K.361 and Mozart's Wedding: Another Mozart Myth
Dave Morton, April 21, 2002 -
E-mail:
Dmorton965@aol.com
Last revised: April, 2009
Did Mozart compose K.361 - the Gran
Partita wind serenade - for his bride-to-be
(Constanze Weber) and have it played at their wedding reception?
If Mozart composed it as a wedding gift, why was he surprised it was played?
Did he forget that he wrote it?
How did this rumor get started?
............................................................................
Note: This section is the result of a discussion on a Mozart discussion board,
and is presented here simply to preserve those efforts.
............................................................................
Serenade number 10 in B-flat Major for 13 instruments.
K.361 (Kochel-6 = K.370a).
Popular name: The "Gran Partita" (written on the autograph score by someone).
Location of the autograph score: Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Number of pages of the autograph score: 91 pages.
Facsimile edition: Published in 1976 with a forward by Alfred Einstein.
Scoring: 2
oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 basset horns, 4 horns, 2 bassoons,
and 1 contra-bass.
Total: 13 instruments.
Instruments:
Basset Horns: Mozart's first known use of the basset horn.
Other Horns: 2 pitched in F, 2 pitched in B flat.
Size: Largest number of instruments and longest wind serenade by Mozart.
Type of piece: "Harmonie Music" (on a grand scale), which was in existence
and thriving some years before 1781.
Typical Harmonie group: An octet of winds. 2 oboes, 2 clarinets
(or basset horns), 2 horns, 2 bassoons. No strings.
7 Movements:
1. Largo, molto allegro
2. Menuetto
3. Adagio
4. Menuetto and Trio
5. Romance
6. Tema con variazione
7. Finale
Performance time: About 50 minutes.
Date of composition:
Awaiting the dating by the new Köchel Catalog.
Composition date based on manuscript paper used:
1781 per Alan Tyson and Dexter Edge.
Composition date based on Mozart's Thematic Catalog:
Sometime before Feb 9, 1784.
The catalog was begun in February 9th, 1784, and the first
entry is K.449 (a piano concerto in E flat).
"A serenade for 13 winds" (or similar description) does not
appear in the catalog, so it was composed before the catalog was
implemented - prior to K.449 (February 9th, 1784).
Composition date based on date written on score:
1780/1781.
Writer unknown - possibly Andre, the music publisher.
Date apparently changed from 1781 to 1780 by someone.
Unusable for dating.
Date of first known performance:
March 23, 1784, Vienna (4 movements).
Usable only for negative dating.
Date of first printing:
1803, Vienna.
Mozart's wedding: August 4, 1782, St. Stephens Cathedral, Vienna.
Wedding reception: The home of the wealthy Baroness Martha Elizabeth
von Waldstätten, friend of the bride and groom, at 360 Jägerzeile,
Leopoldstadt, Austria (a suburb of Vienna).
Streets have been renamed and house addresses have been renumbered
since then. The current address would be 518 Praterstrasse,
but the original house no longer exists.
It was located near the Donau Canal and Ferdinand's Bridge.
............................................................................
The notion that Mozart composed K.361 - the Gran Partita wind serenade
for 13 instruments - for his bride-to-be as a wedding gift, and have it
played at their wedding reception in August,
1782, is fallacious.
1. Mozart never claimed this.
2. There is no evidence the piece was played there.
3. There is some evidence that it was NOT played there.
It's another Mozart myth.
This document (with a flowchart) lays out the history of misunderstandings,
misinterpretations and unfounded rumors concerning this myth.
The myth revolves primarily around a letter dated August 7, 1782, which
Mozart wrote to his father a few days after his wedding, and is referred
to as "The Wedding Letter". He had just received his father's belated
blessing of the marriage - after he was already married - and said that
he was writing the letter in haste.
The phrase "wedding music" refers to music supposedly played at a
reception following the wedding - a supper given by their wealthy
friend, Baroness von Waldstädten -
who was known for her
lavish, over-the-top entertaining.
However, the original letter in Mozart's handwriting, located at the
Mozarteum in Salzburg, does not contain any references to music played
at the wedding
reception - including the serenade for 13 instruments (K.361).
The problem began with George von Nissen, or whoever inserted text in the
copy of the wedding letter which he was dealing with in his biography
of Mozart. It was then treated vaguely and assumingly by Otto Jahn, then
misquoted and misinterpreted by Hermann Abert, and was reinforced by
Joseph Eibl without any attribution of his source.
In the Nissen version of the letter
used in his biography of Mozart (not the
original letter in Mozart's handwriting), there is an added sentence inserted
by an unknown hand which reads:
(Mozart to his father, per "Nissen"):
"Während des Souper wurde ich mit einer
sechzehnstimmigen Harmonie von meiner
Composition überrascht."
("During the supper, I was surprised with a 16-part
Harmonie of my own composition.")
The statement might be true, but we know for a fact that Mozart did not
write that sentence since it's not in the original letter located in the
Mozarteum in Salzburg. Someone tried to make it APPEAR as if Mozart wrote it,
although the attempt may have been an innocent one, done to impress the
reader with the grandeur of the banquet, but with no intent to defraud.
Since the sentence might be true, and probably IS true, based on the
customs of the time and the lavish entertaining style of the Baroness,
the ill-advised insertion is not nearly as important as the
illogical conclusions drawn from it, IE, "The Myth" of its purpose.
It's important to know that someone (probably Constance) inserted that
sentence into Nissen's book, but far more important to correctly understand
what it means - since it's probably true.
As to the myth aspect of K.361, why would anyone think that a 16-PART
Harmonie music piece referred to the 13-PART Wind Serenade, K.361??
And why would anyone think that Mozart apparently FORGOT that he wrote
it for the wedding reception, and was surprised that it was played??
And why is there no dedication of the piece to his wife on the first page
of the manuscript, if he wrote it as a gift to her??
Shouldn't there be some kind of dedication somewhere? Perhaps on a cover page
of the full score rather than the first page of music? Nothing has turned up.
(Link to K.361 autograph, first page).
If Mozart wrote K.361 especially for his wedding reception, wouldn't
he remember writing it, having it copied into 13 parts, paying the copyists
quite a bit of money (it's a long piece with 13 instruments - 91 pages long),
carrying the finished product home, and turning the music over to the
hostess for playing by a large hired group of musicians?
Of course he would remember!!
For that matter, he probably would have had to rehearse the group to ensure
a good performance, rather than simply hoping they'd get it right - possibly
even sight-reading the piece!
Would simply trusting to luck on your wedding day be a good idea?
Mozart would have been heavily involved in all the aspects of getting
the piece written, copied, rehearsed, and performed, and probably
even in selecting the musicians, and making sure they had transportation
to the Baroness' home.
Naturally, Mozart would have needed to tell the musicians where the event
was to take place, and the date and time they should arrive.
Since the Baroness' "city home" was located in the Vienna suburb of
Leopoldstadt on Praterstrasse (current name), the musicians would probably
have had to take a carriage to get there, since it's about 1/2 mile
to 1 mile from central Vienna to her home, and Mozart might have been
expected to reimburse them for their round-trip transportation costs.
Was he hoping they wouldn't show up so he could save some money?
The musicians would have shown up to get paid for their performance,
possibly reimbursed for their transportation costs, possibly get hired
for future events, and hopefully eat some good banquet food in the kitchen.
They would be highly motivated to show up, yet Mozart was supposedly
surprised that they showed up and played his special piece.
Why would he be surprised?
Did he intentionally give them the wrong directions to the house?
Did he intentionally give them the wrong date or time for the reception?
Did he forget that he wrote the piece for his bride as a wedding gift?
This makes no sense at all. Obviously, Mozart had no connection
with the 16 musicians who surprised him with a 16-part Harmonie music
of his own composition, or with the scheduling of the music.
