- As one of the most recognized composers of the Western
musical canon, the music and reputation of Mozart is as celebrated today
as it was disregarded in his own time. In fact, the eminent status he has
come to enjoy, both in print and performance, has become so entrenched
as to deflect any question or criticism of its deservedness; by its very
magnitude (and the notion of value it invokes) it has cast a pervasive,
and consequently detrimental, influence over the tone and direction of
Mozart scholarship. But what if the image we have of the composer is a
myth? And what if the assessment of his achievement has been inaccurate?
Like so many myths, separate the fact from the fiction, the truth from
the untruth, and there remains little of substance that is worthy of all
the adulation. One has only to consider the authenticity of his works,
the contradictions and incongruities which musical scholarship has uncovered
(but largely failed to pursue), and the man himself, and the myth begins
to crumble before our very eyes.
-
-
-
- Regarding authenticity, it is not a question of whether
or not Mozart composed all that has been attributed to him - we know for
certain that he did not, and that many of the works once thought to be
his were actually written by other composers. The question is the extent
to which this is the case. To date, musicologists and music historians
have identified these spurious and doubtful Mozart works into their hundreds,
among them songs, symphonies, serenades, concertos, chamber pieces, masses,
requiems and smaller church works, an incomplete listing of which was published
in the sixth Köchel edition in 1964. Since then, the number of Mozart
works found to be spurious has continued to grow, and, as has now been
acknowledged, includes many works that are well-known and cherished by
musical audiences, such as the Sinfonia Concertante for four winds K.Anh.
9, the 'Paris' Overture K.Anh.8, the Missa Brevis in G K.140, and the 'Twelfth
Mass', the latter of which is actually by the little-known German composer
Wenzel Muller (Robbins Landon 1991: 351-352). To this list might be added
Idomeneo and the 'Haffner' Symphony.
-
- Prior to Idomeneo Mozart had written La finta giardiniera
(1775), an opera which received only three performances, and in which he
failed to show "control of the libretto and of the dramatic structure".
It has been said that "too much of it is a sequence of arias, the
characters' arbitrary ways repeat the clichés of dozens of comic
operas, and it all goes on too long" (Roselli 1998: 81).
-
- Given that in the intervening years he wrote no other
operas, the jump in quality from La finta to Idomeneo is not only curious
but inexplicable, unless one considers that he had help with the latter's
composition, something that is entirely possible considering that his father
acted as intermediary between Mozart and the opera's librettist, Varesco.
Similarly noteworthy is Mozart's often-quoted remark regarding the 'Haffner'
Symphony. Upon receiving the score from his father in 1783, he commented,
"'My new Haffner symphony has quite astonished me, for I had forgotten
every single note of it. It must certainly make a good effect'" (Eisen
1991: 257). Scholars have made light of this remark, contending that Mozart
was surely joking. Yet if we consider for a moment that Mozart did not
in fact compose it (it was, after all, composed for a family friend at
Leopold's suggestion) then the remark makes much more sense.
-
- The seemingly ever-increasing list of works now known
to be unauthentic comprises both compositions "by 'foreign' composers
that were simply copied by Mozart" (Robbins Landon 1991: 352), as
well as many that were written by his contemporaries, including Michael
Haydn (younger brother of Franz Josef Haydn), K.F. Abel, Johann Neubauer,
Joseph Myslivecek, Joseph Schuster, François Devienne, Henri Casadesus,
Ernst Eberlin, Franz Novotny, F.X. Süssmayr (his pupil), and, most
significantly, his father, Leopold Mozart.
-
- The fact that a substantial number of Leopold's works
were once mistaken for Mozart's is an interesting one that may be explained,
in part, by the difficulty in distinguishing between their respective handwritings,
and by the striking similarity between the compositional styles of father
and son; the latter is perhaps to be expected, it was after all from his
father that Mozart received his musical education. But the likeness necessarily
begs the question of how much of a hand Leopold really had in his son's
compositions, and just how much of the repertoire now recognized as Mozart's
actually belongs to him. Numerous sacred works (including masses and litanies),
symphonies and songs from this repertoire have now been correctly attributed
to Leopold, and these include not only manuscript copies, but the autographs
for numerous compositions, such as the Masses K.115 and 116, and the songs
K.149 -151 (Eisen 1991: 173). Certainly, the notion that Leopold's contribution
may be far more extensive is not only conceivable, but supportable.
