|
4 LP's
- D171D4 - (p) 1981
|
![](../Copertine/Oiseau-Lyre-Mozart/Volume-05-CD-421-104-2-300.jpg) |
3 CD's -
421 104-2 - (c) 1987 |
![](../Copertine/Oiseau-Lyre-Mozart/Le-Sinfonie-Complete-480-2577-300.jpg) |
19 CD's
- 480 2577 - (p & c) 2009 |
|
The Symphonies
- Vol. 5 - Salzburg 1775-1783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long Playing
1 |
|
45' 56" |
|
Symphony No. 32
in G Minor, K. 318 |
7' 48" |
|
|
-
[Allegro spiritoso · Andante · Tempo
Primo] |
|
|
|
Symphony
in D Major ("Haffner" Serenade),
K. 250 / 248b |
|
|
|
-
[Allegro maestoso-Allegro molto ·
Menuetto galante & Trio] |
13' 50" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [Andante ·
Menuetto & 2 Trios ·
Adagio-Allegro assai] |
24' 18" |
|
|
Long Playing
2
|
|
45' 33" |
|
Symphony
No. 33 in B flat Major, K. 319 |
23' 14" |
|
|
- [Allegro assai ·
Andante moderato · Menuetto &
Trio · Allegro assai] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symphony
("Posthorn" Serenade) in D Major,
K. 320 |
22' 19" |
|
|
- [Adagio
maestoso-Allegro con spirito ·
Andantino · Presto] |
|
|
|
Long Playing
3 |
|
46' 25" |
|
Symphony
No. 34 in C Major, K. 338 |
21' 01" |
|
|
- [Allegro vivace
· Andante di molto più tosto.
Allegretto · Allegro vivace] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symphony
No. 35 "Haffner" in D Major, K.
385 |
25' 24" |
|
|
- [Marcia K. 408
No. 2 / K. 385a · Allegro con
spirito · Andante · Menuetto &
Trio · Presto] |
|
|
|
Long Playing
4 |
|
45' 41" |
|
Symphony
No. 36 "Linz" in C Major, K. 425 |
|
|
|
- [Adagio-Allegro
spiritoso · Andante] |
22' 32" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [Menuetto &
Trio · Presto] |
14' 56" |
|
|
Symphony
No. 52 in C Major, K. 208 / K.
213c
|
8' 13" |
|
|
- [Molto allegro ·
Andantino · Presto assai] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE ACADEMY OF ANCIENT MUSIC
(on authentic instruments) A=430 - directed
by
|
|
Jaap Schröder,
Concert Master |
|
Christopher
Hogwood, Continuo |
|
|
|
The size of the
orchestra used during these
recordings was 9 first
violins, 8 second violins, 4 violas,
3 cellos, 2 double basses, 2 flutes,
2 oboes, 3 bassoons, 2 trumpets, 4
horns and timpani and was made up
from the following players:
|
|
|
|
Violins
|
Catherine
Mackintosh (Rowland Ross 1978,
Amati) - Simon Standage
(Rogeri, Brescia 1699) - Monica
Huggett (Rowland Ross 1977
[Stradivarius]) - Elizabeth
Wilcock (Grancino, Cremona
1652) - Roy Goodman (Rowland
Ross 1977 [Stradivarius]) - David
Woodcock (Anon., circa 1775) -
Joan Brickley (Mittewald,
circa 1780) - Alison Bury
(Anon., England circa 1730) - Judith
Falkus (Eberle, Prague, 1733)
- Christopher Hirons (Duke,
circa 1775) - John Holloway
(Sebastian Kloz 1750) - Polly
Waterfield (Rowland Ross 1979
[Amati] & John Johnson 1750) - Micaela
Comberti (Anon., England,
circa 1740) - Miles Golding
(Anon., Austria, circa 1780) - Kay
Usher (Anon., England, circa
1750) - Julie Miller (Anon.,
France, circa 1745) - Susan
Carpenter-Jacobs (Franco
Giraud 1978 [Amati]) - Robin
Stowell (David Hopf, circa
1780) - Richard Walz (David
Rubio 1977 [Stradivarius]) - Judith
Garside (Anon., France, circa
1730) - Rachel Isserlis
(John Johnson 1759) - Robert
Hope Simpson (Samuel Collier,
circa 1740) - Catherine Weiss
(Rowland Ross 1977 [Stradivarius]) -
Jennifer Helsham (Alan Bevitt
1979 [Stradivarius])
|
|
|
|
|
Violas
|
Jan Schlapp
(Joseph Hill 1770) - Trevor Jones
(Rowland Ross 1977 [Stradivarius]) - Katherine
Hart (Charles and Samuel Thompson
1750) - Colin Kitching (Rowland Ross
1978 [Stradivarius]) - Nicola Cleminson
(McDonnel, Ireland circa 1760) - Philip
Wilby (Carrass Topham 1974 [Gasparo da
Salo]) - Annette Isserlis (Eberle,
circa 1740 & Ian Clarke 1978
[Guarnieri]) - Simon Rowland-Jones
(Anon., England, circa 1810) |
|
|
|
|
Violoncellos |
Anthony
Pleeth (David Rubio 1977
[Stradivarius]) - Richard Webb
(David Rubio 1975 [Januarius
Gagliano]) - Mark Caudle
(Anon., England, circa 1700) - Juliette
Lehwalder (Jacob Hanyes 1745) |
|
|
|
|
Double
Basses
|
Barry
Guy (The Tarisio, Gasparo da
Salo 1560) - Peter McCarthy
(David Tecler, circa 1725 &
Anon., England, circa 1770) |
|
|
|
|
Flutes
|
Stephen
Preston (Anon., France, circe
1790) - Nicholas McGegan
(George Astor, circa 1790) - Lisa
Beznosiuk (Goulding, London,
circa 1805) - Guy Williams
(Monzani, circa 1800) |
|
|
|
|
Oboes
|
Stanley
King (Jakob Grundmann 1799
& Rudolf Tutz 1978 [Grundmann])
- Clare Shanks (W. Milhouse,
circa 1760) - Sophia McKenna
(W. Milhouse, circa 1760) - David
Reichenberg (Harry Vas Dias
1978 [Grassi]) |
|
|
|
|
Bassoons
|
Jeremy
Ward (Porthaux, Paris, circa
1780) - Felix Warnock
(Savary jeune 1820) - Alastair
Mitchell (W. Milhouse, circa
1810) |
|
|
|
|
Natural
Horns
|
William
Prince (Courtois neveu, circa
1800) - Keith Maries
(Courtois neveu, circa 1800 &
Anon., Germany (?), circa 1785) - Christian
Rutherford (Courtois neveu,
circa 1800 & Kelhermann, Paris
1810) - Roderick Shaw
(Raoux, circa 1830) - John
Humphries (Halari, circa 1825) |
|
|
|
|
Natural
Trumpets |
Michael
Laird (Laird 1977 [German]) -
Iaan Wilson (Laird 1977
[German]) |
|
|
|
|
Timpani |
David
Corkhill (Hawkes & Son,
circa 1890) - Charles Fulbrook
(Hawkes & Son, circa 1890) |
|
|
|
|
Harpsichord
|
Christopher
Hogwood, Nicholas McGegan,
David Roblou (Thomas
Culliford, London 1782) |
|
|
|
|
|
Luogo
e data di registrazione |
|
St.
Paul's, New Southgate, London
(United Kingdom):
- giugno 1979 (K. 318, 319, 320)
- settembre 1979 (K. 338)
- ottobre 1979 (K. 250)
St. Jude-On-The-Hill, London
(United Kingdom):
- ottobre 1979 (K. 408, 385)
|
|
|
Registrazione: live /
studio |
|
studio |
|
|
Producer / Engineer |
|
Morten
Winding / John Dunkerley &
Simon Eadon
|
|
|
Prima Edizione LP |
|
Oiseau
Lyre - D171D4 (4 LP's) - durata
45' 56" | 45' 33" | 46' 25" | 45'
41" - (p) 1981 - Analogico
|
|
|
Prima Edizione CD |
|
Oiseau
Lyre - 421 104-2 (3 CD's) - durata
54' 45" | 67' 04" | 63' 17" - (c)
1987 - ADD |
|
|
Edizione Integrale CD |
|
Decca
(Editions de l'Oiseau-Lyre) - 480
2577 (19 CD's) - (p & c) 2009
- ADD / DDD
|
|
|
Note |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mozart
and the symphonic
traditions of his
time by Neal
Zaslaw
Salzburg
and its Orchestra
The picture of Salzburg
painted by Mozart in his
letters is unflattering in
the extreme, as a series
of excerpts from the years
1775-81 will show:
14 January
1775: 'I fear that
we cannot return to
Salzburg very soon and
Mamma must not wish it,
for she knows how much
good it is doing me to be
able to breathe freely'.