Note that Mozart actually WAS surprised once by some street musicians
playing K.375 (we think) in a courtyard outside his window, one evening
in November 1781. He then dutifully mentioned it to his father in a
letter referred to by Eric Hoeprich.
As to the original wedding letter (with no inserted sentences), why
DIDN'T Mozart say anything at all to his father about this beautiful
piece?
a) He mentioned being surprised by a sextet playing his music outside
his window in a different letter, 9 months earlier.
b) He sent his father a "short march" with the wedding letter.
c) And he mentioned that his opera had been given again at Gluck's request.
Yet Mozart mysteriously didn't bother to mention the lengthy and beautiful
Wind Serenade (K.361) - almost an hour long - which he had supposedly
composed as a wedding gift for his wife.
Could he have once again forgotten that he'd written it, and put so much
ancillary work into it? This is certainly negative evidence regarding the
idea that Mozart wrote K.361 as a wedding gift to his wife, since he
WOULD HAVE mentioned such a piece and gesture to his father.
He always did. It was Mozart's nature and his custom, as we can see
from the references to the "short march" and his opera, even in this
letter primarily discussing his wedding.
Clearly, the inserted sentence about a 16-part Harmonie, if true,
refers to some music other than K.361, and was probably a special
wedding gift from the hostess to her friend. And we can thank her
for making the wedding reception so special for the newlyweds.
The sentence first appeared in George von Nissen's biography of Mozart
in 1828, 2 years after Nissen died.
And since Nissen died 2 years before his biography of Mozart was published,
we don't know if Nissen or someone else inserted the extra sentence into his
Mozart biography, which is why "Nissen" is in quotes, above.
Various versions of the Wedding Letter, in this document:
The Bauer/Deutsch (Eibl) version of the letter, which is a text copy of the
original, can be viewed here.
The Mersmann version of the letter (in English), which is a translated copy
of the original letter, can be viewed here.
The Nissen version of the letter with
the ADDITIONAL TEXT can be viewed
here.
These are all located further in this document under Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
Flowchart of Events
+---------------+
|
|
| Mozart's |
| autograph | "Wedding Letter"
in Mozart's handwriting:
| manuscript | No music mentioned
regarding
the wedding reception.
| of the letter | Nothing about being surprised with a
16-part
| now in the | Harmonie piece of
Mozart's own composition.
| Mozarteum | This original
document is the final authority.
| in Salzburg |
+---------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+------+ |
| |
| |
| |
| V
| +---------------+
| |
| Wedding Letter paraphrased in Nissen's biography.
|
| | Nissen bio of | Wedding music: 16-part Harmonie of his
| | WAM, with | own composition played.
Mozart surprised.
| | Constanze and | [Nissen: "Während des Souper wurde ich mit
einer sechzehnstimmigen
| | others. | Harmonie
von meiner Composition überrascht."]
| | Pub 1828. |
| | (Nissen died |
| | in 1826.)
|
| |
|-----------------------> Other authors: Wedding music sentence included.
| +---------------+
| |
| |
|-----+ |
| | |
| | |
| V V
| +---------------+
| |
| Original letter: No wedding music mentioned.
| | Otto Jahn - | Footnote (2nd ed.): Wedding music -
16 parts, per Nissen,
| | Author of | "But this must be a
mistake because even the great
| | WAM bio | serenade for
winds has only 13 parts."
| | (4 editions). | (Ie, we don't know what was played, if
anything).
| | 1856 for WAM | Realized that there was a discrepancy
between the original
| | 100-yr anniv. | letter and Nissen's version with its
additional text, and
| |
| implied it (somewhat) in his footnote, but didn't label it a fraud
| +---------------+ or a forgery. Nissen's version of the letter
was not published
| |
for comparison, so people probably didn't realize that
| |
text had been inserted into the Nissen version, even
| |
though Jahn knew. (How could they know unless they checked
| |
the Nissen version of the letter against the autograph?)
|
|
| |
Jahn's footnote to 2nd edition, 1867: "Während des Soupers wurde er
| |
nach Nissen mit einer 'sechzehnstimmigen Harmonie' von seiner
| |
Composition überrascht. Das wird ein Irrthum sein, denn auch die
| |
grosse Serenade (361 K.) ist nur dreizehnstimmig."
| | ["During the supper, according to Nissen, he was surprised with a
| | '16-part Harmonie' of his own composition. This must be a mistake,
|
| because even
the great Serenade (K.361) has only 13 parts."]
| |
|
| The first
edition footnote (1856) is similar, but doesn't
| |
attribute the source of the comment to anyone, or declare it a
| |
mistake, saying instead, "I don't know what is meant by that."
| |
The 2nd edition is more rigorous, and mentions Nissen as the source.
| |
The 3rd and 4th editions say the same as the 2nd, re the music.
|
| Ironically,
Jahn's first edition is more accurate than the 2nd.
| |
First mention of 16-part wedding music by Jahn: 1856, 1st edition.
| |
See Footnote 1 for the complete text of both of Jahn's footnotes.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| V
| +---------------+
| |
|
| | Hermann | Wedding music:
K.361 (13-parts) mentioned in footnote.
| | Abert - | Abert quotes
Jahn partially, attributing the wedding music information
| | Editor of new | to Nissen, then mysteriously jumps to the
conclusion that the music
| | edition of | must have been K.361
without accounting for the 16/13 difference, etc.
| | Jahn's bio | Also misquotes Jahn, slightly,
by omitting the phrase "surprised with,"
| | of WAM.
| radically changing the meaning of the comment.
| |
| [Abert: "Dabei wurde nach Nissen eine 'sechzehnstimmige Harmonie'
| | Approx 1921. | seiner Komposition gespiellt. Es handelt
sich wohl um die
| |
| dreizehnstimmige Serenade (K.V.361)."]
| |
|
| |
| -----------------> Other authors: Wedding music was K.361
| +---------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| V 1930's
| +---------------+
| |
|
| | Common | K.361 was
performed at Mozart's wedding
| | Knowledge | reception in August,
1782.
| |
| Mozart wrote it for Constanze as a wedding gift.
| |
| (This is the piece that Mozart forgot he wrote for Constance
| |
| as a wedding gift.)
| |
|
| +---------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| V 1950's
| +---------------+
| |
|
| | Dan |
| | Leeson | Studied
history of K.361.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| +---------------+
|
|
+---------+
| (autograph
copies of letters)
|
|
|
|
V
1960's/1970's
+---------------+
|
| Wedding Letter:
| Bauer & | No
wedding music mentioned. However, the 1962-1975 edition contains
| Deutsch: | extensive
comments by Eibl. Referring to this letter, he states,
| Mozart's |
"Supposedly at the 'wedding feast' the Serenade K.361 had been
| letters. |
performed". No attribution of source given.
| In German. | [Eibl: "Bei dem 'Hochzeits
festin' soll die Serenade KV361 (370a)
| 1962-1975 ed. | aufgeführt worden sein."
|
| ("The Serenade KV361 (370a) was supposedly performed at the wedding
feast.") ]
|
|
+---------------+ -----------> Other authors: No
wedding music in letter
|
if only quoting the letter
|
and not Eibl's comment.
|
If quoting Eibl's comment, then
|
K.361 was supposedly played at
|
the wedding feast.
|
|
|
V
1970's
+---------------+
|
|
|
| Dan Leeson and Neal Zaslaw discover that a
|
| sentence had been inserted into the letter
| Leeson and | in Nissen's
biography of Mozart.
| Zaslaw |
Exposure of "fraud", and re-thinking of date
|
| of K.361 composition.
|
| Nissen, Jahn and Abert consulted as well as
|
| Bauer/Deutsch.
|
| Article published in the 1976 Mozart Jahrbuch by
+---------------+ Dan Leeson and David Whitewell.