-
- The first issue that bears consideration is the fact
that Leopold was a prolific and accomplished composer. He composed some
70 symphonies, numerous serenades, overtures, divertimenti, sacred works,
concertos, occasional works and dance music, most of which have been lost,
and "the creation of an important repertory of independent orchestral
music in Salzburg must be credited to [him]" (Eisen 1989: 173). Nor
did he lack creative daring. He was amongst the first to begin his symphonies
with a slow introduction that set the tone of what was to follow, and in
his keyboard sonatas achieved a more varied texture that sought to circumvent
the banality of the commonly-employed Alberti bass (Wyn Jones 1991: 79-80).
He was moreover an accomplished pedagogue, and in the year of his son's
birth published his famous violin treatise, Versuch einer gründlichen
Violinschule, which was reprinted several times and translated into other
languages (Steptoe 1991: 102).
-
- Secondly, let us consider the role Leopold played in
Mozart's life and his influence on his formative career. From 1760, Leopold
turned from his own career path to nurture that of his young son and daughter,
Maria Anna ("Nannerl"), who was four-and-half years older than
Mozart and also an extremely gifted pianist. It is well known that Leopold
was meticulous and resourceful in promoting his children as musical prodigies
on their tours across Europe from 1762 to 1766, and, later, in facilitating
Mozart's transition from child performer to composer (Steptoe 1991: 103).
Many of the letters written by Leopold to friends and family during this
period, detailing the children's success and achievements, were purposefully
written "for public circulation", and, it has been noted, were
probably intended for the biography of Mozart he planned to write (Eisen
1991:160). Carefully crafted notices describing their phenomenal abilities
were placed in the press to generate interest and publicity, and every
advantage was sought from the contacts they made. Leopold had envisioned
a formidable future for Mozart, and all his efforts were geared toward
this end.
-
- His performing capabilities aside, much has been made
of Mozart's apparent ability to compose at this young age, and the works
that he supposedly wrote and published while on tour. It was, in fact,
one of the selling points of his father's campaign to boost the reputation
of his son. An advertisement from 13 May 1765, while they were in London,
invited audiences to hear a "'Concerto on the Harpsichord by the little
Composer and his Sister, each single and both together'", and engraved
sonatas and portraits were offered for public purchase (Heartz 1995: 506).
Just a few months earlier, in February, Mozart had also apparently performed
some of his first symphonies in concert. However, by their very importance
to the family's activities and success at this time, the validity of such
works and compositional claims is necessarily questionable, for in building
up his son, one has to wonder how much Leopold exaggerated his talent,
and how much of his compositional achievement was manufactured for the
public. It is known that the harpsichord sonatas composed during their
stay in Paris from 1763-64 were written "with the ever-present help
of his father" (Heartz 1995: 498), and that his father's assistance
was again required for the Gallimathius musicum K.32, written for the Dutch
court, the autograph for which shows parts written in Leopold's hand. There
is also some controversy amongst experts as to the extent of Leopold's
contribution to the symphonies composed during the trip to Italy in 1770,
further to his involvement with their copying (Heartz 1995: 507,556).
-
- Certainly, the argument that Leopold ghost-wrote Mozart's
early compositions because it was expedient is a likely one that warrants
serious consideration. Given the rigours of travel, especially in those
days, and the constant round of social engagements they undertook, the
toll on the young Mozart must have been enormous, and extensive documentation
indicates that he was frequently ill. During these years alone he was stricken
with erythema nodosum, rheumatic fever, angina, small-pox, scarlet fever
and intestinal typhoid, the latter of which afflicted him for two months,
and during which time it is claimed that he also published six sonatas
for keyboard and violin K.26-31 allegedly of his own composition. These
illnesses were in addition to minor maladies such as colds. It is indeed
difficult to imagine that under these circumstances Mozart would have had
the time, vigour or inclination to compose, let alone to compose works
worthy of public performance or publication. But for someone of Leopold's
skill it would have been easy. Leopold's presence looms large in Mozart's
juvenile church works, such as the Masses K.66 and K.139 and the Litany
K.125, which are said to have been modelled on Leopold's compositions and
to be thus indebted to them, but which could just as easily have been written
by the older composer, thus accounting for their style. Certainly, Leopold's
predisposition towards employing horns in his sacred music (he was probably
the first composer in Salzburg to do so) is a feature that is also found
in Mozart's works in this genre (Eisen 1989: 171).