4 September 1776:
'My father has already
served this court for 36
years, and as he knows
that the present
Archbishop cannot and will
not have anything to do
with people who are
getting on in years
[Leopold was 56] , he
doesn't allow it to worry
him, but has taken up
literature, which was
always a favourite study
of his'.
1 August 1777:
'Your Grace [the
Archbishop] will not take
this petition [to leave
Salzburg] amiss, seeing
that when I asked you for
permission to travel to
Vienna 3 years ago, you
graciously declared that I
had nothing to hope for in
Salzburg, and would do
better to seek my fortune
elsewhere'.
23 September 1777:
'...our Mufti [Archbishop]
H[ieronymus] C[olloredo]
is a bastard...'.
26 September 1777:
'They were both amazed and
absolutely refused to
believe that my late
lamented salary used to be
all of 12 gulden, 30
kreutzer [a month]... I am
always in my very best
spirits, for my heart has
been as light as a feather
ever since I got away from
all that chicanery! -
what is more, I have
become fatter'.
30 September 1777 :
'...Salzburg is no place
for me, truly it is not'.
10 December 1777:
'...a town where one is
accustomed to having
stupid enemies, [or] weak
and silly friends who,
because Salzburg's bread
of affliction is
indispensable to them, are
always toadying and are
consequently one thing one
day and another the next'.
19 February 1778:
'...Salzburg, where we are
not in the habit of
contradicting anyone...'.
9 July
1778: '...one of my
chief reasons for
detesting Salzburg [is]
those coarse, slovenly,
dissolute court musicians.
Why,
no honest man of good
breeding could possibly
live with them! Indeed,
instead of wanting to
associate with them, he
would feel ashamed of
them. It is probably for
this very reason that
musicians are neither
popular nor respected
among us. Ah, if only the
orchestra were organised
as they are at Mannheim.
Indeed, I would like you
to see the discipline
which prevails there and
the authority which
Cannabich wields. There
everything is done
seriously. Cannabich, who
is the best director I
have ever seen, is both
beloved and feared by his
subordinates. Morever he
is respected by the whole
town and so are his
soldiers. But certainly
they behave quite
differently from ours.
They have good manners,
are well dressed, and do
not go to pubs and swill.
This can never be the case
in Salzburg, unless the
Prince will trust you or
me and give us full
authority as far as
the music is concerned
- otherwise it's no good.
In Salzburg
everyone - or rather no
one - bothers about the
music. If I were to
undertake it, I should
have to have complete
freedom of action. The
Chief Steward should have
nothing to say to me in
musical matters, or on any
point relating to music.
For a courtier can't do
the work of a
Kapellmeister, but a
Kapellmeister can well be
a courtier'.
7 August 1778: 'Now
for our Salzburg story.
You, most beloved friend,
are well aware how I
detest Salzburg - and not
only on account of the
injustices which my dear
father and I have endured
there, which in themselves
would be enough to make
one want to forget such a
place and blot it out of
the memory for ever! But
let us set that aside, if
only we can arrange things
so as to be able to live
there well. To
live well and to live
happily are two very
different things, and the
latter I could not do
without having recourse to
witchcraft... I have far more
hope of living pleasantly
and happily in any other
place. Perhaps you will
misunderstand me and think
that Salzburg is too small
for me? If so, you are
greatly mistaken. I have
already given some of my
reasons to my father. In
the meantime, content
yourself with this one,
that Salzburg is no place
for my talent. In the
first place, professional
musicians there are not
held in much
consideration, and,
secondly, one hears
nothing, there is no
theatre [this statement is
not strictly accurate],
no opera, and even if they
really wanted one, who is
there to sing? For the
last five or six years the
Salzburg orchestra has
always been rich in what
is useless and
superfluous, but very poor
in what is necessary, and
absolutely destitute of
what is indispensible; and
such is the case at the
present moment'.
11 September 1778:
'To tell you my real
feelings, the only thing
that disgusts me about
Salzburg is the
impossibility of mixing
freely with the people,
and the low estimation in
which the court musicians
are held there -
and - that the Archbishop
has no confidence in the
experience of intelligent
people who have seen the
world... If the Archbishop
would only trust me, I
should soon make his
orchestra famous; of this
there can be no doubt'.
15 October 1778:
'Consider it yourself -
put yourself in my place!
At Salzburg I don't know
how I stand. I am
everything - and yet -
sometimes - nothing!
Nor do I ask so much
nor so little - I
just want something - I
must be somethingl'.
12 November 1778:
'...the Archbishop cannot
pay me enough for that
slavery in Salzburg!
As I said before, I feel
the greatest pleasure at
the thought of paying you
a visit - but only
annoyance and anxiety when
I see myself back at that
beggarly court!'
3 December 1778:
'Ah, how much finer and
better our orchestra might
be, if only the Archbishop
desired it. Probably the
chief reason why it is not
better is because there
are far too many
performances. I have no
objection to the chamber
music, only to the
concerts on a larger
scale'.
8 January
1779: 'I swear to
you on my honour that I
cannot bear Salzburg or
its inhabitants (I mean,
the natives of Salzburg).
Their language - their
manners are quite
intolerable to me'.
16 December 1780:
'...Upon my honour, it is
not Salzburg itself but
the Prince and his noble
disdain which become every
day more intolerable to
me'.
8 April 1781:
'...to waste one's youth
in inactivity in such a
beggarly place is really
very sad - and also
unprofitable'.
16 May 1781:
'...even if I had to beg,
I could never serve such a
master again; for, as long
as I live, I shall never
forget what has happened'.
26
May 1781: '...in
Salzburg - for me at least
- there is not a
farthing's worth of
entertainment. I
refuse to associate with
a good many people there
- and most of the others
do not think me good
enough. Besides, there is
no stimulus for my talent!
When I play or when any of
my compositions are
performed, it is just as
if the audience were all
tables and chairs. If at
least there were a theatre
there worthy of the name'.
The historian's task is
not only to publish
interesting documents, but
also to interpret them. In
this instance we must deal
with three aspects of
Mozart's polemics against
Salzburg; the people, the
Archbishop, and the
orchestra.
It is perhaps true that
the people of Salzburg
were, as the musician
Schubart wrote in the 1770’s,
'exceedingly inclined to
low humour. Their folk
songs are so comical and
burlesque that one cannot
listen to them without
side-splitting laughter.
The Punch-and-Judy
spirit shines through
everywhere...'. The
irony of this, however, is
that Mozart himself,
despite his superior
education and haughty
attitude, was very much of
the same persuasion. His
letters are filled with
Salzburg dialect, local
puns, and coarse jokes.
And his strong complaints
could easily obscure the
fact that the Mozarts also
had dear friends and
strong supporters in their
native city. The clue here
lies in Leopold's
snobbery, for he had
raised his son to be
socially ambitious and to
avoid unnecessary contact
with the lower classes.
Hence his displeasure at
Wolfgang's choice of wife
and his delight at
arranging for Nannerl to
marry into a higher social
class. The son was trying
to please the father when
he wrote that he refused
'to associate with a good
many people', but he was
expressing his own
anguished' predicament -
the predicament of a lad
raised as a bourgeois in
the midst of Salzburg's
vestigial feudalism where
the middle class was small
and powerless - when he
added, 'and most of the
others do not think me
good enough'. The Mozarts'
profound disillusionment
arose not only from the
Archbishop's bad treatment
and poor pay, but from the
contrast with their
treatment elsewhere.
During their extensive
travels the Mozarts,
because they dressed well,
spoke well, and came
well-introduced, were
accepted as near equals by
the upper classes of
dozens of European courts
and cities. But a prophet
may be without honour in
his own land, and at home
Leopold and Wolfgang were
merely liveried servants.