Progression of statements and beliefs
1. Original letter: No mention of wedding reception music by Mozart.
2. Nissen:
Mozart was surprised with a 16-part Harmonie of his own composition
during the wedding reception given by the Baroness von
Waldstädten.
3. Otto Jahn:
1st ed: Mozart was surprised with a 16-part Harmonie of his
own composition,
per Nissen, but "I don't know what is meant by that...".
2nd ed: According to Nissen, Mozart was surprised with a
16-part Harmonie of
his own composition, but "this must be a mistake...".
3rd and 4th eds: (Same as 2nd).
See Footnote 1 for full text of Jahn's footnotes.
4. Hermann Abert: Apparently K.361 was played at Mozart's wedding reception.
5. Common
Knowledge: K.361 was played at the wedding reception.
6. Common knowledge: K.361 was written by Mozart as a wedding gift to his
bride.
7. Leeson and Zaslaw: No evidence of any specific music played at the reception.
Possible mistakes made, or "Who can we blame?"
1. The sentence
shouldn't have been inserted into the Nissen transcription of the letter,
because it gave the appearance that Mozart said it, and
sowed confusion because it didn't
make sense, or more accurately, didn't SEEM to make sense.
It corrupted the secondary
source which served as the primary source for most readers
and scholars, and it appeared
before Jahn's version.
It should have been added as a footnote, indicating that
Constanze recalled certain
music played at the wedding reception, etc. Scholars would
then be judging Constanze's
memory of the piece (after several decades) as opposed to
Mozart's apparent "statement".
We don't know who inserted the sentence (several people
could have done it), but
the only one of the group who attended Constanze's wedding
in 1782 was Constanze.
That Nissen would suggest adding a sentence to a letter
about music played at a
wedding held many years earlier, which he didn't attend,
seems highly improbable.
As to the reproduction of the letter (the transcription) by
Nissen, it's crucial to
note that not only was the book published after his death,
and worked on by others
after he died, but the text of the letter contains many
omissions in addition to
the insertion. Thomas Nielsen (Discussion Board) and Viggo
Sjoeqvist (author)
have this to say:
In such cases Nissen, contrary to good modern practice,
did not indicate that he omitted
text. In his book on Constanze, Viggo Sjoeqvist says: "The
reproduction of the letters [in
Nissen's book], by and large, are not bad, in particular
when it is remembered that he did
not have much knowledge of editorial technique. But the
selections are very often
paraphrasing, and the contractions are as a rule made in
such a way that it is in reality
impossible to see where there are omissions or paraphrases"
(my translation). I cite this
not in order to defend Nissen, but simply in order to
suggest that the fact that the
insertion is not indicated as such conforms to the usual
editorial practice of the book:
not to indicate (as an editor is expected to do today)
editorial adjustments of the texts
printed.
In other words, Nissen can be forgiven for his paraphrasing, omissions, and additions
in quoting Mozart's letters, but this would not be acceptable editorial practice today.
(See Exhibit 3 for the Nissen version, and for an
itemized list of what text was cut from
and inserted into the letter).
Since Jahn and Abert both realized that the statement about the 16-part
Harmonie was ambiguous - even as an insertion in a letter (Jahn)
- and both
men were unclear in their exposition of this issue (see 2
and 3 below), there is
no good reason to believe that the issue would have been
handled better even if
the statement had been added as a footnote rather than a
fraudulent insertion. In fact,
Jahn was at a distinct advantage since he was able to
compare the original letter
with the Nissen version of same, and realized that Mozart
did not write those words
in that letter. Knowing that Mozart didn't write that
sentence in that letter, Jahn's
task should have been one of exposing the insertion of
inauthentic text into a
transcription of an otherwise authentic letter, rather than
trying to analyze
what piece had been performed. His role should have changed
from "musical historian"
to "musical detective" at that point.
Why analyze fraudulent text for its musical significance?
Why not point it out, mention
that it *might* be true, and check for more such examples
when reproducing letters?
Therefore, if Jahn didn't handle a case of "fraud"
correctly, why would he handle
a footnote by Constanze better? If anything, a footnote
would carry more weight than
than the insertion of text into a letter since it wouldn't
be tainted by fraud.
And not being tainted by fraud, Jahn would almost certainly
have been more forthcoming
in his analysis, speculated that "16" should have been
"13", and that K.361 had been
played at the wedding reception. All this in 1856, rather
than 1921 when Abert
decided that the piece must have been K.361.
So, a footnote to the letter, rather than an insertion in
the letter, would probably
have resulted in the world believing that K.361 was played
at Mozart's wedding.
And since the statement would have had the credibility of
an eyewitness, it not
only might never have been disputed, it might actually have
been true. But since
the sentence was NOT a footnote, and since we don't know
why it was inserted into
the letter rather than added as a footnote, we cannot say
what music - if any -
was played at the wedding.
Thus, if Constanze wanted the readers of later generations
to know the truth, she
would have been better off "telling" the truth, ie, by
adding a footnote, rather
than inserting text into a letter (assuming, for the
moment, that it was Constanze
who wanted the text inserted).
If Constanze had wanted readers to believe a lie, it still
would have been better
to add a footnote, since a footnote would be more
believable than an insertion.
Whatever the facts, it was a mistake to insert the text,
but that's from a perspective
of over 150 years later, and probably has nothing at all to
do with the motives or the
mindset relevant to the issue at the time.
2. Jahn should
probably have been clearer about the situation. Rather than simply saying
"according to Nissen", he should have said that a sentence
had been inserted in the Nissen
version of the letter, and at what point in the letter.
Readers would have been able to see exactly what he meant
since he published the original
version of the letter (without the inserted text) in his
book.
Doing this would permit later scholars to understand what
the phrase "according to Nissen"
meant. Until recently, scholars did NOT realize what Jahn
meant.
The ambiguity of part of the sentence - "a 16-part Harmonie
of my own composition" -
which didn't indicate whether it was a new or recent
composition for winds, or
whether it was simply an arrangement of some other piece
made by a nameless "arranger",
proved to be a problem for Jahn. While noting that "this
must be a mistake" (2nd ed.),
he was apparently assuming that the work must have been
written by Mozart for 16-part
winds, when it could have been simply an arrangement.
Although Jahn's 2nd edition
is more rigorous than his first, his 1st edition comment
beginning with,
"I don't know what is meant by that" is more accurate
than his 2nd edition comment,
since the inserted sentence in the letter could have been
true if the music played
was simply an arrangement of an earlier piece. Making
arrangements of pieces for
playing by Harmonie groups was a common practice.
So Jahn made two mistakes:
a) Being vague about the inserted sentence by saying
"according to Nissen", which is
meaningless under the circumstances.
b) Assuming (in his 2nd edition) that the piece being
referred to - the 16-part Harmonie by
Mozart - was an ORIGINAL
composition as opposed to an ARRANGEMENT of an existing piece,
when he states "but this must be a
mistake". It was a mistake only if the sentence
referred to an original composition, and
may have been completely truthful if it
referred to an arrangement. The 1st
edition footnote was more accurate.
Let us keep in mind, however, that Jahn was in a difficult
spot: He could see that
a sentence had been inserted in Nissen's version of the
letter, but in the first
edition was reluctant to let go of the "received wisdom".
And he was also working with
material which had been edited with cuts and an insertion
(as well as possible
paraphrasing), making his job of determining the very
existence of the insertion more
difficult, and puzzling over its meaning within that
context. Nissen's book was regarded as
authoritative - after all, he was the husband of the widow
of the composer - and Jahn
apparently wasn't sure what to do with the discrepancies
between the book and the original
materials. He probably was simply trying to be deferential
and respectful of Nissen and
Constanze, and did the best he could under the
circumstances.