-
- The appearance of Leopold's (as well as Nannerl's) handwriting
in various parts of surviving manuscripts, including the concertos K.449
and 451 (Eisen 1991: 180), is another potentially telling detail that has
otherwise been attributed to their helping to copy out the music from Mozart's
autographs. But the fact that numerous autographs once thought to be Mozart's
have now been shown to be by his father makes the authenticity of the autographs
themselves highly suspect. Moreover, besides being an exceptionally gifted
performer, Nannerl also dabbled in composition and was apparently quite
skilled at it - Mozart on several occasions complimented her on her works
and encouraged her to write more often, asking that she send him the completed
pieces. The idea that she may have contributed to some works is thus not
inconceivable. Indeed, the existence of such interpolations in the manuscripts
could well be evidence that, at the very least, many of Mozart's works
were the product of familial collaboration that have thus far failed to
be acknowledged as such. Such a concept is by no means as foreign to Mozart
scholarship as might generally be supposed. Musicologists have already
discovered that in his later Vienna years, Mozart drew on the help of his
pupil, Süssmayr, in the composition of certain works. For example,
it was Süssmayr who composed the secco recitatives of La Clemenza
di Tito -the opera commissioned for the coronation of Leopold II - and
we are told that Mozart was so pressed for time that both he and Süssmayr
worked in the coach en route to the ceremony. The other famous work from
this time, the Requiem K.626, owes even more to Süssmayr. Left incomplete
at his death, Mozart had composed only fragmentary sketches for the Offertorium
and part of the Dies Irae, the only movement to be fully scored being the
Introitus; the Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei and Lux aeterna were later
completed by Süssmayr at the request of Mozart's wife, Constanze,
who was keen to collect the commission for the work, and, as John Roselli
rightly points out, "the work as a whole ought to be known as 'by
Mozart and Süssmayr'" (1998: 159).
-
- The documented changes in Mozart's handwriting throw
a further shadow over the authenticity of his works. Careful study of the
autographs from the period 1770-1780 in particular has revealed clearly
discernable changes in Mozart's script that have largely been accepted
as legitimate developmental changes, even though it has been acknowledged
that "these changes do not occur simultaneously or with rigorous consistency",
and that they sometimes occurred quite suddenly. For instance, notational
symbols that appeared fairly consistently throughout 1769 changed considerably
in the following year, and, interestingly enough, with the autograph for
the Litany K.125 from 1772 (a piece whose authenticity is questionable),
it changed once again (Eisen 1991: 173). Could it be that the numerous
changes and inconsistencies in Mozart's handwriting over his lifetime were
the result of many hands masquerading as one? Further to the undeniable
affinities with the music of his father, if one also considers the extent
to which other composers' compositions found their way into Mozart's works,
the answer becomes a resounding 'yes'.
-
- From the many discussions and analyses of his music,
it becomes apparent that Mozart was remarkably susceptible to the influence
of other composers, in spite of his self-righteous confidence in his own
abilities, and his habit of making disparaging remarks about his contemporaries
frequently and often. These 'influences' were numerous and varied, and
have given rise to observations of Mozart's 'indebtedness' to this or that
work or composer in a considerable number of his compositions. Many features
of his symphonic writing can be thus accounted for, such as the presentation
of themes in reverse order in the recapitulation (found in many opening
movements by Johann Stamitz), the inversion of sixths into thirds and vice
versa and an abundance of trills in the opening theme (typical of Wagenseil),
and finales that burst forth with orchestral brilliance that is quickly
over (another Wagenseilian trait). Amongst his keyboard juvenilia, scholars
have contended various borrowings or imitations from Carl Philip Emmanuel
Bach, Johann Gottfried Eckard and Johann Christian Bach - all of whom were
accomplished keyboard players and composers of their day - and his early
sacred works were similarly derivative, if not more so. Besides his father,
the two main composers whose music Mozart drew from during the Salzburg
years were Johann Ernst Eberlin and Michael Haydn, both of whom were in
the employ of the Archbishop of Salzburg. Eberlin, the older of the two
and the "earliest Salzburg Kapellmeister whom Mozart could have known
personally and the first in whose music he took any interest" (Humphreys
1991: 86), was a seminal figure in the city's musical transition from Baroque
to Rococo style. It is known that Mozart copied out much of Eberlin's sacred
music, extant copies of which have previously led to false attributions
to Mozart himself (Humphreys 1991: 86), though why he did so has less satisfactorily
been addressed. It has largely been assumed that he did so for purposes
of study, an explanation that could be contrived as plausible given the
time frame concerned. Yet, beyond the context of formative development
the credibility of such an explanation falters badly, and the fact that
Mozart continued to copy out the music of other composers throughout his
career renders the motive behind the practice suspect. Mozart made transcriptions
of several of J.S. Bach's keyboard fugues and reorchestrated a number of
vocal works by Handel after coming into contact with their music in the
1780s. It should be noted that both Bach and Handel were "little-known
in Vienna at the time" (Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 221), making it highly
likely that, after such minor tweaking, Mozart intended to pass these works
off as his own, and it is only by virtue of his reputation today and the
high profiles of both Bach and Handel that his actions have not aroused
suspicion. At the most, it has been recognized that his music became more
contrapuntal after his exposure to these Baroque masters. In these Vienna
years, Mozart also copied out church works by the prominent Viennese musician
Georg Reutter the younger (1708-1772) (Humphreys 1991: 84), and requests
for copies of works by other of his contemporaries appear often in his
correspondence to his father and sister, among them, requests for copies
of music by Michael Haydn.