The Archbishop may well
deserve the hatred of
generations of Mozart
worshippers but, as is so
often the case, there is
another side to the story.
It is true, for instance,
that the able Leopold was
passed over time and again
for the position of Kapellmeister,
and died still only Vizekapellmeister.
But he had been away on
tour a good deal of the
time, and his best
energies had gone into
raising his son and not
into serving the
Archbishop and working
toward advancement at
home. In Wolfgang's case,
it is instructive that,
although many of the
Viennese nobility admired
him greatly, none offered
him a permanent post after
he settled there, for he
could be difficult,
haughty, defensive,
mercurial, and painfully
conscious of his unusual
gifts-in short, not the
personality to make a good
courtier or the head of a
large musical
establishment. The
contrast with Joseph
Haydn is striking, for
although Haydn inevitably
fought unjust treatment at
the hands of his Lords,
the Princes Esterházy,
he never forgot his
station in life and he
aspired to serve well and
loyally. Most of Mozart's
potential employers
evidently preferred as
their Kapellmeisters any
one of a hundred competent
but uninspired musicians
to the brilliant but
uppish Mozart.
As for the Salzburg
orchestra, it was indeed
going through a difficult
period in which there was
even for a time, in the
late 1770's, no Kapellmeister
at all. Discipline was
undoubtedly less than
ideal. But it was a
good-sized, active
organization that gave
several performances a
week (too many, Mozart
tells us), and while it
may not have been up to
the standards Mozart had
encountered in Mannheim
and a few other European
musical centres, it was
far better than many of
the other orchestras he
heard on his travels. (It
should be noted that the
Mozarts were seldom
generous with their praise
of music or musicians).
The official roster of the
Salzburg court orchestra
in the early1780's
s included Luigi Gatti, Kapellmeister,
Leopold Mozart, Vizekapellmeister
(and violinist), Johann
Michael Haydn, Konzertmeister
(and violist and
organist), 2 other
organists, 11 other
violinists, 1 other
violist, 2 cellists, 4
double bass players, 2
bassoonists, 3 oboists, 2
horn players, and 3
trombonists. Many of these
musicians played more than
one instrument, and they
were supplemented on
important occasions by
additional performers
drawn from the town waits,
the trumpet and kettledrum
players of the local
militia, and various
amateur performers at
court. Thus the
composition of the
Salzburg orchestra varied
widely from season to
season and from occasion
to occasion. As
reconstituted for these
recordings, the orchestra
is as it may have been
heard at festive events
during the year: the
strings 9-8-4-3-2, and the
necessary woodwind, brass,
kettle drums and
harpsichord, with 3
bassoons doubling the bass
line whenever obbligato
parts for them are not
indicated.
The
Symphony as a Genre
After Beethoven, the
symphony was the most
important large-scale
instrumental genre for
the Romantic composers.
Their conception of the
symphony as an extended
work of the utmost
seriousness, intended as
the centrepiece of a
concert, is very far
from what the musicians
of the second half of
the 18th century had in
mind for their
symphonies. This can be
seen by comparing the
large number of
symphonies turned out
then with the handful
written by the major
19th-century
symphonists. It
can also be seen in the
small number and brevity
of passages devoted to
symphonies in the
newspaper accounts,
memoires and
correspondence of the
period. And it can be
seen in the uses to
which 18th-century
symphonies were put.
A pair of
contemporaneous German
definitions and
descriptions of the
symphony may serve to
illustrate how these
works were viewed.
Christian Friedrich
Daniel Schubart, who
became acquainted with
the Mozarts when he
visited Salzburg in the
1770's,defined the
symphony as follows:
'This genre of music
originated from the
overtures of musical
dramas, and came finally
to be performed in
private concerts. As a
rule it consists of an
allegro, an andante, and
a presto. However, our
artists are no longer
bound to this form, and
often depart from it
with great effect.
Symphony in the present
fashion is, as it were,
loud preparation for and
vigorous introduction to
hearing a concert'.
Johann
Philipp Kirnberger,
writing a definition for
Sulzer's Allgemeine
Theorie der schönen
Künste,
entered into more
detail: 'In the
symphony... where there
is more than one
instrument to a part,
the melody must have
reached its highest
expression in the notes
as written out, and in
no part can the
slightest ornamentation
or coloratura be
tolerated. Becauseit
will not be practised
like the sonata, but
must be sight-read, it
should contain no
difficulties that cannot
be met and performed
clearly by several
players simultaneously.
'The
symphony is particularly
suited to the expression
of greatness, solemnity
and stateliness. Its
purpose is to prepare
the listener for the
important music that
follows, or, in a
concert in a hall, to
exhibit all the pomp of
instrumental music. lf
it is to carry out this
purpose adequately and
become part of the opera
or church music that it
precedes, then, besides
an expression of
greatness and solemnity,
it must also have a
character that puts the
listener in the proper
frame of mind for the
piece to follow, and in
the manner in which it
is composed, must show
whether it befits the
church or the theatre.
'The concert symphony,
which constitutes an
independent entity with
no notion of its serving
to introduce other
music, achieves its
purpose solely through
asonorous, brilliant,
and fiery manner of
writing. The allegros of
the best concert
symphonies contain great
and bold ideas; free
treatment of
counterpoint; apparent
disorder in melody and
harmony; strongly marked
rhythms in various
manners; powerful bass
lines and unison
passages; inner voices
of melodic significance;
free imitations; often a
theme treated fugally;
sudden shifts and
modulations from one key
to another, which are
often all the more
striking the more
distant the relationship
between the keys is;
strong shadings of forte
and piano, and
especially the
crescendo, which, when
it accompanies both an
ascending melodic line
and an intensifying
expression, is of the
greatest effect...'.
Mozart wrote his
symphonies as
curtainraisers to plays,
operas, cantatas,
oratorios, and private and
public concerts. They may
occasionally have been
used as part of church
services. In
addition to opening
concerts with symphonies,
Mozart sometimes also used
them to end concerts, or
even to begin and end each
half of a long concert. Judging
by the number of
symphonies he wrote in
Salzburg (or that he wrote
elsewhere and then used in
Salzburg), there must have
been a steady demand for
them there.
With the arguable
exception of the last few,
Mozart's symphonies were
perhaps intended to be
witty, charming,
brilliant, and even
touching, but undoubtedly
not profound, learned, or
of great significance. The
main attractions at
concerts were not the
symphonies, but the vocal
and instrumental solos and
chamber music that the
symphonies introduced.
Approaching Mozart's
symphonies with this
attitude in mind relieves
them of a romantic
heaviness under which they
have all too often been
crushed.
Performance Practice
The use of 18th-century
instruments with the
proper techniques of
playing them gives to the
Academy of Ancient Music a
clear, vibrant, articulate
sound. Inner voices are
clearly audible without
obscuring the principal melodies.
Rhythmic patterns and
subtle differences in
articulation are more
distinct than can usually
be heard with modern
instruments. The use of
little or no vibrato
serves further to clarify
the texture. At lively
tempos and with this
luminous timbre, the
observance of all of
Mozart's repeats no longer
makes movements seem too
long. A special instance
concerns the da capos of
the minuets, where, an
ancient oral tradition
tells us, the repeats are
always omitted. But, as we
were unable to trace that
tradition as far back as
Mozart's time, we
experimented by including
those repeats as well.
Missing instruments
understood in 18th-century
practice to be required
have been supplied: these
include bassoons playing
the bass-line along with
the cellos and double
basses, kettle drums
whenever trumpets are
present (except in the
case of the Symphony
in Eb, K.184,
where chromaticism renders
their use less idiomatic)
and the harpsichord
continuo. No conductor is
needed, as the direction
of the orchestra is
divided in true
18th-century fashion
between the concertmaster
and the continuo player,
who are placed so that
they can see each other
and are visible to the
rest of the orchestra.
Following 18th-century
injunctions to separate
widely the softest and
loudest instruments, the
flutes and trumpets are
placed at opposite sides
of the orchestra. And the
first and second violins
are placed at the left and
right respectively,
making meaningful the
numerous passages Mozart
wants tossed back and
forth between them.
Musical Sources and
Editions
Until recently
performers of Mozart's
symphonies have relied
upon the editions drawn
from the old complete
works, published in the
19th century by the
Leipzig firm of
Breitkopf & Härtel.
