Mozart a fraud?

[robnewman]

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

Gurn Blanston,

I have no problem with most of what you have written. And thanks for taking the time on a holiday. Having used dates myself in my own post (as you know) let me move on to where you say -

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.

Yes, indeed ! Let's add this to the growing list of curiosities about this affair. And yet Mozart claimed he DID write it in this period. Not only so, but he claims to have sent it. And yet, as you already accept, the dates simply do not add up. The work (as we surely agree) was NOT performed at Haffner's celebrations. And then there is another problem - there is nothing in Mozart's letters of this time to suggest there was a problem at the time he sent it. Which begs the question of why Mozart would have sent this music for the Haffner festivities if, at the time, Wolfgang knew it could not possibly be performed for the very occasion for which it was supposedly composed ?   Now, if you grant me this, we might perhaps say this gaping hole in the Mozart correspondence on this issue can be added to Mozart's amensia on the 'return' of it from Salzburg early the next year, when he very strangely remembers not a note of it. The list of oddities seems to be growing, don't you agree ?

But anyway, fortunately, there are 3 further installments to go and thanks for at least offering a fair and measured view which allows others to form a fair judgement.

Regards

[knight66]

I was under the impression that Mozart would normally try hard to comply with his father's requests or demands, be they reasonable or not. There may well be family dynamics at play here.

We also have the inconvenient occurrence that his music was sent back to him, perhaps he did not recall it, perhaps that remark was a joke. But he did not write to his father along the lines of...What is this? I never wrote this!

I see no reason to imagine he could have a changeling slipped into his nest and not realise it.

Mike

[Gurn Blanston]

I was under the impression that Mozart would normally try hard to comply with his father's requests or demands, be they reasonable or not. There may well be family dynamics at play here.

"I am up to my ears in work. By a week from Sunday, I must arrange my opera for wind instruments, or someone else will do it and secure the profits instead of me. And now you ask for a new symphony, too! How on earth can I do that? ...well, I will have to stay up all night, for that is the only way; for you, dearest father, I will make the sacrifice. You may rely on having something from me in each mail delivery."

That rather fits in with your initial impression, does it not?   

As for his comment to Leopold about having forgotten every note, I know that if I had been in his situation, begging for 2 full months to get my music back and it finally showed up (none too soon), it is remotely possible that my remark (at safe remove, of course) might have contained a bit of sarcasm. Not that sarcasm comes naturally to me, but I think I could have fished up something like "wow, I didn't even recognize it!  ".

But hey, that's just me...



----------------
Listening to:
La Real Cámara - Boccherini - G 117 Trio in d for 2 Violins & Cello 1st mvmt - Allegretto moderato

[snyprrr]

So, did Mozart actually send some other music? I mean, is it clear or not whether something was sent...anything? Is there a letter from Leopold actually saying, "Oh son, this is a great thing you've sent me."? Nothing between August and December between them on this matter?

How would WAM know that there was a score and parts at his dad's place that he needed? Unless he's speaking in Masonic code, it seems like he's asking for the music he "sent" to Leopold over the period around late July.

Is Leopold supposed to be some kind of Svengali? Did "child stars" back then not suffer as they do now? (just asking: please stay squarely on the HAFFNER: I'm learning a lot) Cheers!

[Herman]

Snyppr, with the exception of Gurn's posts you could learn more about Mozart and his work methods from any type of book than on this toxic thread. Even a good cd booklet is more informative and truthful, so you'd best disregard this.

[robnewman]

3/5

The 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385,  and the circumstances surrounding it are already acknowledged to be very strange. We are asked to believe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Vienna composed and sent this music by post to Salzburg in response to several requests, this addressed to his father Leopold, but at a date so late it could not have been received in time to be rehearsed, let alone performed for the festive occasion for which it was supposedly composed !  And we are further asked to believe that on its return to Wolfgang in Vienna its composer (a man with a reputation of having the phenomenal ability to write entire pieces down from memory) was unable to remember even a single note of his own symphony.

Gurn Blanston has suggested -

''As for his comment to Leopold about having forgotten every note, I know that if I had been in his situation, begging for 2 full months to get my music back and it finally showed up (none too soon), it is remotely possible that my remark (at safe remove, of course) might have contained a bit of sarcasm. Not that sarcasm comes naturally to me, but I think I could have fished up something like "wow, I didn't even recognize it! ".