-
- It has been noted that upon returning to Salzburg in
1769, Mozart became "increasingly receptive to the music of Michael
Haydn" (Heartz 1995: 538), and that even after his move to Vienna
in 1781, he "showed consistent interest" in the latter's church
music (Stone 1991: 153). It thus comes as no surprise that Haydn's "strong
influence" is conspicuous in many of Mozart 's Salzburg works, such
as his Te Deum K.141 (66b) and the Offertory Sub tuum praesidium, "which
is closely related to Haydn's Offertory in Honour of the Most Blessed Virgin"
(Humphreys 1991: 86). When, in February 1773, Haydn completed his Notturno
in C for string quintet with two violas, Mozart followed suit by writing
his Quintet in Bb K.174 for the same combination a short time afterward.
In Haydn's subsequent Notturno in G, again with two violas and dated 1
December 1773, it has been said that certain passages "could easily
pass for Mozart" (Heartz 1995:540), but it is an observation that
is surely more accurate the other way round given the direction of influence:
that in striving to imitate and emulate his contemporary, Mozart thus sounded
like Haydn. Haydn's Symphony in G, composed in May 1783, is a case in point.
It has been ascertained that early in 1784, after returning to Vienna from
Salzburg with the scores for Haydn's Symphony no. 17 in Eb and Symphony
in G in hand, Mozart added a slow introduction to the later, and, consequently,
the "entire work long passed as Mozart's Symphony no. 37" (Heartz
1995: 543). Certainly, the mimicry in Mozart's subsequent compositions
underlines a level of dependence unbefitting of creative genius. His Serenade
in Eb for winds, K.375, contains a precadential passage in the first movement
"that duplicates Haydn's gesture for gesture" (Heartz 1995: 540),
whilst the similarities between Haydn's Requiem for the Archbishop von
Schrattenbach, composed in 1771, and Mozart's own Requiem K.626, composed
some 20 years later, have long been recognized. Indeed, further to the
material borrowed from Haydn, the Mozart work also bears the stamp of Florian
Gassmann (another prominent Viennese church composer) in the Kyrie, which
betrays "strong thematic links" with Gassmann's own Kyrie from
his Requiem left incomplete at his death in 1774 (Humphreys 1991: 84).
Further to such appropriations between similar types of works, Mozart also
utilized borrowed material across the genres. The main thematic idea of
the overture to La Clemenza di Tito (1791) has close associations with
the Gloria of Michael Haydn's Missa sancti Hieronymi, and we know that
when Mozart was composing the C minor Mass (1783) he asked his father to
send him "'some of [Michael] Haydn's fugues'" (Humphreys 1991:
86). Mozart's Symphony in D K.84 provides an earlier example, the opening
of which bears a striking resemblance to the overture of Jommelli's opera
Armida abbandonata, the premiere of which Mozart had attended in 1770.