During the past quarter
century, however, a new
complete edition of
Mozart's works (NMA)
has been slowly
appearing, published by
Bärenreiter
of Kassel under the
aegis of the Mozarteum
of Salzburg. The NMA
has been used for almost
all the symphonies from
K.128 to K.551. For the
early symphonies not yet
published in the NMA,
editions have been
created especially for
these recordings,
drawing on Mozart's
manuscripts when they
could be seen, and on
18th- and 19th-century
copies in those cases
where the autographs
were unavailable. (14 of
Mozart's symphonies are
among musical
manuscripts formerly in
the Berlin library but
now being held in Poland
and inaccessible to
Western musicologists.)
Copyright
© 1980
by Neal Zaslaw
A Note
Concerning the
Numbering of Mozart's
Symphonies
The first
edition of Ludwig Ritter
von Köchel's
Chronological-Thematic
Catalogue of the
Complete Works of
Wolfgang Amaadé
Mozart was published
in 1862 (=K1).
It
listed all of the
completed works of Mozart
known to Köchel
in what he believed to be
their chronological order,
from number 1 (infant
harpsichord work) to 626
(the Requiem). The second
edition by Paul Graf von
Waldersee in 1905 involved
primarily minor
corrections and
clarifications. A
thoroughgoing revision
came first with Alfred
Einstein's third edition,
published
in 1936 (=K3).
(A reprint of this edition
with a sizeable supplement
of further corrections and
additions was published in
1946 and is sometimes
referred to as K3a.)
Einstein changed the
position of many works in
Köchel's
chronology, threw out as
spurious some works Köchel
had taken to be authentic,
and inserted as authentic
some works Köchel
believed spurious or did
not know about. He also
inserted into the
chronological scheme
incomplete works,
sketches, and works known
to have existed but now
lost. These Köchel
had
placed in an appendix (=Anhang,
abbreviated Anh.)
without chronological
order. Köchel's
original numbers could not
be changed, for they
formed the basis of
cataloguing for thousands
of publishers, libraries,
and reference works.
Therefore, the new numbers
were inserted in
chronological order
between the old ones by
adding lower-case letters.
The so-called fourth and
fifth editions were
nothing more than
unchanged reprints of the
1936 edition, without the
1946 supplement. The sixth
edition, which appeared in
1964 and was edited by
Franz Giegling, Alexander
Weinmann, and Gerd Sievers
(=K6),
continued Einstein's
innovations by adding
numbers with lower-case
letters appended, and a
few with upper-case
letters in instances in
which a work had to be
inserted into the
chronology between two of
Einstein's lowercase
insertions. (A so-called
seventh edition is an
unchanged reprint of the
sixth). Hence, many of
Mozart's works bear two K
numbers, and a few have
three.
Although it was not Köchel's
intention in devising his
catalogue, Mozart's age at
the time of composition of
a work may be calculated
with some degree of
accuracy from the K
number. (This works,
however, only for numbers
over 100). This is done by
dividing the number by 25
and adding 10. Then, if
one keeps in mind that
Mozart was born in 1756,
the year of composition is
also readily approximated.
The old Complete Works of
Mozart published 41
symphonies in 3 volumes
between 1879 and 1882,
numbered 1 to 41 according
to the chronology of K1.
Additional symphonies
appeared in supplementary
volumes and are sometimes
numbered 42 to 50,
even though they are early
works.
Bibiography
- Anderson,
Emily: The Letters
of Mozart & His
Family (London,
1966)
- Burney,
Charles: The
Present State of
Music in Germany,
The Netherlands, and
United Provinces
(London, 1773)
- Della
Croce, Luigi: Le
75 sinfonie de
Mozart (Turin,
1977)
- Eibl,
Joseph Heinze, et al.:
Mozart: Briefe und
Aufzeichnungen
(Kassel, 1962-75)
- Koch,
Heinrich: Musilcalisches
Lexikon
(Frankfort, 1802)
- Landon,
H. C. Robbins: 'La
crise romantique dans
la musique
autrichienne vers
1770: quelques
précurseurs inconnus
de la Symphonie en sol
mineur (KV 183) de
Mozart', Les
influences étrangères
dans l'oeuvre de W.
A. Mozart
(Paris, 1958)
- Larsen,
Jens
Peter: 'A Challenge to
Musicology: the
Viennese Classical
School', Current
Musicology
(1969), ix
- Mahling,
Christoph-Hellmut:
'Mozart und die
Orchesterpraxis seiner
Zeit', Mozart-Jahrbuch
(1967)
- Mila,
Massimo: Le
Sinfonie de Mozart
(Turin, 1967)
- Saint-Foix,
Georges de: Les
Symphonies de Mozart
(Paris, 1932)
- Schneider,
Otto, and Anton
Algatzy: Mozart-Handbuch
(Vienna, 1962)
- Schubart,
Ludwig: Christ, Fried.
Dan. Schubart's
Ideen zu einer
Asthetik der
Tonkunst
(Vienna, 1806)
- Schultz,
Detlef: Mozarts Jugendsinfonien
(Leipzig, 1900)
- Sulzer,
Johann
Georg: Allgemeine
Theorie der schönen
Künste
(Berlin, 1771-74)
- Zaslaw,
Neal: 'The Compleat
Orchestral Musician',
Early Music
(1979), vii/1
- Zaslaw,
Neal: 'Toward the
Revival of the
Classical Orchestra',
Proceedings of the
Royal Musical
Association
(1976-77), ciii
Copyright
© 1979 by Neal
Zaslaw
|
|
The
Symphonies of 1775-83
During the
years 1770-75 Mozart had
an attack of what
Massimo Mila has
charmingly called
'symphony fever', for
during that 6-year span
he created no fewer than
36 symphonies. In the
following 8 years the
fever had subsided,
however, and we record
only 9 symphonies. This
reduced production is
undoubtedly in part due
to Mozart's
disillusionment with
Salzburg which is so
painfully documented in
his letters. He was no
longer so interested in
impressing his compatriots,
and must often have
fallen back on his large
stock of older works
when a symphony was
called for. Even after
Mozart's move to Vienna,
however, where there
were numbers of
potential employers
among the nobility whom
Mozart hoped to impress,
the production of
symphonies remained
small. He was by then
much more interested in
piano concertos in which
he could display his
considerable skill as a
soloist, and above all
in opera, the domain in
which he hoped to make
his principal
reputation.
The symphony based on
the overture to Il
re pastore
and those drawn from the
Posthorn serenade and
from the 2 works for the
Haffner family were the
last works in which
Mozart engaged in such
refurbishment. On the
one hand, after settling
in Vienna he abandoned
the Salzburgian genre of
the orchestral serenade.
On the other hand, the
overtures to his great
operas had apparently
evolved to the point at
which he no longer
considered them
interchangeable with
concert symphonies.
Symphony in C major,
K. 213c (102)
This symphony is derived
from Mozart's opera Il
re pastore ('The
shepherd king'), a
famous libretto by
Metastasio set by a
number of composers of
the period, including
Gluck. Mozart composed
the opera in the space
of about 6 weeks prior
to its premiere in
Salzburg on 23 April
1775. The opera had been
commissioned to
celebrate a visit to
Salzburg by the Archduke
Maximilian, youngest son
of the Austrian Empress
Maria Theresa. As
Salzburg had no opera
house, this work may
well have been given in
concert form, and indeed
the Archduke's travel
diary speaks only of
attending a 'cantata'.
The plot concerns the
conflict between love
and duty in a foundling
prince who, having been
raised as a shepherd, is
reluctant to give up his
rustic life for the
burdens of the throne.
Mozart's one-movement
'overtura' to the opera
begins with the same
three chords with which
his previous symphony
(K. 213a) began, but
there follows in this
case a movement much
more concise and Italianate.
This leads without a
break to an andantino
that Mozart manufactured
from the first aria of
the opera. This he
accomplished by
substituting a solo oboe
for the shepherd king
Aminta (sung by a
castrato) and by writing
a new ending 8 bars
long, which leads, again
without pause, into a
totally new finale. This
movement, presto assai
in 2/4, is an extended
rondo in the style of a
country dance.