In this 3rd part we escape completely from this tangled and increasingly contradictory situation to examine some remarkable evidence from other sources. Since, up until now, we've been reading this 'Haffner' correspondence at face value, assuming that it bears true record of the events surrounding the birth of this symphony. Drawing solely on the Mozart family side of things. Correspondence which, at the very least, is highly discrepant. The extreme improbability of sending such music too late, to have done so without even acknowledging its lateness at the time it was sent, and the strange case of insomnia that seems to have befallen its composer on its return to Vienna - these all strongly indicate (to me, at least, and perhaps to neutral readers also) that we are not reading the full truth.

So, where next ? Well, this 3rd part is a fairly long one. It has to be. Since the Haffner story has more twists in it. And there is evidence of great significance which is little known. Here presented for almost the first time. Evidence which may go far to solving this 'Haffner' case altogether.

First, some background.

Around 2 years ago an editor busy on preparing a new edition of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works was approached by email on the forthcoming 8th edition of that catalogue to be reminded (respectfully) of the existence of some very early versions of 'Mozart' symphonies (scores and performance parts) which have never been studied or recognised in any detail by Mozart researchers. These consisting of no less than 9 scores and their performance parts. The details of which were first studied in some detail by the brilliant Italian independent reseacher Prof. Giorgio Taboga and later examined by two noted Italian musicologists, Professors Luca Bianchini and Anna Trombetta (these last two having considerable experience in the field of 18th century music manuscripts and who were author, in 2008, of a detailed study of the little known performance score in Vienna of the 1786 premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'). These 9 symphonic documents being indisputably of date close to the time of their composition as we will see. (Further confirmed by watermark and other evidence). And held, today, at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy.

The editor was asked in that email to take special note of these precious manuscripts, especially since they seem to have been repeatedly ignored by Mozart researchers for almost 200 years. And since they include (amongst them) almost unknown versions of famous works such as the 'Prague' Symphony and (fortunately) a version of the symphony now under discussion. The 'Haffner', KV385.

But the attempt failed. The editor (like his predecessors) was unable to reply. Further attempts were made to bring these important manuscripts to the attention of the musical public and some correspondence was even made with the famous low-budget recording company, Naxos, in the hope that these works (these versions) might at last come to the attention of music lovers generally.

(I refer to these things because it seems to me that amnesia is fairly common in Mozart research itself).

The source of the Mozart symphonic material now at Modena is truly remarkable. They came from Bonn in Germany and can be shown to be parts of the great music library of the Bonn Hofkappelle, arriving in Modena only in the 19th century after their evacuation from Bonn at the time of the Napoleonic period. Together with a considerable part of that great music archive. All of these from the time when Ludwig van Beethoven was a pupil there, under the leadership of Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. In fact, we know Bonn's music archives were last inventoried in the year of 1784 since the document still survives of its findings in Bonn. This music inventory was made at the very time, therefore, when Mozart (friend of the Elector Max Franz) was alive and at the very time when he had high hopes of becoming its Kapellmeister. This because of promises made to him to that effect as early as 1782 (and which we find in the Mozart correspondence). Max Franz, younger brother of the Emperor Joseph 2nd became Elector at Bonn in that same year of 1784 and it was he himself who ordered the music inventory of the assets of the chapel to be made. So the extreme importance of these Bonn musical archives is obvious. Particularly since we see, here at Modena, no less than 9 symphonic scores of 'Mozart' that came from that source.

Which brings us to the next strange fact. Prof. Giorgio Taboga, many years ago, decided to examine details of the 1784 inventory and its part today at Modena and discovered to his surprise that in its pages not a single mass or symphony is refered to anywhere by Mozart. A strange fact if, at the time Mozart was a celebrated composer of both ! And since the Bonn inventory of 1784 was to be the last ever made before the chapel closed in 1794 the strangeness of Taboga's discovery made him keen to examine these Modena scores in more detail.