3. Abert's error
in jumping to the conclusion that K.361 was performed is more understandable
given that he didn't realize a sentence had been inserted
into the letter. But he should
have clarified why he felt that Nissen meant 13 parts (a
very unusual grouping), not 16
parts for the piece - or even 6 parts ("sechstimmige") - a
very common kind of wind band.
In short, he should have explained himself, but didn't, and
left the impression that it
was almost certainly K.361 which was performed.
Additionally, Abert doesn't render Jahn's quote of Nissen
precisely, omitting the
words "surprised with" and replacing them with
"played". This change altered the
meaning of the event and its social significance, and
unwittingly enabled the
unknown inventor of the myth that "K.361 was composed by
Mozart as a wedding gift
for his bride" to make his case more plausible, even if
unfounded. It changes the
social nature of the event from what would appear to be a
surprise gift from the
Baroness, to the playing of Mozart's music, and ultimately
to the notion that
Mozart wrote it as a wedding gift to his bride.
4. Eibl (of Bauer-Deutsch) should have listed the source of his information
that "supposedly
K.361 was played...". Not listing the attribution makes it
difficult or impossible to track
down the source, and shows carelessness. We don't know why
he made that statement, and
it muddled the issue further.
5. Once the
musical world believed that K.361 had been performed at Mozart's wedding
reception, whoever invented the fiction that it was
composed as a wedding gift
for his bride was also guilty of making an assumption and
spreading an unfounded
rumor. If Mozart composed it as a wedding gift, why was
he surprised it was played?
The inserted sentence would have read something like,
"During the supper, I surprised
my bride with a gift of a 16-part Harmonie of my own
composition." After converting
the "16" to "13", the "wedding gift" theory would make more
sense...
But then, they apparently didn't check Jahn's or Nissen's
version of the story (at
least, the earlier editions) even though Jahn and Abert had
both said "according to
Nissen...". And both Jahn and Nissen said that "[Mozart
was] surprised with..."
the playing of his music.
So there was apparently an attitude of presumption and some
laziness by the inventor
of the "wedding gift" story, and an unquestioning attitude
on the part of those
who believed it.
6. Mozart should
have begun his thematic catalog earlier in his career, and entered the piece
with a completion date. Then there would be no confusion.
Summary of Mistakes
1. Constanze is
probably guilty of using poor judgment in inserting the text.
Nissen (or someone) is probably guilty of poor judgment in
allowing it to be
inserted.
2. Jahn is
probably guilty of poor judgment in his weak treatment of what was
clearly not authentic text, and guilty of assuming that the
piece referred to
was an original composition as opposed to an arrangement of
an existing one.
(A difficult situation to be in, though, all factors
considered).
3. Abert is
guilty of not accurately quoting Jahn, jumping to conclusions, and
not explaining himself.
4. Eibl is
guilty of not naming his source(s) and perpetuating a myth in a book
of Mozart's letters.
5. Some unknown
person is guilty of starting the rumor that Mozart composed
K.361 as a wedding gift for his wife.
6. Mozart is guilty of not keeping better records of his compositions and other
musical accomplishments.
======================================================
Some Possibilities
1. No music was
played at the wedding. Extremely unlikely for that era.
2. K.361 was played (13-part music). No evidence for this from any source.
3. A portion of K.361 was played (13-part music). No evidence for this.
4. An arrangement of a piece by Mozart was played using 16 players, but only
8 parts.
("Harmonie music" often consisted of arrangements of
pieces, much as the arrangements
of operatic numbers were played by wind players in the
opera "Don Giovanni").
5. An arrangement of a piece by Mozart was played using 6 players (not 16).
6. An arrangement of a piece by Mozart was played using between 6 and 16
players.
7. A composition of Mozart's for winds was played using between 6 and 16
players.
K.375 (original version for 6 parts) would have been such a
possibility,
composed in 1781.
8. Harmonie music was played, but Mozart was not the composer.
This makes no sense as he
allegedly said "of my own composition...".
9. Whatever was played was a wedding gift from Mozart to his bride.
Impossible since he was supposedly
surprised to hear it.
10. Whatever was played was given as a wedding gift from the Baroness
to the Mozart's.
Arrangements of known pieces rather then new pieces written expressly for a
Harmonie ensemble were often preferred by those who could afford to pay
such groups.
======================================================
Conclusion
There is no evidence that K.361 was played at the wedding reception,
or that the music played was composed and prepared as a wedding gift from
Mozart to Constanze.
Music was almost certainly played at the wedding reception, per the customs of
the time, and the lavish entertaining style of the Baroness von Waldstädten.
Therefore, the sentence inserted in the wedding letter might easily be true.
If someone had made an arrangement of one of Mozart's pieces for 8 or 16 parts,
a piece by Mozart could easily have been played, and could have been a
surprise wedding gift by the Baroness to
the newly married couple.
Also plausible is the possibility that it was a 6-part Harmonie arrangement
of a
Mozart composition, or a 6-part original composition by Mozart,
misremembered,
misstated, or misprinted as being a 16-part Harmonie. K.375 (original version)
is such a possibility.
======================================================
Footnote 1: The full text from Jahn's
footnotes to the 1st and 2nd editions follows.
Jahn's footnote to 1st edition, 1856: "Während des Soupers wurde er mit einer
"sechzehnstimmigen Harmonie" von seiner Composition überrascht. Ich weisz
nicht welche
damit gemeint sei, denn die grosse Serenade (II S. 490 ff.), an welche mann zunächst
denken möchte, ist nur dreizehstimmig und es ist nich bekannt dass Mozart mehrere
Instrumente zugesetzt habe; eine achtstimmige doppelt besetzte Harmoniemusik hätte
er
schwerlich sechzehnstimmig genannt."
Jahn's footnote to 2nd edition, 1867: "Während des Soupers wurde er nach
Nissen mit
einer "sechzehnstimmigen Harmonie" von seiner Composition überrascht. Das wird ein
Irrthum sein, denn auch die grosse Serenade (361 K.) ist nur dreizehnstimmig."
======================================================
Exhibit 1 - Mersmann
The English language transcription of the letter in Mersmann's book of Mozart's letters, based on a source other than Nissen.
Even though some kind of music at a wedding would have been commonplace, there is no mention of music played at the
wedding reception. I have inserted "[****]" in the letter to indicate where the single sentence was inserted in the Nissen
version of the letter. Note that this version of the letter is complete, whereas the Nissen version is missing a number of
sentences, as well as containing an inserted sentence.
From "Letters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart", selected and edited by Hans Mersmann.
Translated from the German by M.M. Bozman.
Dover Publications, New York. 1928/1972. Paperback edition. Page 203.
MERSMANN VERSION OF THE WEDDING LETTER:
................................................................
VIENNE, ce 7 d'août, 1782.
[Vienna, 7 August 1782]
Mon très cher Père!
You are much deceived in your son if you can suppose him capable of acting dishonestly. My dear Constance,
now (I thank God) actually my wife, knew my circumstances, and long since heard from me what I had to
expect from you. But her affection and love for me were so great that she willingly, most joyfully, consecrated
her whole future life to -- sharing my fate! I kiss your hands and thank you with all the tenderness a son ever felt
for a father for the consent and paternal blessing so kindly bestowed upon me. But I could safely rely upon it -
for you know that I could not but see for myself only too well all possible objections to such a step! But you also
know I could not act otherwise than as I did without injury to my honor and my conscience. Consequently, I could
build on your consent! For this reason, having waited in vain for an answer for over two post-days, and the ceremony
having been fixed for a day by which I expected to have received your reply, I plighted troth to my dear one before God
and in the comforting certainty of your consent. Next day I got your two letters together. Well, it is over! I have now
nothing to do but to beg your forgiveness for my perhaps over-precipitate reliance in your paternal affection. In this
frank admission you have a fresh proof of my love of truth and hatred of a lie. Next post-day my dear wife will beg
her dearest father-in-law for his paternal blessing and her beloved sister-in-law for the continuance of her much-prized
friendship.