-
- In turning to opera, a genre in which Mozart supposedly
produced some of his greatest masterpieces, this pattern of derivation
continues. In addition to the overture's echo of Haydn's Missa sancti Hieronymi
and the previously mentioned contribution of Süssmayr, in the choruses
of La Clemenza di Tito one can hear similarities with the majestic choruses
of Gluck's Alceste (1767), and in "the demonic violence of the second-act
finale of Don Giovanni" (1787) resounds the music for the furies from
Gluck's Don Juan and Orfeo (first performed in 1761 and 1762 respectively)
(Rice 1989: 133). The Marriage of Figaro, composed in 1786 "with a
nudge from Paisiello's The Barber of Seville and King Theodore in Venice"
was similarly obliged, both of Paisiello's operas having been performed
in Vienna in the previous three years to great acclaim (Roselli 1998: 90).
Unlike their predecessors, however, neither Don Giovanni nor Figaro were
a success with Viennese audiences. What becomes increasingly clear is that
Mozart exploited a myriad of sources in creating his body of works, but
the most prominent of these, and also the most commonly cited and discussed,
was Franz Josef Haydn, Michael Haydn's elder brother.
-
- Haydn's 'influence' on Mozart has been well documented
and established. Yet, what is curious is that nothing more has been made
of Mozart's overt and habitual imitation of the older master's works other
than to say that Mozart admired and respected him. So frequently did Mozart
express his 'admiration' , and such was the degree of closeness between
his works and Haydn's, both musically and chronologically, that one must
wonder if Haydn was more annoyed and frustrated than flattered by these
events, and if Mozart's intentions were other than virtuous. A closer look
at some of Mozart's symphonies and chamber music over the course of his
career reveal the nature of this copying.
-
- As an example from his formative years there is the Symphony
no. 15 in G (K.124), written after his trip to Milan and dated February
1772. The first movement, Allegro, begins in 3/4, but after only twelve
bars appears to shift into 6/8 for the appearance of the second theme.
Heartz notes that "It is highly unusual for Mozart to make the modulation
so quickly", and further observes "something else unusual about
this second theme besides its metrical quirks. It resembles in several
particulars the opening of Joseph Haydn's brilliant Symphony No. 28 in
A, dated 1765" (1995: 558). Known for his intellectual and witty humour
(a quality that was to come to the fore in his later works, particularly
the op. 33 string quartets), Haydn's Symphony begins with a musical joke
encapsulated by confusion over the metre that is both surprising and refreshing.
Mozart's imitation of this opening was clearly deliberate, and, as Heartz
further contends, "The passages are too close to be explained by coincidence
or fortuity" (1995: 558).
-
- Subsequently, Mozart composed his first symphony in a
minor key, the Symphony no.25 in g K.183 (1773), only after Haydn's succession
of minor-key symphonies in the late 1760s and early 1770s. The first movement
of Mozart's symphony, Allegro con brio, begins with a first subject consisting
of four semibreves, G D Eb F#, played by the oboes and the violins in syncopation
with the bass. It has been noted that "The use of this kind of 'pound-note'
subject is certainly central to Haydn's minor-mode works of the late 1760s
and early 1770s" (Heartz 1995: 571). Mozart then follows this subject
with a repeated turn figure, and again we note that "the figure itself
occurs twice as a climactic shudder at the very end of Haydn's Symphony
No. 52 in c. Mozart ends his first group with V of g, then plunges without
further ado into the relative major for the second. So does Haydn in both
outer movements of his Symphony No. 39 in g (which uses four horns, similarly
disposed)" (Heartz 1995: 571). But the similarities do not end there.
Mozart affirms the new key of Bb major by canonic imitation between violins
I and II, and continues this canonic discourse into the development section,
something found time and again in the works of Haydn, who was fond of utilizing
canonic dialogue in his development sections throughout his life (Heartz
1995: 571). Then, in the Symphony's third and fourth movements, a Menuetto
and Allegro finale respectively, Mozart breaks with tonal convention by
setting the Menuetto in a minor key and the trio in the major to provide
temporary release, whilst the finale ends in g minor. However this key
structure was not of Mozart's invention. The use of a minor key for the
last two movements of a symphony "was virtually non-existent in the
mid-eighteenth century", but it was a practice that Haydn employed
in his minor-key symphonies of the 1760s and 1770s, right down to the setting
of the trio in a major key for momentary contrast. The similarity has prompted
Heartz to question, "Would Mozart have created such a serious work
in the minor mode were it not for Haydn's similar works? Probably not"
(1995: 572). Many have also heard Haydn in the second and third movements
of Mozart's Symphony no.30 in D, written shortly after the g minor Symphony,
and have rightly acknowledged that the apparent development in Mozart's
symphonic writing during the early 1770s undoubtedly stemmed from "his
indebtedness to Haydn" (Heartz 1995: 576).