In respect of the 'Haffner' at Modena (and this confirmed by later research made on it by the above mentioned Professors Bianchini and Trombetta) is was found that it differed from versions with which we are today familiar in respect of its curious orchestral scoring. The closer examination of which suggested that the following sequence of events must have occurred in Salzburg for those festivities which the Mozarts are refering to in their correspondence.

1. Leopold Mozart, having already available in Salzburg this very work (supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer) decided to use it as music for these festivities of Haffner in Salzburg in that year of 1782. Nothing had been received from his son in Vienna and time was passing quickly. The work he had to hand, a symphony, needed however to be quickly altered by Leopold. By the addition to its score of trumpets and timpani parts, and by addition of various other movements from other works. Thus transforming an original symphony by a third person in to a serenade fit for these Salzburg festivities of Sigmund Haffner. It was THIS new version which, some time later, the father Leopold sent 'back' to his son in Vienna. On receipt of which Wolfgang, not recognising a note of it, now added to this new version a flute part and also a clarinet part. In effect, re-arranging the piece once again. So that the serenade version made by Leopold in Salzburg was turned back, once more, into a symphony. Though with scoring now very different from the original. And this new arrangement was later in that same year of 1783 (23rd March) then performed in Vienna by Mozart as if it was Mozart's own, being finally published for the first time there in Mozart's name also by Artaria in 1785.

2. Remarkably, we see this possibility, this explanation, as a real possibility in the version of Modena, which lacks timpanis, trumpets, flutes and clarinets. The original symphony ! And not by Mozart.

3. The early scoring of this Modena version is in fact similar to that of Symphonies KV201 and KV203, allowing us to suggest that its true composition date may have been around 1772-1774.

4. It only remains to say that transforming serenades in to symphonies is already a well known feature of 'Mozart's' symphonies. The same having occurred in works such as serenades KV203 and also KV320.

5. And so the Modena manuscript of the 'Haffner' may finally be appreciated as one of the very earliest, if not the earliest form of this music today falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart. A work which came to Salzburg and was there at the time of the Haffner festivities. Whose true composer may likely be none other than the Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. A composer whose symphonies are specifically refered to by J. de La Bordes (1783) in his 'Essai sur la musique' as being in great demand amongst German princes. (No such reference appearing in that publication of symphonies by Mozart).

In conclusion, I suggest the full story of the 'Haffner' is one of transformation of existing music at Salzburg and the later use of it in another form by Wolfgang Mozart in Vienna. Though the music itself is and always was that of a third party. The 9 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena are disregarded for the simple reason that their existence there begs an explanation. One too unpalatable for the Mozart industry. The explanation being that no such works by him were known in Bonn at the time of that inventory. They 'became' Mozart before the time of their arrival there. And amongst them the 'Haffner'.

[Herman]

You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.

There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.

Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.

How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?

1. Leopold Mozart, having already available in Salzburg this very work (supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer) decided to use this it for these festivities of Haffner in 1782. Nothing had been received from his son in Vienna and time was passing quickly. The work he had to hand, a symphony, needed however to be quickly altered by Leopold.

[Rod Corkin]

You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.

There's this enormous post..

This is a average post by Rob's standards. He never says one word when one thousand will do just the same!

Check this 200+ page topic where he questions the origins of Figaro for comparison...
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/le-nozze-di-figaro-formative-history-1784-6-t448.html

[karlhenning]

There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.

Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.

Quoted both for truth, and for exemplary brevity.

[robnewman]

You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.

There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.

Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.

How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?

I account for the correspondence between 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'/'Abduction from the Seraglio' and the finale of the 'Haffner' Symphony KV385  by reference to the documentary and contemporary eyewitness evidence of the great music lover Count Zinzendorf. Who, himself attending the premiere of the singspiel 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail' in Vienna noted, (in his own diary) -

'This opera, whose music has been pilfered from various others - is NOT by Mozart'.

Source - Count Zinzendorf - Journal Entry, Vienna, 1782 - Day of the Premiere of, 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'.

[Catison]

Good job, Mr. Newman for finally writing your thoughts down with evidence.  May I suggest this is where you should have started?  Now we have something to talk about.  We can talk about FACTS and not your particular impression of the FACTS.

Also, does anyone have the original German of this letter that is so important to the Haffner symphony?