No one was present at the wedding save her mother and youngest sister, together with Herr von Thorwarth as trustee
and guardian to both, Herr von Zetto (Landrath) as friend of the bride, and Gilofsky as my friend. When we were joined
together both my bride and I shed tears. All present, even the priest, were much moved, and all wept at witnessing these
tokens of our deep emotion. The marriage-feast consisted in a supper given for us by the Baroness von Waldstadten, and
which, as a matter of fact, was princely rather than baronial! [****] My dear Constance is now a hundred times more
delighted at the prospect of a visit to Salzburg! And I wager-- I wager-- you will rejoice in my good fortune when you
come to know her! -- that is if you agree with me that a right-minded, upright, virtuous and amiable wife is a blessing to
her husband.---
I send you herewith a short march! I only hope it will arrive in good time and prove according to your taste. The first Allegro
should go with considerable fire. The last - as fast as possible. Yesterday my opera was given again - and that at Gluck's
request. He complimented me upon it very warmly. I am to dine with him tomorrow. As you will see, I write in great haste.
Adieu. My dear wife and I kiss your hands a
thousand times, and we both embrace our dear sister with all our hearts.
I am ever
Your most obedient son,
W. A. Mozart.
======================================================
Exhibit 2 - Bauer/Deutsch
The Bauer/Deutsch version of the letter with comments. Taken from a posting on the Mozart Discussion Board by
Gary Smith. I'm including his full posting here since it is entirely concerning the Bauer/Deutsch version. The section
in question matches the Mersmann version (no reference to wedding music, etc). Gary has verified that it is from the
Bauer/Deutsch volume of Mozart's letters.
"Since I have received three requests already for this letter in German, I’ve decided to type it out here instead to
save time getting it to folks. You will have to pardon my typing, as I don’t know German and the photocopy isn’t
all that clear.
Gary."
BAUER/DEUTSCH VERSION OF THE WEDDING LETTER:
................................................................................................
Vienne ce 7 d’aout 1782
Mon tres cher Pere!
Sie haben sich sehr an ihrem Sohne Betrogen, wenn sie glauben konnten, das er im Stande seye eine schlechte
handlung zu begehen;--
Meine liebe konstanze, nummehro /: gott sey dank :/ meine wirkliche frau, wuste meine umstande und alles was
ich von ihnen zu erwarten habe, schon lange von mir. – ihre freundschaft aber und liebe zu mir war so gross das
sie gerne – mit grosten freuden ihr ganzes kunftiges leben meinem – schicksaale aufopferte. – Ich kusse ihnen die
hande und danke ihnen mi taller zartlichkeit die immer ein Sohn fur seinen Vatter fuhlte, fur die mir guttigst zugetheilte
Einwilligung und vatterlichen Seegen. – Ich konnte mich aber auch ganzlich darauf verlassen! – dennsie wussten das
ich selbst alles, -- alles was nur immer gegen solch einen schritt einzuwenden ist, nur zu gut einsehen muste; -- und
aber auch, das ich ohne mein gewissen und meine Ehre zu verlezen, nicht anderst handeln konnte – mithin konnte ich
auch ganz gewis darauf bauen! – dahero geschahe es auch das, da ich 2 Postage umsonst auf eine antwort wartete,
und die Copulation schon auf den tag /: wo ich schon alles sicher wissen musste :/ fest gesezt war, ich – ihrer Einwilligung
schon ganz versichert und getrostet, mich in gottes Nammen mit meiner geliebten trauen liess. den andern tag bekamme
ich die 2 Briefe zugleich; -- nun ist es vorbey! – ich sie nur um mein zu voreiliges vertrauen auf ihre vatterliche liebe
um verzeihung; -- durch dieses mein aufrichtiges gestandnuss haben sie einen Neuen Beweis meiner liebe zur Wahrheit,
und abscheu zur luge. mein liebes Weib wird nachstem Postage ihren liebsten, besten schwiegerpapa um seinen
vatterlichen Seegen, und ihre geliebte schwagerin um die fernere fortdauer ihrer Werthesten freundschaft bitten. –
bey der Copulation war kein Mensch als die Mutter und die Jungste schwester. – H: v: thorwart als vormund und
beystand von beyden; -- H: v: Zetto /: Landrath :/ beystand der Braut; und der gilowsky als mein beystand.—als wir
zesamm verbunden wurden fieng so wohl meine frau als ich an zu weinen; -- davon wurden alle, sogar der Priesten,
geruhrt.—und alle weinten, da sie zeuge unserer geruhrten herzen waren.—unser ganzes Hochzeits festin bestund
aus einen soupee welches uns die frau Baronin v: Waldstadten gab – welches in der that mehr furstlich als Baronisch war –
Nun freuet sich meine liebe konstanze noch hundertmal mehr nach Salzburg zu reisen! -- und ich wette – ich wette sie
warden sich meines gluckes erfreuen wenn sie sie warden kennen gelernt haben! – wenn anders in ihren augen so
wie in den meinigen ein gutdenkendes, rechschaffenes, tugendhaftes, und gefalliges Weib ein gluck fur ihren Mann ist. –
Hier schicke ich ihnen einen kurzen marsch! Wunsche nur das noch alles zur rechten zeit kommen mochte – und nach
ihrem geschmack seye. – das Erste Allegro mus recht feuerig gehen. – das lezte—so geschwind als es moglich ist. –
Meine oper ist gestern wieder /: und zwar auf begehren des glucks :/ gegeben worden; -- gluck hat mir vielle
Complimente daruder gemacht. Morgen speise ich bey ihm. – sie sehen, wie ich Eilen mus. Adieu. Meine liebe frau
und ich kussen ihn 1000mal die hande, und wir beyde umarmen unsere liebe schwester von herzen und Ewig dero.
Gehorst Sohn
W.A. Mozart
======================================================
The George Niklaus von Nissen version of the letter with comments, published in 1828 in his biography of Mozart
(Nissen died in 1826). Taken from a posting on the Mozart Discussion Board by Thomas Nielsen. I'm including his
full posting here since it is entirely concerning the Nissen version. For ease of locating the inserted sentence, I have
bolded, italicized and underlined it (like this) in this Exhibit. (In the Nissen book, the sentence looks like all the
other sentences. I have a photocopy of the pages from the Nissen biography, pages 466-467.)
.........................................................
Below I have typed the text of the much-discussed letter exactly (I hope! I am not a trained typer of German ...)
as it appears in the book by Nissen, edited (herausgegeben von, as the title page states) by Constanze.
The copy I have used is:
G.N. von Nissen, Biographie W.A. Mozarts. Nach Originalbriefen, Sammlungen alles über ihn Geschriebenen,
mit vielen neuen Beylagen, Steindrücken, Musikblättern und einem Facsimile.
Herausgegeben von Constanze, Wittwe von Nissen,
früher Wittwe von Mozart.
Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leipzig 1828
Herstellung: fotokop, Reprografischer Betrieb GmbH., Darmstadt.
Best. Nr. 5100630.
Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim 1964.
A comparison with the Bauer/Deutsch text posted earlier by Gary shows other differences than the insertion we have
been discussing. It seems that Nissen often edited the letters he printed by abbreviating them. (I say Nissen for the
sake of convenience; but remember what Margaret said about it being a little unfair to refer to the book as by Nissen:
it was published after his death and some sections were demonstrably not written by him, as I understand). I have
noted the following major omissions in Nissen's text as compared with the Bauer/Deutsch edition:
NISSEN'S OMISSIONS:
(1) Sie haben sich sehr an Ihrem Sohne betrogen, wenn Sie glauben konnten, das er im Stande seye eine schlechte
Handlung zu begehen.
