on this thread.  Batting average = 0.000--perfect!

[robnewman]

OK Gurn,

Well, we finally got past Step 1. It took some doing, but, after some birth pains, we've finally moved on to Part 2 of the 'Haffner' Saga. This will be my last post for today.

PART 2/5

THE SYMPHONY KNOWN AS THE 'HAFFNER' KV385  

Everyone knows that Mozart was a 'musical genius'. Why, his feats of musicality are numerous. These including astounding acts of virtuosity, of writing operas before breakfast and that kind of stuff. But one of the lesser known virtues of your hero was his phenomenal memory. Of which there are numerous documented examples in the literature. Including, for example, his ability to write down, from memory, an entire church mass at its first hearing. This feat performed in Rome as a visiting 14 year old prodigy. Rewarded a few days later by being awarded by the Pope with the Order of the Golden Spur. And our hero had even more feats to perform of the same kind. In Paris in 1778 he tells us not to worry about a piece he had composed that was somehow lost. That he would write it down from memory whenever he had a free moment. (A Sinfonia Concertante, no less). Etc. etc. The 'genius' of this Salzburger leaves us breathless. Such a prodigious feat of musical memory !!

Speaking of which, we turn to this second part of the 'Haffner' Symphony saga.

On 27th July 1782, again on 31st July, and once again on 7th August of that same year Mozart claims to have sent movements of a musical work by post to celebrate, so we are told, the enoblement of one Sigmund Haffner in Salzburg, a friend of the Mozart family. And he recommended in a covering letter to his father, Leopold, that Leopold add to this new music for Haffner the March from a still earlier work (found in the serenade KV250) that had supposedly been composed by him back in July of 1776.  This suggestion of adding the March from KV250 was not followed by Leopold in Salzburg. In fact the dates of this correspondence show no such new music could possibly have been sent to Salzburg for this ceremony by Mozart on any of those dates. Because Haffner's enoblement ceremony in Salzburg  occurred (as recently discovered historical evidence shows) on the 29th July of 1782 ! We may therefore add Mozart's claims on this subject to the mountain of other falsehoods that surround his career.

That's point 1.

In fact, Leopold in Salzburg was therefore forced to use OTHER music in Salzburg for that Haffner celebratory event. And this explains why, when Leopold sent it 'back' to Wolfgang in Vienna in January of 1783 he, Wolfgang says -

'I had truly worked in such a hurry that I did not remember even one note of it. It's performance must have had a good effect' ( 15th February 1783, Wolfgang in Vienna to Leopold Mozart in Salzburg).  

The truth is W.A. Mozart 'did not remember a note of it' for the simple reason it was NOT his music in the first place !  Leopold had used other music, as said, and this, with the later addition of timpani parts and some other changes, formed the basis of the music which Wolfgang received from his father in early 1783. This music, in fact, being not by Mozart, but by another composer. This later performed by Mozart as his very own symphony in Vienna and published (falsely) in W.A. Mozart's name some time later. As we will see in Part 3 of this saga. So much for the legendary 'musical memory' of Herr Mozart !!  

//

[Catison]

'I had truly worked in such a hurry that I did not remember even one note of it. It's performance must have had a good effect' ( 15th February 1783, Wolfgang in Vienna to Leopold Mozart in Salzburg).

The last sentence disagrees with Gurn's account.  This one has the music being played before the letter was sent, in Gurn's Mozart is looking forward to the music's effect.  Anyone have the original German?

[robnewman]

The last sentence disagrees with Gurn's account.  This one has the music being played before the letter was sent, in Gurn's Mozart is looking forward to the music's effect.  Anyone have the original German?

Well, Catison, the more you examine this correspondence the more clear it is that this charade was typical of Mozart's 'career'. The illusion of sending music which, in fact, could not possibly have been performed on that date, nor rehearsed etc. And THAT is a crucial fact. Mozart's miraculous memory seems to have suffered temporarily from amnesia at this point, it seems !!   But in Part 3 we develop this further by examining other aspects of this music from archives.

[Catison]

Well, Catison, the more you examine this correspondence the more clear it is that this charade was typical of Mozart's 'career'. The illusion of sending music which, in fact, could not possibly have been performed on that date, nor rehearsed etc. And THAT is a crucial fact. But in Part 3 we develop this further by examining other aspects of this music from archives.