[Florestan]

ISource - Count Zinzendorf - Journal Entry, Vienna, 1782 - Day of the Premiere of 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'.

Can we see this entry anywhere?

[Catison]

Can we see this entry anywhere?

He seems to be a theologian, not a music expert.

See http://www.zinzendorf.com/countz.htm, which includes this relatively minor point, "Zinzendorf died in 1760 at Herrnhut."  So I don't quite see how he was writing journals in 1782.

Perhaps a different Zinzendorf?

[Holly]

You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.

There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.

Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.

How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?

Herman, scrolling through this thread one could be forgiven for thinking it's pretty obvious you are one of Newman's main enablers, just as you accused me the other day, much to my annoyance and shock/horror.  Members here have been advising to let this silly non-issue just die and let this thread be buried under more genuine discussion threads.  But you keep bumping it with more and more requests for clarifications which are obviously going to achieve nothing but drag us further into the mire.

Herman, you are out of your depth with Newman.  He has PhD in B.S. from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Calcutta.  

Herman. I suggest we let this topic die a peaceful death. Mr Newman has admitted he has no evidence, and that's it.

The same applies to David Ross who keeps sticking his oar in after repeatedly advising others to desist.

I bet Rod Corkin's glad he got shot of all this nonsense from CMM a few months ago.  What happened, Rod, were your data storage bills getting too high, or was the honeymoon ended?

[robnewman]

He seems to be a theologian, not a music expert.

See http://www.zinzendorf.com/countz.htm, which includes this relatively minor point, "Zinzendorf died in 1760 at Herrnhut."  So I don't quite see how he was writing journals in 1782.

Perhaps a different Zinzendorf?

Yes, a different Zinzendorf. An earlier one was the theologian.

/

[robnewman]

Can we see this entry anywhere?

Yes, it is in Vienna, in the unpublished diaries of Count Zinzendorf. And is refered to by various Mozart biographers.

[Catison]

Perhaps a different Zinzendorf?

Yes, whoops.  A Karl von Zinzendorf, but I would not take his musical taste as learned truth.  See: http://oq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/4/650.pdf  (pg. 654)

'For Link, the great value of Zinzendorf is as a reliable, impartial chronicler
of events. His good memory made him a trustworthy recorder of the facts of
performance, including singers and works; hence, he is cited as an important
source in the performance calendar. An altogether different matter is how he
might represent the taste of Viennese audiences. One hopes not too much; it
is he after all, who made the notorious observation that Figaro bored him (see
p. 270). Perhaps we can forgive Zinzendorf his philistinism that evening, as he
had amorous matters that distracted him from the opera (although paying more
attention to the opera might have given him some useful instruction in the art
of love). Without a similar distraction, he found the music of a later performance
(4 July) remarkable. In any case Zinzendorf, as Link observes, attended
the opera primarily for social reasons. Nor was he a skilled musician (he was
more savvy when it came to spoken theater). Thus, his commentary, at least
with respect to the music, is of limited value, and I do not quite share Link's
enthusiasm for Zinzendorf as an "ideal reporter."'

[Rod Corkin]

I bet Rod Corkin's glad he got shot of all this nonsense from CMM a few months ago.  What happened, Rod, were your data storage bills getting too high, or was the honeymoon ended?

I pay no bills for my site, it cost's me nothing other than heartache.  

As for Robert's departure for CMM, this was not down to the current subject matter in itself, for such things are still allowed to be discussed there, rather it was Rob's more generally immoderate behaviour...

[robnewman]

Thanks for the quote. The part that seems best is -

'For Link, the great value of Zinzendorf is as a reliable, impartial chronicler
of events. His good memory made him a trustworthy recorder of the facts of
performance, including singers and works; hence, he is cited as an important
source in the performance calendar

LOL !!!

Now, back to the 'Haffner'................

[Catison]

Can we see this entry anywhere?

Here is an excerpt but not much more:

"To-night at the theatre Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, an opera the music of which is pilfered from various others. Fischer acted well. Adam Berger is a statue. . . . "

(from http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Zinzendorf+mozart&source=bl&ots=VXwRQVBh-w&sig=g3GzXQAyIvOr55SmOxy18X8pgBM&hl=en&ei=h9kbSsniMYLW-Aa15Jlr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA203,M1)