(2) Ich konnte mich aber auch ganzlich darauf verlassen! – denn Sie wussten das ich selbst alles, – alles was nur
immer gegen solch einen Schritt einzuwenden ist, nur zu gut einsehen musste; – und aber auch, das ich ohne mein
Gewissen und meine Ehre zu verlezen, nicht anders handeln konnte – mithin konnte ich auch ganz gewis darauf
bauen! – dahero geschahe es auch das, da ich 2 Posttage umsonst auf eine Antwort wartete, und die Copulation
schon auf den Tag wo ich schon Alles sicher wissen musste fest gesezt war, ich – Ihrer Einwilligung schon ganz
versichert und getrostet, mich in Gottes Namen mit meiner geliebten trauen liess. Den andern Tag bekame ich
die 2. Briefe zugleich; – nun ist es vorbey! – ich Sie nur um mein zu voreiliges Vertrauen auf ihre väterliche Liebe
um Verzeihung; – durch dieses mein aufrichtiges Gestandnuss haben Sie einen Neuen Beweis meiner Liebe zu
Wahrheit, und Abscheu zur Luge.
(3) Hier schicke ich Ihnen einen kurzen Marsch! Wunsche nur das noch Alles zur rechten Zeit kommen mochte –
und nach Ihrem Geschmack seye. – Das erste Allegro muss recht feuerig gehen. – Das Lezte – so geschwind als
es möglich ist.
(4) Sie sehen, wie ich eilen muss. Adieu. Meine liebe Frau und ich küssen Ihn 1000mal die Hände, und wir beyde
umarmen unsere liebe Schwester von Herzen und Ewig dero.
In such cases Nissen, contrary to good modern practice, did not indicate that he omitted text. In his book on
Constanze, Viggo Sjoeqvist says: "The reproduction of the letters [in Nissen's book], by and large, are not bad,
n particular when it is remembered that he did not have much knowledge of editorial technique. But the selections
are very often paraphrasing, and the contractions are as a rule made in such a way that it is in reality impossible
to see where there are omissions or paraphrases" (my translation). I cite this not in order to defend Nissen,
but simply in order to suggest that the fact that the insertion is not indicated as such conforms to the usual editorial
practice of the book: not to indicate (as an editor is expected to do today) editorial adjustments of the texts printed.
Sjoeqvist has, however, nothing to say about the insertion, which is indeed something very different from an omission.
Additions of this kind a modern editor would probably – indeed, should – relate to a note or commentary volume,
with indication of the source. The Nissen book, in fact, does make use of footnotes: it runs to 699 pages and by a
quick glance I spotted at least 57 footnotes. -Thomas.
NISSEN VERSION OF THE WEDDING LETTER:
................................................................................................
Vienne, ce 7 d' Août 1782
Mon très cher Père!
Meine liebe Constanze, nunmehro (Gott sey Dank) meine wirklich Frau, wusste meine Umstände und Alles, was
ich von Ihnen zu erwarten habe, schon lange von mir. - Ihre Freundschaft aber und Liebe zu mir war so gross, dass
sie gern mit grösster Freude ihr ganzes künftiges Leben meinem Schicksale aufopferte. - Ich küsse Ihnen die Hände,
und danke Ihnen mit aller Zärtlichkeit, die immer ein Sohn für seinen Vater fühlte, für die mir gütigst zugetheilte
Einwilligung und väterlichen Segen. - Mein liebes Weib wird nächsten Posttag ihren liebsten, besten Schwiegerpapa
um seinen väterlichen Segen, und ihre geliebte Schwägerin um die fernere Fortdauer ihrer werthesten Freundschaft
bitten. - Bey der Copulation war kein Mensch, als die Mutter und jüngste Schwester; Hr. von Thorwart als Vormund
und Beystand von Beyden, Hr. Landrath von Zetto, Beystand der Braut, und Hr. von Gilowsky als mein Beystand.
Als wir zusammen verbunden wurden, fing sowohl meine Frau als ich zu weinen an; davon wurden Alle, sogar der
Priester gerührt, und Alle [this word in italics] weinten, da sie Zeugen unserer gerührten Herzen waren. Unser ganzes
Hochzeitsfest bestand aus einem Souper, welches uns die Frau Baronin von Waldstetten gab, - das in der That
mehr fürstlich als baronisch war.
Während des Souper wurde ich mit einer sechzehnstimmigen Harmonie von meiner Composition überrascht. -
Nun freuet sich meine liebe Constanze noch mehr, nach Salzburg zu reisen, und ich wette, Sie werden sich meines
Glückes erfreuen, wenn Sie sie werden kennen gelernt haben, wenn anders in Ihren Augen, so wie in den meinigen,
ein gutdenkendes, rechtschaffenes, tugenhaftes und
gefälliges Weib ein Glück für ihren Mann ist.
Meine Oper ist gestern wieder, und zwar auf Begehren des Ritters Gluck gegeben
worden; Gluck hat mir viele
Complimente darüber gemacht. Morgen speise ich bey ihm.
======================================================
Exhibit 4 - Harmonie Music (Hellyer/Rhodes)
An article from the Journal of the International Double Reed Society, 1995.
From: http://idrs.colorado.edu/Publications/Journal/JNL23/21_musik.pdf
THE JOURNAL of the INTERNATIONAL DOUBLE REED SOCIETY
e-edition: NO. 23, 1995
ISSN 0741-7659
IDRS JOURNAL 21 [e-edition No. 23, 1995]
Harmonie Music at the Mecklenburg-Schwerin Court
in the 18th-19th Centuries
By David J. Rhodes
Waterford, Ireland
According to Roger Hellyer,
"The size of a harmonie was never fixed but depended on many factors,
principally historical,
geographical and economic. Historically, in common with most other things,
their size tended to grow; thus
an average harmonie numbered five or six in the 1770’s, eight or nine in the
1780’s and 1790’s, and those
that remained past the first decade of the nineteenth century sometimes
consisted of twelve players. The
geographical factor was that different traditions prevailed in different
regions: thus all French harmonien
seem to have consisted of six players, two each on clarinet, bassoon and horn,
while the majority of the
Viennese aristocracy retained what came to be known as the ‘full harmonie’
consisting of pairs of oboes,
clarinets, horns and bassoons. The economic factor was simply that no-one
retained a harmonie which was
larger than he could afford." [end of Hellyer's quote]
Mozart’s Serenade or ‘Gran Partita’ for 13 wind instruments [sic], K361, is probably
the largest piece of
Harmonie music ever to have been composed, although he is believed to have
written it not for the
usual ‘domestic’ purposes but more likely for a public benefit concert in aid
of the clarinetist Anton
Stadler that took place in Vienna in March or April 1784. At the other end of
the spectrum are pieces
for a single pair of wind instruments, typically oboes or horns, obviously the
result of economic
constraint! There is no need to delve into the various alternative
instrumentations that existed
throughout Europe (such as the use by Prince Schwarzenberg in Vienna of a pair
of cor anglais instead
of clarinets in the otherwise ‘standard’ octet formation), suffice it to say
that there were many ‘local’
variants.
======================================================
Exhibit 5 - Harmonie Music (Hoeprich)
An article by Eric Hoeprich, clarinetist, scholar, and
instrument maker, on Harmonie music and Mozart.
"Nachtmusique" is an
ensemble of nine of the world's finest wind-players drawn from Frans Bruggen`s
extraordinary
Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century, performing Harmoniemusik on original
instruments. Founded by Eric Hoeprich.