That doesn't look like German to me.   I don't really care about your opinion, I want FACTS.

[robnewman]

That doesn't look like German to me.   I don't really care about your opinion, I want FACTS.

OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -

1. Mozart seems to have suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this symphony. 

2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration

3. The timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of our fantasies ?

[Catison]

Besides, maybe Mozart didn't finish it by the deadline and then merely wanted the parts to perform later, which Gurn's post clearly states.  You've ignored the clear FACTS.

[robnewman]

Besides, maybe Mozart didn't finish it by the deadline and then merely wanted the parts to perform later, which Gurn's post clearly states.  You've ignored the clear FACTS.

Maybe pigs can fly ? Maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are not interested in the views of others - since you said you weren't. Right ? Maybe you will believe anything. Maybe facts aren't what you're interested in ? And still we have parts 3, 4 and 5 to come.

[Catison]

OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -

1. Mozart suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this music

2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration

3. The timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of our fantasies ?

1.  So let me get this straight.  You absolutely deny that Mozart was telling the truth when he wrote in his letter that he was the composer of the music, but you accept  Mozart's line that he forgot all of it.  Why one and not the other?  Why use any of his letters as evidence if you are going to be select about what you believe?  Or, even more curiously, why wasn't Mozart just pulling his father's leg in order to give himself an ego boost?

2.  This was address by Gurn's post.  Maybe he missed the deadline.

3.  You are aware that timpani parts do not a symphony make?  Any trumpet player will tell you that, because usually they double the timpani.  I can't imagine a classical composer building a symphony around timpani parts.

[knight66]

It is being suggested that, memory lapse or not, Mozart could not recognise one of his own compositions? This sounds like a mother not being able to identify one of her own children.

I recall that some years ago an experiment was carried out at a university where they ran quite a few of Mozart's mature works through a computer programme. This was not under the impression that they might not be his; it was more to do with patters, looking for various fingerprints, cadences used and reused in specific ways, what made Mozart Mozart?

I recall one finding was that there was a complete consistency of style that bespoke of one mind, one brain having created all the tested works.

I have not mentioned this so far, because, I can't recall the university involved, so cannot track down the piece of research.

However, I think that it is a very odd idea that Mozart would not at once know whether the music was his, whether or not he recalled it.

From my reading of Mozart's family letters, some statements are not literal. But then, that opens a door that probably need not be opened.

Unfortunately I will be away for the next few days, I hope the exchanges can be prevented for any degeneration that would damage the thread.....I am sure we all want the remaining pieces of the jigsaw.

Mike

[Catison]

Maybe pigs can fly ? Maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are not interested in the views of others - since you said you weren't. Right ? Maybe you will believe anything. Maybe facts aren't what you're interested in ? And still we have parts 3, 4 and 5 to come.

So why couldn't Mozart have simply missed the deadline?  Where is the evidence that the symphony was actually played?  Post evidence please, not a post talking about evidence.

[robnewman]

So why couldn't Mozart have simply missed the deadline?  Where is the evidence that the symphony was actually played?  Post evidence please, not a post talking about evidence.

But the symphony was NOT performed. That is the whole point. The symphony did not even exist at the time of Haffner's celebrations. It existed only later, shortly after Mozart received this music back from Salzburg in early 1783. It was at that time that it underwent changes and BECAME a symphony. Which he, Mozart, had performed in Vienna and which was later published in Mozart's own name. But its real origins are something we will examine in the next 3 parts. From documentary evidence.

[Bulldog]

OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -

1. Mozart seems to have suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this symphony. 

It's best not to write "seems" when presenting FACTS, because that removes the sentence from the FACT category.

[robnewman]

It is being suggested that, memory lapse or not, Mozart could not recognise one of his own compositions? This sounds like a mother not being able to identify one of her own children.

I recall that some years ago an experiment was carried out at a university where they ran quite a few of Mozart's mature works through a computer programme. This was not under the impression that they might not be his; it was more to do with patters, looking for various fingerprints, cadences used and reused in specific ways, what made Mozart Mozart?

I recall one finding was that there was a complete consistency of style that bespoke of one mind, one brain having created all the tested works.

I have not mentioned this so far, because, I can't recall the university involved, so cannot track down the piece of research.

However, I think that it is a very odd idea that Mozart would not at once know whether the music was his, whether or not he recalled it.