The aria upon which the
middle movement of the
symphony is based finds
Aminta with flute in
hand wondering what fate
holds for him and his
shepherdess. The text
reads:
Intendo, amico
rio,
quel basso mormorio,
tu chiedi in tua
favella;
il nostro ben dov'e?
(I understand, o
friendly brook,
your low murmuring,
you are asking in your
way
where our beloved is.)
Mozart took this
symphony with him on his
trip to Paris in 1778,
using it on the way to
close a concert at the
house of the Mannheim
composer, Christian
Cannabich,on 13 February
1778. The rest of the
concert consisted of a
symphony by Cannabich;
Mozart's piano concerto
in Bb, K. 238, played by
Cannabich's daughter
Rosa; Mozart's oboe
concerto in C, K. 314; 2
arias from Lucio
Silla, K. 135,
sung by Mozart's current
love and future sister-in-law
Aloysia Weber; Mozart's
piano concerto in D, K.
175, performed by
himself; and a half hour
of his extemporisation
at the fortepiano.
Symphony in D major,
K. 248b (250)
Mozart's 'Haffner'
serenade is a much-loved
work (not to be
confused, however, with
the ‘Haffner' symphony,
K. 385, discussed
later). The Haffners and
the Mozarts were friends
of long standing in
Salzburg, and when Maria
Elisabeth (‘Liserl')
Haffner was to marry, it
was to be expected that
the 20-year-old Mozart
should be asked for some
suitable music to
celebrate the occasion.
The serenade which
resulted received its
first performance at an
eve-of-the-wedding
party, and the Salzburg
court councillor von Schiedenhofen
who was present entered
in his diary:
'21 luly 1776: After
dinner I went to the
bridal
music that young Herr
Haffner ordered to be
put on for his sister
Liserl. It
was by Mozart,
and done at their summer
house in Loreto
Street.'
Like most of Mozart's
orchestral serenades,
this work consists of a
march followed by a
mixture of symphony and
concerto movements (in
this instance, a
three-movement violin
concerto). At some later
date Mozart or his
father ordered a copyist
to extract a set of
orchestra parts
containing only the
symphonic movements. To
this Leopold added a
part for the kettle
drums (lacking in the
serenade score), and
Wolfgang looked through
the set of parts and
entered a number of
corrections and
clarifications. At yet a
later date, these
corrected parts were
used by another copyist
who added a second set
of string parts. The
resulting set of 16
orchestral parts was in
Mozart's possession at
his death, which
suggests that he used
them for his concerts in
Vienna. Furthermore, it
is likely that this
symphony was one of 6
that in 1784 Mozart
hoped to have published,
the set to be dedicated
to Prince von Fürstenberg.
(In the event, however,
only 2 appeared - K. 319
and 385 - and without
the proposed
dedication.)
The symphony version may
perhaps have been
created as early as
1776-77, for we know
that in preparation for
his departure for
Mannheim and Paris,
Wolfgang, in September
1777 assembled a large
collection of orchestral
parts of his recent
symphonies. In any case,
the symphony was in
existence by September
1779, for an entry in
Nannerl's diary in
Wolfgang's hand on the
24th of that month
mentions a performance
in Salzburg of 'the
Haffner music'. This
could, of course, be
taken to refer to the
serenade version, except
that on 18 March 1780
Mozart again entered the
details of a concert
programme into his
sister's diary, and the
first of the nine items
listed is clearly
designated 'A symphony
(namely the Haffner
music)'. As a serenade
was designed to fill an
entire occasion while a
symphony was to
introduce other works,
this was most probably
the symphony version.
The opening, allegro
maestoso in common time,
is little more than an
extended fanfare moving
from tonic to dominant,
spread over 35 bars and
filled with lovely
orchestral figurations.
After a brief pause, the
allegro molto alla breve
opens unisono, a
texture which recurs
several times during the
movement with good
dramatic effect. The
movement is on a large
scale for a symphony
movement of the late
1770's, with
an unusually extended
and chromatic
development section
based on material from
the allegro maestoso
introduction.
Differences between this
version and the serenade
include (aside from the
written-out kettle
drums) the omission of
the repeat of the
exposition and the
addition of a fanfare
for oboes, horns and
trumpets at the end
where there had been a
grand pause.
'Menuetto galante’ is an
unusual designation, and
perhaps best rendered
'fashionable minuet'.
Fashionable or not, it
is a particularly long
and beautiful minuet.
The trio is not without
its touches of pathos.
Mozart rewrote this trio
for the symphony
version, changing a
broken-chord triplet
accompaniment in the
second violins (as in
Beethoven's 'Moonlight'
sonata) to repeated
notes, and adding oboes
and bassoons to what was
originally for strings
only.
The andante which
follows was taken over
unchanged from the
serenade. It reveals its
origins by its sprawling
dimensions. The movement
is of a particularly
original formal design,
perhaps best described
as an elaborate rondo
influenced by the double
theme-and-variations
format favoured by Joseph
Haydn for his symphony
andantes. It is
difficult to listen to
this movement without
imagining (Italian)
words, for the melodies
and rhythms are
reminiscent of many
arias of the period. It
is perhaps this aspect
of the movement that
prompted Della Croce to
hypothesize a nuptial
programme. He hears 'the
characterization of the
two spouses, who
correspond respectively
to the principal theme,
pensive and angelic, and
a second, more
ingratiating theme,
nearly always entrusted
to the oboes'. This
analysis, however,
leaves us to guess what
(or whom) several other
themes may represent.
Two or three minuets and
minuets with two or
three trios were common
in Salzburg orchestral
serenades but uncommon
(although not unheard
of) in symphonies.
Certain late 18th and
early 19th century
manuscripts of this
symphony have the
'superfluous' movements
excised, suggesting the
growth of a concept of
symphonic format more
rigid than that which
Mozart himself held in
the 1770s. A pair of
flutes replace the oboes
in the second minuet and
its 2 trios. In
an attractive touch of
rustic drone near the
end of the minuet's
second section, Mozart
hints at the sound of
the hurdy-gurdy, while
the first trio features
a flute and bassoon duet
and the second gives the
entire wind band a
chance to shine.
The finale opens with a
16-bar adagio of great
beauty, leading into a
large-scale jig movement
in sonata form with both
halves repeated and a
coda. The music is
similar in character to
the finale of Joseph
Haydn's Symphony No. 8 -
a movement entitled 'La
Tempesta'. If
these storms are a bit
too big to fit into a
teacup, they are
nonetheless among the
most genial storms one
will ever have to
weather.
Saint-Foix comments upon
'the abnormal length of
the movements, their
variety, their
brilliance' and Della
Croce calls the work
'one of the richest,
most solid and most
elaborate symphonies'
that Mozart had thus far
composed. It
must have been popular,
judging by the dozens of
manuscript copies dating
from the 18th and early
19th centuries as well
as André's edition of
1792. During this period
the serenade from which
the symphony was drawn
remained virtually
unknown.
Symphony in G major,
K. 318
Dated 26 April 1779,
this was the first
symphony that Mozart
composed after his
abortive trip to Paris.
Because the format of
this work is unlike
Mozart's other
symphonies but similar
to some Parisian opera
comique overtures by
Grétry, Mozart's
biographers have exerted
themselves trying to
guess for which stage
work this 'overture' may
have been intended.
Hermann Deiters
suggested that it was
for Thamos,
King of Egypt (K.
345/336a) while Einstein
thought that it was for
the untitled and never
completed Singspiel
now known as Zaide
(K. 344/336b). But the
work's date of
composition is too late
for the first version of
Thamos and too
early for Zaide
or for the second
version of Thamos.
If
in fact the work was
destined for something
other than the usual
church, court or chamber
concerts in Salzburg,
then it was, perhaps
written for the
theatrical troupe of Johann
Heinrich Böhm.
This troupe of nearly 50
actors, dancers and
singers performed
various of Mozart's
works, including Thamos
and a Gennan version of
La finta giardiniera
(K. 196) entitled Die
verstellte Gärterin.
Böhm's
troupe was to be
resident in Salzburg
during the winter of
1779-80, but in April
1779 it was still in
Augsburg, and Mozart
(through the good
offices of his Augsburg
cousin Maria Anna Thekla
Mozart, known as 'Das Bäsle')
was in correspondence
with Böhm
about providing
additional music for his
productions.