From:
http://www.glossamusic.com/downloads/pdf/2K0601.pdf
EINE ABENDSERENADE
Harmoniemusik by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791)
Serenade in Es-Dur (Eb major), KV 375
1 Allegro maestoso 10:44
2 Menuetto 4:31
3 Adagio 5:28
4 Menuetto 2:56
5 Finale - Allegro 3:25
Harmoniemusik: «Die Zauberflöte»
(arr. J. C. Stumpf, except (1) arr. A. Hörberg, (2) arr. anon.)
6 Overture1 4:35
7 Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja2 1:25
8 Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön 3:06
9 Hm! Hm! Hm! 4:27
10 Du feines Täubchen, nur herein! 1:58
11 Bei Männern, welche Liebe fühlen 2:33
12 Schnelle Füße 3:14
13 Marsch der Priester2 3:01
14 O Isis und Osiris 2:00
15 Soll ich dich, Teurer, nicht mehr sehn? 2:24
16 Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen 2:30
17 Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden 2:36
18 Tamino mein! O welch ein Glück! 2:48
19 Es siegte die Stärke 1:19
NACHTMUSIQUE: «EINE ABENDSERENADE»
In a letter to his father dated November 3rd, 1781, Mozart describes being
surprised one
evening by the opening chords of a Nachtmusique of his own composition,
performed by a
sextet of musicians assembled in the courtyard outside his window: two
clarinets, two horns
and two bassoons. The composition can be no other than the Serenade in Eb, KV
375, which
Mozart had only just completed a few months before. As for the performers, we
shall probably
never know who they were, but described by Mozart as «poor beggars who play
together very
nicely», they were presumably not the elite of Viennese musicians.
By the last quarter of the 18th century wind ensembles or Harmonie as they
were called,
flourished in the capital city of Vienna and far beyond. The Emperor Joseph II
had his own
special Harmonie at court which performed during meals and at special evening
events,
providing background music, and generally performing not as the focus of
attention. The date
usually given for the formation of the Emperor’s Imperial Harmonie is the 24th
of April 1782,
but as Robbins-Landon has pointed out, there is ample evidence to show that
the Harmonie
was performing regularly at court prior to this date.
A Harmonie can be defined as any group of wind instruments, from a mere duo to
the forces
required to perform Mozart’s Gran Partita: 12 in total, plus contrabass. Wind
ensembles of
various descriptions existed prior to this time, and indeed well into the 19th
century, but the
most successful period of this ensemble formation was in the last decades of
the 18th century,
and the first decade or two of the 19th century. The origin of the Harmonie
can be traced
most convincingly to Bohemia where pairs of bassoons and horns were added to
either a pair
of oboes, cors anglais or clarinets to form a sextet. From there the ensemble
would have been
added to, the standard formation eventually becoming the wind octet, made up
of pairs of
oboes, clarinets, horns and bassoons.
As this recording includes only music related to Mozart it is interesting to
look at his
extremely close relationship to these ensembles of wind instruments. His
interest in wind
instruments was already in evidence in his well-known description of the
orchestra of
Mannheim, and upon his arrival in Vienna Mozart was undoubtedly struck by the
superb
quality of the players there, many of whom had come to the capital from
Bohemia, the
birthplace of the Harmonie and its repertoire. Typically for Mozart, when he
turned his
compositional talents to realizing works for groups of these instruments, the
results were
astonishing. For instance, no composition is more unusual and more beloved
than the Gran
Partita, KV 361, which Mozart composed as a wedding gift to Constanze in 1781.
Scored for
pairs of oboes, clarinets, basset horns, bassoons, 4 horns and contrabass, it
is a milestone of
compositional novelty and genius. Soon after, Mozart would compose his
Serenades in Eb
major, KV 375, and in C minor, KV 388, which although smaller in scale, are
also works
representing the absolute best of the genre. He would also use this skill to
infuse his orchestral
compositions with rich wind writing. In no place is this as noticeable as the
piano concertos
where at times, it seems as though the Harmonie within the orchestra surpasses
the solo
piano in importance. It is particularly in the later concertos that there are
rich and frequent
excursions into sections where the wind ensemble dominates.
In the operas Mozart composed in the 1780’s, one can see extensive use of the
orchestra’s
wind section, both as an independent force as in Don Giovanni, where he
includes a
Harmonie arrangement of Non più andrai from Figaro, and also of other
composers’ operas
(Martín y Soler and Sarti), and also in creating a pastoral atmosphere as in
the garden scene
in Cosi fan tutte. This served to create a new sonority in the orchestra as a
whole.
It is important to stress that Mozart came by his extensive and expressive use
of winds
through a close understanding of how the instruments worked, both as
individual voices and
in combination with each other. Through the delicacy of «voicing» of each wind
chord, in
unusual inversions for example and often without the tonic, he created a
sonority that had not
been heard before and perhaps will never be heard again. As the character
Salieri points out
in the film Amadeus: change any aspect of Mozart’s carefully orchestrated
music and one only
achieves less. In this respect there can also be no better reason to use the
wind instruments
that were actually known to Mozart. It is probable that if Mozart had known
the wind
instruments of today he would have appreciated them very much, but he would
also without
question have composed in a vastly different way. The possibility for
achieving a perfect
balance and organic sonority in playing Mozart’s wind compositions is most
easily
accomplished by the use of late 18th century wind instruments, managing to get
inside them
and learn their every detail. The choice of keys, range, articulation,
dynamics all point the
way to making these instruments sound their best.
It is interesting to note that 18th century wind instruments possess both a
strong individual
sonority and a great ability to blend well together. It is seemingly a
contradiction that each
instrument can sound so different from the other, and yet form a perfectly
blended chord,
particularly when the chord was scored by a master like Mozart. Unlike the
wind instruments
of today where in a symphony orchestra it can be difficult, for instance, to
distinguish
between an oboe and a flute, when 18th century winds are involved, there can
be no doubt
which instrument is playing at any given moment.
There is abundant evidence outside the Harmonie compositions to show that
Mozart had a
depth of understanding of wind instruments beyond what was normal for the
time. For
instance, he always composed his solo wind concertos for a particular player.
For the horn
concertos, it was Joseph Leutgeb, horn virtuoso and cheese merchant. In the
case of the
clarinet concerto, it was Anton Stadler, friend and fellow mason. Leutgeb, for
instance, was
often the victim of Mozart’s wicked humor (not that Stadler wasn’t!). For
instance in the
autograph solo horn parts, one can see that Mozart wrote the most difficult
passages in vivid
blue ink, and scribbled quips in the margins. Elsewhere, in the lessons on
composition that
Mozart gave to the English composer Thomas Attwood (1765-1838), Mozart shows
the extent
to which he knew the characteristics of all of the wind instruments. In
Attwood’s notebooks,
he describes in detail all the types, the keys in which each instrument
sounded best, their
range and many other important characteristics.
One other aspect of musical life circa 1800 must be mentioned here. During the
course of the
18th century, not only did musical style evolve, but the design of wind
instruments changed
as well. Exactly how this process took place remains an interesting question
as there cannot
be a clear answer. The impetus behind an important part of this development
must rest with
the members of three groups: composers, players and instrument makers. It is
impossible to
view the whole picture if one of these groups is missing. There was a spirit
of co-operation
between the groups that had not been seen before and has not been since. The
detailed
knowledge of the nature of abilities of the musicians themselves, coupled with
the influence
they both exerted on instrument makers, created an intimate exchange of ideas
that came to
be reflected in the compositions. Often individuals were members of more than
one group.
Mozart for instance was a virtuoso pianist as well as composer and there are
many instances
of his working closely with piano builders. Theodor Lotz, a fellow mason and
clarinet maker
to Anton Stadler also performed as a musician. This essentially symbiotic
relationship
between composers, players and instrument makers of the 18th century is
perhaps what
makes it so compelling for us to hear these works performed on 18th century
instruments
today. Add to the use of period instruments a sense of the musical style which
captures the
spirit, if not the letter of an 18th century performance of these works, and
the results are
magical.