-
- Mozart's last three symphonies, written in 1788 and widely
considered to be the crowning achievement of his symphonic output, also
denoted a new departure in his style. But it was a departure that was once
again instigated from without. Their correspondence with Haydn's 'Paris'
Symphonies nos. 82-87 published the previous year, far from being coincidental,
clearly indicates that the creative impulse behind these works was, once
again, not Mozart's own. The case of the Agnus Dei from Mozart's Mass K.337,
the ending of which is quite unlike any he had previously written, can
be similarly accounted for by the fact that it sounds remarkably like the
ending of Haydn's Missa St. Joannis de Deo (c.1775) (Heartz 1995: 669).
Haydn's Symphonies nos. 82-84 were in Eb major, g minor and C major - Mozart
adopted the same key scheme for his Symphony no. 39 K.543, Symphony no.
40 K.550 and Symphony no. 41 K.551 (the 'Jupiter') respectively. The correspondence
between Haydn's Symphony no. 82 ('L'ours') and the 'Jupiter' is most apparent
in the scoring, both using trumpets and timpani in the tradition of symphonies
written in C major. However, in the other two symphonies the similarities
are more than superficial. The second movement of the Symphony no. 40 resembles
that of Haydn's Symphony no. 83 ('La poule') in many respects: "E
flat major, andante, piano dynamic, string scoring (later supported by
horns in the Mozart), repeated tonic notes to open the theme and gently
emphasized discords (including supertonic seventh in bar 3 in Haydn, bar
2 in Mozart)" (Landon and Jones 1988: 226). Regarding the Eb major
Symphonies, both begin with a slow introduction and include a minuet third
movement with "exaggeratedly regular phrasing patterns". In the
Mozart, the music following the slow introduction also reflects Haydn's
Symphony no. 85 in its dotted note figuration, metre and mood, whilst the
finale to the work is overtly Haydnesque. It is no small wonder that scholars
have looked at Mozart's symphonic works from the 1780s and conceded that,
"In general, Mozart's music absorbed some of the argumentative features
of Haydn's style, obviously evident in Mozart's increasing interest in
monothematic sonata form in the second half of the decade" (Landon
and Jones 1988: 226).
-
- The same derivative pattern is to be found in Mozart's
chamber music, in particular, in his attempts in the string quartet genre.
In 1771 and 1772, Haydn published two sets of string quartets, his op.
9 and op. 17 respectively. Each set comprised six quartets, each in different
keys and with four movements, the third movements being minuets and trios,
with one movement in the minor mode and another a theme and variations.
Within two months of their publication, Mozart wrote his own set of string
quartets that followed this same scheme in every particular. He further
drew on Haydn 's most recent quartets composed in 1772 (and subsequently
published as op. 20) by similarly including fugal finales in the first
and last of his quartets. Even more audaciously, in his Quartet in F major
K.168, Mozart took the fugal theme from the finale of Haydn's Quartet in
f minor op. 20, changed the metre and gave it canonical treatment, and
used it for the second movement of his own work, which he also set in f
minor. Unlike Haydn' s quartets, however, Mozart's failed to bring him
acclaim and were not published (Heartz 1995: 564).
-
- When Mozart again attempted a series of string quartets
in the early-to-mid-1780s he modelled them on Haydn's newly published op.
33 string quartets from 1781. This time, however, he openly acknowledged
the source of his material by dedicating them to the older composer, also
noting that their composition had been difficult and lengthy for him. Consequently
known as the 'Haydn' string quartets, their similarities with Haydn's op.
33 quartets have been widely commented on, "not only in terms of incidental
thematic similarities, but also in the equal importance of the four instruments,
the contrapuntal finales of K.387 and K.464, and in detailed motivic relationships
within and between movements" (Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 223).