All editions of the Köchel
catalogue as well as the
new Mozart edition have
subtitled this work
'ouverture'. There is no
authority for this
label, which is
apparently intended to
make a distinction
between concert
symphonies and
theatrical overtures
- a distinction that
hardly existed at the
time. Mozart himself
headed his score simply
'Sinfonia'. That he
approved of its use in
the theatre (as he
probably would have done
with any of his
symphonies) is not in
question, as he provided
it (along with 2 new
vocal numbers, K. 479
and 480) as the overture
for a Viennese
production of Bianchi's
opera buffa La
Villanella rapita
in 1785. And it was as
the overture to La
Villanella rapita
that this work was
published and known to
the 19th century.
The symphony calls for
pairs of flutes, oboes
and bassoons, with 4
horns and strings. The
trumpets and
kettle-drums do not
appear in the original
score, but were copied
in separate parts by
Mozart at some later
date, perhaps for La
Villanella rapita
in 1785.
The opening allegro
spiritoso is a
beautifully crafted
sonata-form movement
with especially fine
handling of orchestral
sonorities. In several
passages, for instance,
the basso of
Baroque tradition is
resolved into
independent parts for
bassoon, cello and
double bass, creating
novel timbral effects.
At the point in the
movement where the
recapitulation might be
expected, the allegro
breaks off and an
andante of considerable
poignancy and scope is
heard. This leads
without pause to a
'primo tempo' which,
after a few bars of
transition, places us
not at the beginning of
the recapitulation but
rather 6 bars before the
return of the so-called
'second subject'. Then
follows the rest of the
recapitulation with the
'missing' opening of the
recapitulation reserved
as a brilliant coda.
Symphony in Bb major,
K. 319
The autograph is marked
'Salzburg, 9. Juli
1779'. Unfortunately the
pages from Nannerl's
diary covering the
period between 16 June
and 14 September of that
year are missing, and no
other document gives us
a clue to the reason for
Mozart writing this
symphony. The work
originally contained
only 3 movements; the
minuet was added later
in Vienna, perhaps for
one of the concerts
Mozart gave there in
1782. This symphony is
one of the 6 that Mozart
ear-marked for
publication in 1784, and
it did in fact appear
the following year. In
1786 it was among 12
works that Mozart
offered to Prince von Fürstenberg
for his exclusive use.
Mozart's double
deception - representing
a seven-year-old work as
recent and offering it
for exclusive use when
it had already been
published - was soon
uncovered, but the
Prince, in an apparent
display of noblesse
oblige, paid Mozart the
amount originally agreed
upon.
The allegro assai in 3/4
is a sonata-form
movement without
repeats, filled with
lively ideas of a much
more conventional stripe
than those of the
previous symphony. To
Saint-Foix
the movement has a
pastoral character and a
Viennese lilt, and the
latter point is
supported by Abert, who
compares the movement to
Schubert. In
the development section
the attentive listener
will note the appearance
of the famous 4-note
motto (do-re-fa-mi) with
which the finale of the
'Jupiter'
symphony opens. This
motto, used by dozens of
composers before and
after Mozart, originated
in sacred vocal
polyphony, but does not
appear to have been
associated with any
particular words. Mozart
himself, for instance,
used it in one Mass (K.
192) for the words
'Credo, credo' and in
another (K. 257) for the
words 'Sanctus,
sanctus'.
The andante moderato is
in the form
A-B-A1B1-A-Coda, with
the A1 section
especially nicely
handled imitatively,
first in the strings in
the dominant and then in
the winds in the tonic.
This cantabile movement
is dominated by the
strings in rather a
chamber-music vein, with
the dynamic nuances
marked with particular
care by Mozart.
Saint-Foix and Larsen
both remark upon the
supposed Viennese
character of the minuet
(would they have done so
had they not known the
movement to have been
composed in Vienna
instead of Salzburg?),
by which they
undoubtedly refer to the
conciseness of the whole
and especially to the Ländler-like
trio.
The finale begins as if
it were simply one more
brisk jig-finale, but
Mozart has a few tricks
up his sleeve. The jig's
triplets alternate with
a march's duplets (and
occasionally the two
overlap), the wind
writing is exceptionally
felicitous, and the
development section is a
fine example of pseudo-counterpoint,
which, while never
exceeding two real
voices at any moment,
creates the illusion of
many-layered polyphony.
Symphony in D major,
K. 320
Dated Salzburg, 3 August
1779', the serenade from
which this symphony was
drawn was written,
according to Mozart's
Prague acquaintance
Niemetschek, for
Archbishop Colloredo's
name-day (30 September).
However, Mozart seldom
wrote down a piece so
far in advance of a
deadline, and he himself
referred to this work in
a letter by the term
'Finalmusik'. The
so-called
'Final-Musiken', usually
given on a Wednesday
since there was a school
holiday on Thursdays,
were serenades which the
students of Salzburg
University's
philosophical faculty
offered at the end of
the academic year (which
fell in early August) to
the Prince-Archbishop at
his summer residence
’Mirabell’ and to their
professors in front of
the University. Mozart
created the symphony by
omitting the serenade's
march, its two movements
for concertante winds,
and both of its minuets
with their trios.
A set of parts for the
symphony version of this
work preserved at Graz
has corrections in
Mozart's hand. It
appears to be of
Viennese origin,
suggesting performances
of the symphony there in
the 1780's. The symphony
was a popular one,
judging from the many
manuscripts of it found
in European libraries
and archives, and was
perhaps one of the 6
that Mozart hoped to
publish in 1784. In
fact, however, it was
published only in 1792.
The first movement
begins majestically with
a 6-bar adagio maestoso
introduction, leading
directly into a
brilliant allegro con
spirito in sonata form
without repeats. An
interesting and
effective feature of the
movement is found at the
recapitulation , where
the adagio material
reappears in a slightly
recomposed version and
without a tempo change.
This Mozart accomplishes
by doubling the note
values, so that a minim
in allegro is precisely
equal to a crotchet in
adagio.
The andantino in D minor
is exceptionally
profound for a serenade
or a symphony of this
period, in which we
usually find less
chromaticism, a more
songful attitude, and a
major key (most often
the subdominant). The
movement is a fully
fledged sonata-form
movement with both
sections repeated.
The finale, presto alla
breve, is, like the
other movements, in
sonata form, here
without repeats. lt
begins unisono
and hurtles through its
nearly 300 bars in a
decidedly light-hearted
manner. Mozart saves
some especially
attractive bits for the
oboes in the development
section which, despite
its thematic
manipulation and
imitative style,
maintains the buffo
character of the rest of
the movement.
Symphony in C major,
K. 338
This is Mozart's last
symphony written in
Salzburg, although not
the last written for
Salzburg (for which, see
K. 385 below). He
labelled the autograph
'Sinfonia di Wolfgango
Amadeo Mozart m[anu] pr[opria]
le 29 d'Agosto,
Salsbourg [sic]1780'.
We learn from Nannerl's
diary that her brother
played at court on the
2nd, 3rd and 4th of
September; one of these
occasions may therefore
have seen the premiere
of this symphony.
Furthermore, Wolfgang
already knew that he was
to leave for Munich on 5
November to oversee the
preparation of Idomeneo,
and he may have wanted a
new symphony in his
baggage in case an
opportunity to present
himself in a concert
there were to
materialize. This
symphony remained in
Mozart's affections, for
it was probably
performed in Vienna on 3
April 1781 by the Tonkünstler-Societät
and on 26 May 1782 at
the Augarten, it was
among 6 symphonies
earmarked for
publication in 1784 (but
did not actually see
print until 1797), and
was among 12 works
offered to Prince von Fürstenberg
for his exclusive use in
1786. Indeed, a set of
parts for this work with
corrections in Mozart's
hand are still in the Fürstenberg
collection at
Donaueschingen.
The first movement
(Mozart originally
headed it 'allegro' but
later added to that
'vivace') is in sonata
form without repeats. It
opens with conventional
fanfare materials, but
Mozart, by inserting
echoes and extensions of
that material, gives it
a special shape and
considerable
individuality. One soon
senses in this movement
Mozart's interest in
longer musical
sentences, and
paragraphs in which a
more sustained musical
logic begins to replace
the shorter-breathed,
patchwork-quilt designs
of his earlier
symphonies.