From my reading of Mozart's family letters, some statements are not literal. But then, that opens a door that probably need not be opened.

Unfortunately I will be away for the next few days, I hope the exchanges can be prevented for any degeneration that would damage the thread.....I am sure we all want the remaining pieces of the jigsaw.

Mike

Mike has made some good points. What's the chance of Mozart, musical genius, able to remember works at a moment's notice, would have forgotten every single note of a symphony he himself had supposedly composed not long before  ? This starts to become highly improbable, even with a man of average memory. It must have been amnesia or something else. I think it was 'something else'.

[knight66]

I would like to think that the point I made was a little more sophisticated than you have reduced it to.

Whether he recalled it or not, I doubt he basically would have had a piece foisted upon him, he knew intimately the fingerprints of his own craft.

He was well known for jokes in his letters, I think it is dangerous to build a theology on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.

Mike

[robnewman]

I would like to think that the point I made was a little more sophisticated than you have reduced it to.

Whether he recalled it or not, I doubt he basically would have had a piece foisted upon him, he knew intimately the fingerprints of his own craft.

He was well known for jokes in his letters, I think it is dangerous to build a theology on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.

Mike

True. The same applies to those who rely on the contents of letters by Mozart himself (and of those around him) when, in fact, they can be shown to contradict other lines of evidence. Which shows how dangerous (as you say) it is to build anything on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.

But in Parts 3, 4 and 5 we have no need to rely on such remarks.

[Gurn Blanston]

Robert,
You are making me type, and you know I hate to do that on a holiday, I am supposed to be relaxing. If I get carpal tunnel syndrome, I shall hold you to account.

Let's use dates when we talk about these things. The letter from Leopold to Wolfgang asking for the symphony was sent in mid-July (Wolfgang never saved any letters by anybody, especially Leopold's). The return letter (which I quoted) was dated July 20, 1782 (Leopold saved every letter). Haffner was ennobled on July 29. There is the beginning of a timeline. How Leopold could have expected a symphony to be composed, copied, posted, rehearsed and ready for performance in that amount of time is all rather stunning to start with. In any case, no, the symphony wasn't ready in time. Do you recognize that Mozart's little jibe "I have even composed it in D major, since I know that's a key you prefer" is a (obvious to Leopold) jibe at Leopold's old-fashioned taste? You should do, that's what makes research fun.

Now, for the return. Mozart wrote on Dec 4, and again on Dec 21 asking for the return of the symphony along with K 204, 201, 182 & 183 so he could use them for the Lenten concert series. He wrote again on Jan 4, 22 & Feb 5. He even stated the date of the concert (March 23) to indicate his urgency. Why, you ask, didn't he just write a new one since Leopold was being a butt? Well, he was busy writing piano concertos at the time. He had a low opinion of symphonies as a genre at that time, and he was going to make his name a fortune with piano concertos (which he did). The concertos which Köchel called 413-415, but which K6 calls 385p and 387a & b were composed to be premiered at the Lenten concerts. Are you still with me? Good!

When he got the score, he deleted the repeats in the first movement and added pairs of flutes and clarinets in the first and last movements. You can tell this because:

a: the changes are in his handwriting
b: he used a different color of ink

Now, I'm tired of typing, and really, you aren't debating with me, I'm just a curious onlooker. But I want you to be honest with these good people. It saves me having to come back and correct your revisionist history. As someone mentioned, you can't merely select the facts you like and discard the rest. And as YOU said, you have to have context.

Cheers,


----------------
Listening to:
Trio Miró - Boccherini (good enough to have written Haydn's oeuvre for him) - Op 14 Trio #5  in Eb for Strings 1st mvmt - Andantino

[Catison]

2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration

But the symphony was NOT performed. That is the whole point. The symphony did not even exist at the time of Haffner's celebrations.

Inconsistent are we?  So its a big deal that he couldn't have sent the music in time for the performance, but it is also a big deal that there was no performance?

I think everyone agrees it is unlikely the symphony was performed on schedule, but then again sometimes people miss deadlines, especially when they are busy writing other masterpieces.  Big whoop.

[DavidRoss]

OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -

1. Mozart suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this music

2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration

3. The timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of our fantasies ?

Indeed--Newman has yet to let facts interfere with his fantasies.  Everyone else here understands the difference between facts and inane opinions.

edit:  Correction:  Almost everyone!