Appendix-2
Criteria for "Trademark" Proof
There are several issues involved here in the proof of “trademark” usage, involving quantity and
quality:
1. Did Mozart use the phrase more often than other composers?
2. Did the composer use the phrase in multiple musical forms (symphony, chamber music,
etc)?
3. Did the composer use the phrase in different ways?
4. Did the composer develop variations on the phrase?
5. Did the composer integrate the phrase with a theme, or simply use it only as a convenient
musical transition?
6. Did the composer intend the phrase as a musical trademark?
Item 1 (relative frequency) has been only partially satisfied: 13 pieces (16 citations) have been
listed where Mozart used the phrase, as well as 4 citations where variations of the phrase were
used. More examples would need to be located to further satisfy item 1, and the works of other
composers would need to be analyzed and compared to Mozart’s frequency of use of the phrase.
If the phrase were found to appear, say, at least 30 times as frequently in Mozart’s works as other
composer’s works, the term “trademark phrase” could probably be applied to Mozart’s works - all
other criteria being equal.
The 16 citations were located during a fairly brief and cursory search of some music on hand. A
lengthy, organized, in-depth search would doubtless turn up many more examples.
Item 2 (usage in different musical forms): In the Mozart pieces listed here as examples, several
different musical forms and instrument types are represented:
· The symphony
· opera
· string quartet
· piano sonata
· organ sonata (for mechanical organ), and
· choral requiem.
The phenomenon is therefore not limited to just one musical form or type of instrument. (Other
forms such as the concerto, cantata, canon, song, etc, have not yet been seriously investigated).
Item 3 (usage in different ways): The fact that Mozart invented so many different ways to use
the phrase suggests its intentional use as a trademark, or at least as having some special meaning
or importance to him. Explore most Mozart works – at least those in a minor key and written for
public performance or for sale to a music publisher – and you will probably discover one or more
uses of the phrase, or a variation of the phrase, used in a unique way. (“Public performance”
would have to include “hoped-for public performance” such as the 40th symphony which wasn’t
performed in his lifetime, as far as we know).
Item 4 (variations): The use of “variations on a theme”, when that theme extends across many
different musical works, certainly suggests its importance to Mozart. 4 citations of variations by
Mozart are given in the examples.
Item 5 (integration with a theme): Mozart’s use of the phrase was always fully integrated with a
theme, stated clearly - sometimes boldly, and never as an afterthought or a convenient tool for a
musical transition. One example of this integration with a theme, as well as clarity and boldness is
the Overture to the Magic Flute (Example A4), where the trademark phrase is tied to the common
E-flat “theme”, and comes close to being the theme for 9 measures.
Item 6 (intentions): Mozart’s intentions may never be known, and are not a requirement for
classifying the phrase as a “trademark” (which is also true for other composers). In the example
of trademark usage given by Webster (“Derringers became almost a trademark of gamblers”),
one does not need to consciously create a trademark; one needs only to be associated with a
distinguishing characteristic or feature. However, added weight could be given to intentions if we
consider the sum of the other items in this list, in that Mozart might have been attempting to
create a trademark phrase. If we didn’t notice it before, but we notice it now, it could become the
phrase associated with his name - which Mozart was trying to create all along.
Conclusion: The status of "Trademark" cannot conclusively be applied to Mozart's use of the
phrase at this time. Many more pieces by Mozart and other composers must be analyzed.