As a second movement
there was originally a
minuet, but for unknown
reasons Mozart tore it
from the manuscript, and
it is lost except for
the first 14 bars which
were written on the back
of the final page of the
opening movement. The
notion promulgated by
Einstein that the
symphonic minuet, K.
409, in C major was
written to be added to
this symphony is
incorrect. K. 409 is far
too long to fit this
symphony, and it calls
for different forces.
The slow movement is
labelled in the
autograph score 'andante
di molto', but Mozart
must have found that
this was interpreted
slower than he wished
it, for in the
concertmaster's part in
Donaueschingen he added
'più
tosto allegretto'. This
movement for strings
(with divided violas)
and bassoon doubling the
bassline, is in binary
form, or as some prefer
to call it, sonata form
without development
section. Larsen hears
nothing here but opera,
including anticipations
of Susanna and Zerlina.
Saint-Foix finds 'a
delicacy and emotion...
unparalleled even in the
work of Mozart', but to
Della Croce the movement
is archaic, filled with
melodic clichés, and not
worthy of the movements
flanking it. Thus our
uncertain progress
across the quicksands of
musical criticism.
The finale, allegro
vivace, is another huge
jig in sonata form,
with both sections
repeated. Mozart gives a
special concertante role
to the oboes. The
increased breadth of
conception of the first
movement is audible
again here.
Symphony in D major,
K. 385 (’Haffner’)
The circumstances
surrounding the creation
of this work are more
fully documented than
those for any other of
Mozart's symphonies. In
mid-July
1782 Mozart's father
wrote to him in Vienna
requesting a new
symphony for
celebrations surrounding
the ennoblement of
Mozart's childhood
friend Siegmund Haffner
the younger.
On 20 luly Mozart
replied:
'Well,
I am up to my eyes
in work. By Sunday
week I have to
arrange my opera [The Abduction
from the Harem, K.
384] for wind
instruments,
otherwise someone
will beat me to it
and secure the
profits instead of
me. And now you ask
me to write a new
symphony too! How
on earth can I do
so? You have no idea
how difficult it is
to arrange a work of
this kind for wind
instruments, so that
it suits them and
yet loses none of
its effect. Well, I
must just spend the
night over it, for
that is the only
way; and to you,
dearest father, I
sacrifice it. You
may rely on having
something from me by
every post. I shall
work as fast as
possible and, as far
as haste permits, I
shall write
something good'.
Although
Mozart was prone to
procrastination and to
making excuses to his
father, in this instance
his complaints may well
have been justified, for
having just completed
the arduous task of
launching his new opera
(the première
was on 16 July),
Mozart moved house on 23
July
in preparation for his
marriage. By 27
July
he reported to his
father:
‘You
will be surprised
and disappointed to
find that this
contains only the
first Allegro; but
it has been quite
impossible to do
more for you, for I
have had to compose
in a great hurry a
serenade [probably
K.375],
but for wind
instruments only
(otherwise I could
have used it for you
too). On Wednesday
the 31st I shall
send the two
minuets, the Andante
and the last
movement. If I can
manage to do so, I
shall send a march
too. If not, you
will just have to
use the one from the
Haffner
music [K.249],
which is quite
unknown. I have
composed my symphony
in D major, because
you prefer that
key.'
On 29 July
Siegmund Haffner
the younger was ennobled
and added to his name
'von Imbachhausen'. On
the 31st, however,
Mozart could still only
write:
'You
see that my
intentions are good
- only what one
cannot do, one
cannot! I won't
scribble off
inferior stuff. So I
cannot send you the
whole symphony until
next post-day. I
could have let you
have the last
movement, but I
prefer to despatch
it all together, for
then it will cost
only one fee. What I
have sent you has
already cost me
three gulden.'
On 4
August Mozart and
Constanze Weber were
married in Vienna
without having received
Leopold's approval,
which arrived grudgingly
the following day. In
the meanwhile the other
movements must have been
completed and sent off,
for on 7 August Mozart
wrote to his father:
'I
send you herewith a
short march
[probably K. 408,
no. 2].
I only hope that all
will reach you in
good time, and be to
your taste. The
first Allegro must
be played with great
fire, the last - as
fast as possible.'
Precisely
when the party
celebrating Haffner's
ennoblement occurred,
and whether the new
symphony was received in
time to be performed on
that occasion, is not
known, for Leopold's
letter reporting the
event is lost. The fact
that in a later letter
Wolfgang was unsure
whether or not
orchestral parts had
been copied (see below)
suggests that the
symphony had not arrived
in time. Be that as it
may, at some time prior
to 24 August, Leopold
must have written his
approval of the work,
for on that day Wolfgang
responded, 'I am
delighted that the
symphony is to your
taste'.
Three months later the
symphony again entered
Mozart's correspondence.
On
4 December he wrote to
his father, in a letter
that went astray, asking
for the score of the
symphony to be returned.
When
it had become clear that
his father had not
received that letter, he
wrote again on the 21st,
summarizing the lost
letter, including, 'If
you find an opportunity,
you might have the
goodness to send me the
new symphony that
I composed for Haffner
at your request. Please
make sure that I have it
before Lent, because I
would very much like to
perform it at my
concert'. On 4 January
he again urged his
father to return the
symphony, stating that
either the score or the
parts would be equally
useful for his purposes.
On the 22nd he again
reminded his father, and
on the 5th of February
yet again with new
urgency; '...as soon as
possible, for my concert
is to take place on the
third Sunday in Lent,
that is, on March 23rd,
and I must have several
copies made, I think,
therefore, that if it is
not copied [into
orchestral parts]
already, it would be
better to send me back
the original score just
as I sent it to you; and
remember to put in the
minuets'. The usually
punctilious Leopold's
delay is mute testimony
to the anger and
frustration he felt over
what he considered to be
his son's foolish choice
of a wife. In any case,
by 15 February Wolfgang
could write, 'Most
heartfelt thanks for the
music you have sent
me... My new Haffner
symphony has positively
amazed me, for I had
forgotten every single
note of it. It must
surely produce a good
effect'.
Mozart then proceeded to
rework the score sent
from Salzburg by putting
aside the march,
eliminating one of the
minuets, deleting the
repeats of the two
sections of the first
movement, and adding
pairs of flutes and
clarinets in the first
and last movements,
primarily to reinforce
the tuttis and requiring
no change in the
existing orchestration
of those movements.
The 'academy' (as
concerts were then
called) duly took place
on Sunday, 23 March, in
the Burgtheatre. Mozart
reported to his father:
'...the
theatre could not
have been more
crowded and... every
box was taken. But
what pleased me most
of all was that His
Majesty the Emperor
was present and,
goodness! - how
delighted he was and how
he applauded me! It
is his custom to
send money to the
box office before
going to the
theatre; otherwise I
should have been
fully justified in
counting on a larger
sum, for really his
delight was beyond
all bounds. He sent
25 ducats.'
In its
broad outlines, Mozart's
report is confirmed by a
review of the concert:
'The
Concert was honoured
with an exceptionally
large crowd, and the
two new concertos and
other fantasies which
Herr Mozart played on
the fortepiano were
received with the
loudest applause. Our
Monarch, who, against
his habit, attended
the whole of the
concert, as well as
the entire audience,
accorded him such
unanimous applause as
has never been heard
of here. The receipts
of the concert are
estimated to amount to
1,600 gulden in all'.
The
programme was typical of
Mozart's 'academies' and
demonstrates the role
that symphonies were
expected to fill as
preludes and postludes
framing an evening's
events:
1. The first 3 movements
of the 'Haffner'
symphony (K. 385)
2. ‘Se il padre perdei'
from Idomeneo
(K. 366)
3. A piano concerto in C
major (K. 415)
4. The recitative and
aria 'Misera, dove son!
- Ah! non son' io che
parlo' (K. 369)
5. A sinfonia
concertante (movements 3
and 4 from the serenade
K. 320)
6. A piano concerto in D
major (K. 175 with the
finale K. 382)
7. ‘Parto m'affretto'
from Lucio Silla
(K. 135)
8. A short fugue
('because the Emperor
was present')
9. Variations on a tune
from Paisiello's I
filosofi
immaginarii (K.