Since the wind octet as defined by the Imperial Harmonie with pairs of oboes,
clarinets,
bassoons and horns, set the standard for groups of this type, it is
interesting to look at the two
serenades Mozart wrote for this formation. The first, the Serenade in Eb, KV
375 was
originally composed as a sextet without oboes, and later reworked by the
composer as an
octet, the form in which it is most often heard today. On this recording we
hear the original
version for six instruments. In the same letter to his father referred to
above, Mozart recounts
how he wrote this piece as a way of influencing Herr von Strack, the valet of
Emperor Joseph
II, and therefore took extra care to imbue it with «a modicum of good taste».
The opening
chords of the Allegro maestoso remind us of the two great Sinfonia concertante,
KV 297B and
364 with their energy and majestic sonority. It is often the case with Mozart
that a particular
key prompted him to write in a specific way, so it is not by chance that these
three works
share the key of Eb major. (Another example of this is the similarity in the
openings of the
piano concerto, KV 488, and the clarinet concerto, KV 622, both in A major).
After this
strong, almost military opening, the music tapers away into a cantabile
section, before being
swept onward by a new theme in the horns; finally the Allegro has begun. The
second
movement of the serenade is one of the two minuets appearing in the work.
Although Mozart
was still bound by tradition to compose these dance-like movements, he
nonetheless found
original ways to infuse them with novelty and wit, often creating an effective
contrast between
the plain trio (always in a different key) and the minuet proper. In this
recording the
musicians follow the 18th century practice of taking the repeats in each da
capo. The fivemovement
serenade has a symmetrical construction with two fast outer movements, minuets
as the 2nd and 4th movements, and at the center, the sublime Adagio, giving
more than any
other movement in the work the sense of a serenade. Here one finds oneself in
a room lit by
candles. We have time on our hands, time to savor and enjoy the richness of
every aspect of
this perfect music. Following this moment of reflection comes a spirited
minuet, and then the
finale, a fast and brilliant movement, relying on a recurring theme to anchor
and connect all
the flights of Mozart’s endless musical fantasy.
Some months after Mozart completed the Serenade KV 375, the Emperor’s official
announcement of the formation of an Imperial Harmonie took place, and this
must have
provided the impetus for him to reconstruct the work as an octet. Little is
gained by this
transcription, but perhaps it did inspire Mozart to write an entirely new
Nachtmusique: the
Serenade in C minor, KV 388, one of his greatest masterpieces. It is full of
both the darkness
and the ingenuity of the composer’s musical mind stretched to the limit.
Nevertheless, it
would appear that in the eyes of the court, Mozart remained behind the times,
because it
seems that what the Emperor wanted to hear after all, were only transcriptions
of operas,
oratorios and symphonies, i.e. the works that would become the true heart of
the Harmonie
repertoire. Certainly a great deal of original music was composed for wind
ensembles, but by
the time these ensembles were out of fashion, the number of original
compositions was vastly
outweighed by the number of transcriptions: works with a more universal
appeal.
Typical of the latter genre are the movements on this recording from Mozart’s
Magic Flute.
Appearing in three sets published by the firm Johann André of Offenbach am
Main, they are
typical of the Harmonie arrangements that were available throughout Europe c.
1800. The
arranger in this case was Johann Christian Stumpf (c. 1740 - 1801?), a German
composer and
bassoonist. Very little is known about him, but a small body of music written
for orchestra and
chamber ensemble survives. The skill he demonstrates in these arrangements is
impressive.
With forces considerably smaller and less diverse than Mozart had for the
original arias,
Stumpf manages to capture the spirit of each movement in ingenious ways. For
the recording
the ensemble decided to perform two numbers from the opera with even fewer
than six
instruments: Papageno’s Ein Vogelfänger bin ich ja is played in an anonymous
arrangement
for two clarinets also published by André, and the Marsch der Priester is
performed with two
basset horns (as in Mozart’s original) and bassoon. The idea is simply to vary
the texture
somewhat and in the case of the Marsch der Priester to allow the use of basset
horns, that
most Masonic of wind instruments.
ERIC HOEPRICH
======================================================
Exhibit 6 - Overview of Manuscript Paper Analysis (Dexter Edge)
"The Study
of Eighteenth-Century Music Paper: Problems and Prospects"
Dexter Edge (London)
Alan Tyson's catalogue of watermarks in Mozart's musical autographs is a landmark in music-paper studies. During more than a quarter of a century of research on the musical autographs of Beethoven and Mozart, Tyson developed a rigorous and consistent technique for describing and recording musical 'paper-types' (i.e., conjunctions of mold pairs with 'rastral' measurements, the ruling of musical staff lines). Tyson's conclusions, most especially his redatings of many Mozart works and his conclusions about Mozart's working methods, have been generally accepted by music scholars. The Mozart watermark catalogue is, despite minor flaws of design and presentation, by far the most important reference work yet published on music papers of the second half of the eighteenth century. It is the first such catalogue to give full-sized representations (exactly 100%) of both molds of a sizeable body (over 100) of relatively securely dated music papers.
Yet Tyson's catalogue should be seen not as a culmination, but as a point of departure. Although the potential importance of watermark studies for the study of eighteenth-century music has been recognized since the 1950s, most of the work done by scholars before Tyson lacked sufficient rigor, and much is virtually useless. Even today, very few scholars have mastered the relatively simple techniques advocated by Tyson, and one still reads distressingly often, even in otherwise respectable scholarly works, such vacuous statements as 'watermark with three moons.'
My talk will outline the current state of research into eighteenth-century music paper, focusing particularly on the papers in use by composers and music copyists in the Habsburg lands from 1740 until roughly the end of the Napoleonic wars. I shall begin with an evaluation and critique of Tyson's Mozart catalogue, drawing comparisons with the recently published A Catalogue of Handel's Musical Autographs by Donald Burrows and Martha J. Ronish. Based on my own work on eighteenth-century Austrian music, especially manuscript copies of Mozart's music, I shall suggest refinements to Tyson's technique, particularly in the areas of rastral measurements and mold deformation, and I shall discuss the potential value of archival study of the manufacture and circulation of music paper. My examples will be drawn from a wide variety of eighteenth-century manuscript musical sources, including the recently rediscovered original orchestral parts from the 1788 Vienna version of Mozart's Don Giovanni . These parts remained in use until around 1900, and consequently represent a special challenge to the paper analyst, as they contain laid-in pages (mainly from later productions) on at least 25 different paper types (in extreme cases, successive leaves of the original part are separated by 50 or more inserted pages).
I shall conclude with suggestions for teaching the techniques of paper analysis (for the past two years I have successfully taught these techniques to my graduate music students at the University of Wales, Cardiff), and I shall propose a project for a visual database of eighteenth-century music papers and music copyists, paying particular attention to the relative merits of making such a database available on CD-ROM or the World Wide Web.
Page 1 of the autograph score of K.361, with the writing of others in the margins,
such as "gran Partitta" at the top, and 1780 on the right (or 1781 changed to 1780 ??).
======================================================
Acknowledgements:
All individuals are Mozart researchers, historians, and/or authors,
and made significant contributions, directly or indirectly, to this
paper. Any errors are mine.
1. Open Mozart Net (Mozart Discussion Board) - *main source* -
http://www.openmozart.net/index.jsp
2. Daniel Leeson
3. Neal Zaslaw
4. Margaret Mikulska 5. Gary Smith
6. Thomas Nielsen 7. Hans Mersmann
8. M.M. Bozman
9. David J. Rhodes 10. Roger Hellyer
11. Eric Hoeprich
12. Catherine Sprague
......................................................................
HomePage -- Mozart's Musical Trademark