398) and as an encore to
that,
10. Variations on a,
tune from Gluck's La
Rencontre imprévue
(K. 455)
11. The recitative and
rondo 'Mia speranza
adorata - Ah, non sai,
qual pena' (K. 416)
12. The finale of the
'Haffner' symphony (K.
385)
Which of us wouldn’t
give a great deal to be
temporarily transported
in one of science-fiction’s
time machines to the
Burgtheatre on that
Sunday in March 1783 to
hear such a concert led
by Mozart at the
fortepiano?
The 'Haffner' symphony
was among the 6
symphonies that Mozart
planned to have
published in 1784 and in
the following year the
work was indeed brought
out in Vienna by
Artaria, in the
four-movement version
but without the
additional flutes and
clarinets. The fuller
orchestration appeared
in Paris published by
Sieber with a title page
bearing the legend 'Du
repertoire du Concert
spirituel'. (The work
had been given at the
Concert spirituel
apparently on 17 April
1783.) Despite the
symphony's wide
availability, Mozart
included it among pieces
that he sold to Prince
von Fürstenberg
'for performance solely
at his court' in 1786.
Having dwelt at some
length on the history of
the 'Haffner' symphony,
we shall be content to
let the music speak for
itself - which it does
so eloquently - without
further description or
analysis. This recording
is the first to be made
of the original,
Salzburg version of K.
385 and is lacking only
the second minuet and
trio, which are no
longer extant. Mozart
and his father
consistently referred to
this work as a symphony,
even though the
configuration of
movements of this
Salzburg version brings
it into a close
relationship with the
works we know as
orchestral serenades.
Symphony in C major,
K. 425 (’Linz’)
Mozart’s letters in the
months following his
marriage are filled with
promises of a journey to
Salzburg to enable his
father, his sister, and
their friends to meet
his bride. Excuse after
excuse was found to
postpone this trip,
however, not only
because Mozart was
keenly aware that his
father and sister
disapproved of his
choice of a wife, but
also because he feared
the possibility of his
being arrested in
Salzburg for having left
the archbishop's service
without official
permission. Upon being
reassured by his father
concerning the latter,
Wolfgang and Constanze
finally set out,
arriving in Salzburg
toward the end of July
1783 and remaining there
until the end of
October. It is clear
from what little we know
of the visit, that it
was a difficult one for
all concerned.
On the return trip to
Vienna Wolfgang and
Constanze had to pass
through the town of
Linz. An excerpt from
Mozart's letter to his
father from there on 31
October is
self-explanatory:
'We
arrived here safely
yesterday morning at
9 o'clock. We spent
the first night in Vöcklabruck
and reached Lambach
Monastery next
morning, where I
arrived just in time
to accompany the
'Agnus Dei' on the
organ.
The abbot [Amand
Schickmayrl was
absolutely delighted
to see me again...
We spent the whole
day there, and I
played both on the
organ and on a
clavichord. I heard
that an opera was to
be given next day at
Ebelsberg at the
house of the Prefect
Steurer... and that
almost all Linz was
to be assembled. I
resolved therefore
to be present and we
drove there. Young
Count Thun (brother
of the Thun at
Vienna) called on me
immediately and said
that his father had
been expecting me
for a fortnight and
would I please
drive to his house
at once for I was to
stay with him. I
told him that I could
easily put up at an
inn. But when we
reached the gates of
Linz on the
following day, we
found a servant
waiting there to
drive us to Count
Thun's, at whose
house we are now
staying. I really
cannot tell you what
kindnesses the
family are showering
on us. On Tuesday,
November 4th, I am
giving a concert in
the theatre here
and, as I have not a
single symphony with
me, I am writing a
new one at
break-neck speed,
which must be
finished by that
time. Well, I must
close, because I
really must set to
work...'
There we
have it. Between 30
October and 4 November
Mozart conceived and
wrote out a new
symphony, had parts
copied, and may or may
not have rehearsed the
orchestra in the work.
(Recall here
Kirnberger's statement
made in the 1770's that
the symphony 'will not
be practised like the
sonata but must be
sight-read'. That
symphonies were
fortunate to receive a
single rehearsal and
often had none is
confirmed by numerous
anecdotes from the
biographies of Mozart,
Haydn, Dittersdorf, and
others.) We know nothing
of the orchestra at Linz
(perhaps the same one
that played for the
unidentified opera a few
days earlier), but the
evidence of the symphony
itself suggests that it
was of respectable size,
lacking only clarinets.
As for the programme, it
seems that a G-major
symphony by Michael
Haydn for which Mozart
provided a slow
introduction and which
long passed as a work
entirely by Mozart (K.
444/425a) may also have
been performed. And as
Mozart's 'academies'
seldom failed to include
one or two of his piano
concertos, some arias,
and some solo
improvisations at the
keyboard, this programme
was perhaps similar.
The 'Linz' symphony was
taken to Vienna by
Mozart where he
performed it again at
his 'academy' of 1 April
1784 in the Burgtheatre.
On 15 May he sent his
father a score for the
symphony; Leopold
reported a performance
under his direction at a
concert in Salzburg on
15 September, referring
to it in a letter to
Nannerl as 'your
brother's excellent new
symphony'. Mozart
included this
'excellent' symphony
among the 6 planned for
publication in 1784,
although in fact it did
not reach print until
1793. Beginning in 1785
the Viennese copyist Johann
Traeg offered manuscript
sets of parts of K. 425
for sale, which however
did not prevent Mozart
from brazenly offering
it for the 'exclusive'
use of Prince von Fürstenberg
the following year.
Mozart also apparently
performed the 'Linz'
symphony in Prague in
October and November of
1787, where he had gone
to oversee the premiere
of Don Giovanni.
One performance was
probably given by the
private orchestra of
Count Thun (who had a
residence in Prague in
addition to that in
Linz) and another at an
'academy' given by
Mozart for his own
benefit with the
assistance of the Prague
opera orchestra.
Niemetschek, who was
present at the second
occasion, recalled that
the symphonies (probably
K. 425 and 504) appeared
to be 'true masterpieces
of instrumental music,
full of startling
transitions; they have a
rapid, fiery
progression, and they
attune the soul to
expectation of something
exalted'.
From the moment we hear
the noble, doubledotted
rhythms of the adagio
introduction we begin to
grasp what Niemetschek
may have meant by
'expectation of
something exalted'. In
an instant we are
plunged into the world
of Mozart's late
masterpieces. Only one
other composer writing
in 1783 was capable of a
symphony to compare with
this, and that was Joseph
Haydn. And several
commentators have sensed
Haydn's spirit hovering
over the first movement
in several features, and
especially the slow
introduction which was a
Haydn trademark but rare
in Mozart. The large
scale of the first
movement, its perfectly
proportioned form, the
brilliance of its
orchestration - none of
these give the slightest
clue to the hurried
circumstances under
which the work was
created.
The andante offers
novelty - the presence
of the usually silent
trumpets and
kettle-drums - that
changes what might have
been simply an exquisite
cantilena into a
movement of occasionally
almost apocalyptic
intensity. Beethoven
must have taken note of
the effectiveness of
this innovation when he
decided to use the
trumpets and kettle-drums
in similar ways in the
same key in the slow
movement of his first
symphony.
The minuet and trio form
the most conventional of
the 4 movements. The
pomp of the minuet is
nicely set off by the
mock innocence of the
oboe and bassoon duet in
the trio. None of the
highjinks here that
Mozart often put into
his trios for local
Salzburg consumption.
The finale is akin to
that of the 'Haffner'
symphony and, similarly,
was undoubtedly meant to
go as fast as possible.
As a foil to the
brilliant homophonic
texture that dominates
this spirited movement,
Mozart inserts passages
of the kind of
pseudo-polyphony which
we have already noted in
the finale of K. 319.
Knowing nothing of the
orchestral forces in
Linz, we have chosen to
record this work as it
may have been heard in
Salzburg. It was the
sound of the Salzburg
orchestra that was
freshest in Mozart's
mind as he sat down on
30 October 1783 to begin
this splendid work, a
work which, for unknown
reasons, has been
consistently underrated
in comparison with the 4
symphonies that Mozart
was still to compose in
the few years remaining
to him.
©
1980 by Neal
Zaslaw
|
|
|
|
|