-
- Mozart's last two string quintets K.593 (1790) and K.614
(1791) have likewise been described as "amongst the most Haydnesque
music [he] ever wrote". Many of their features can easily be identified
with Haydn's style: the use of a slow introduction, monothematicism, the
inclusion of a movement in 6/8 metre, intricate thematic development and
motivic construction (which is highly uncharacteristic of Mozart), a rondo
movement, and a cantabile slow movement. Moreover, Mozart's quintets betray
"telling thematic resemblances" with Haydn's Quartets in D and
Eb major and certain other of his works (Landon and Jones 1988: 227). The
quintet K.614 is truly a pastiche. Its opening movement, which one writer
labelled "'a bad arrangement of a wind piece in mock-Haydn style'"
(Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 230), is highly and unusually motivic, the slow second
movement evokes the corresponding movement of Haydn's Symphony no. 85,
the Trio of the third movement shows the influence of the Trio from Haydn's
Symphony no. 88, and the rondo finale recalls the corresponding movement
in Haydn's Quartet op. 64 no. 6. The theme of the quintet K.593 resembles
that from Haydn's Quartet op. 64 no. 5 ('The Lark') (Cavett-Dunsby 1991:
230; Landon and Jones 1988: 227). Some commentators have called K.593 and
K.614 Mozart's final tribute to Haydn, but to do so wrongfully validates
his unimaginative and shallow imitation. Indeed, Mozart's inclusion of
a dedication to Haydn on a single occasion (in his 'Haydn' string quartets)
does not vindicate or convincingly explain his earlier or subsequent appropriations,
nor is it proof of a life-long admiration for the composer as many have
surmised. If one subscribes to that line of reasoning that equates borrowing
with admiration, one would then logically have to conclude that Mozart
admired many different composers over his lifetime - a notion that does
not resonate with what is known about his character and disposition. In
fact, his history of multifarious borrowings is in itself unequivocally
indicative of a lack of originality and true creativity. Even allowing
for a degree of influence from predecessors and contemporaries that is
inevitable in any compositional process, the amount of overt imitation
in Mozart's music is considerable, one might even say excessive, to the
extent that it reveals a clear pattern that cannot be ignored: upon being
exposed to a new work or group of works by another composer, Mozart's next
compositions, written shortly after his exposure, betrayed thematic, harmonic,
motivic and/or rhythmic similarities with, or borrowings from, these predecessors.
This is not the practice of a talented composer endowed with musical genius,
especially as Mozart did not, in the majority of cases, use these 'influences'
as a springboard to create his own individual expression. To emulate or
borrow from the music of another composer once, even twice or three times,
might be considered an homage, but to do so repeatedly, not just from one
but from many different composers, cannot be considered anything but plagiarism,
and in plagiarizing from Haydn, Mozart knew he was taking from the very
best the musical world had to offer at that time.
-
- As such, Mozart's competence as a composer is necessarily
disputable, and one is forced to question the quality of his output. It
has been observed that Mozart's church music of the Salzburg period "is
full of internal contradictions", and that much of it "appears
to juxtapose the serious and the deeply felt with the flippant and the
superficial". This incongruity has been attributed to Mozart's antipathy
towards his employer, the archbishop Colloredo, and his "ambivalence
toward Church dogma", which supposedly manifested itself in an inconsistent
and eclectic output motivated by retaliation. It has been argued that Mozart
"quite often allows the effect of a work to be marred in one way or
another, almost as though he cannot resist the impulse to mock his employer,
even though it may mean spoiling his own creation". Yet, the explanation
does not ring true for many reasons. A true artist would not intentionally
and repeatedly ruin his work for the sake of getting back at someone -
to do so would be incredibly childish and stupid, not to mention unpropitious,
especially if, as in Mozart's case, the security of his post was dependent
upon him providing suitable and acceptable music that satisfactorily fulfilled
the stipulated requirements. Moreover, given that Colloredo was the only
one willing to employ him, regardless of his feelings towards the archbishop,
Mozart simply did not have the luxury to indulge in antics of this sort,
and, indeed, the contradictions in his music are rather better explained
by the adage, "Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained
by incompetence". Certainly there were those amongst his contemporaries
and subsequent generations who viewed Mozart as incompetent, and various
other instances in his works and career that strongly suggest the same.
From the beginning, a discerning critic wrote "that his compositions
showed such 'early fruit' to be 'more extraordinary than excellent'"
(Roselli 1998: 16), and this notion of mediocrity was one that would continue
to resurface throughout his life. Upon hearing his quartet K.465, Mozart's
contemporary, Giuseppe Sarti, concluded that Mozart lacked compositional
skill, and modern-day critics have noted the incongruity within the work
as a whole (Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 223). Mozart's apparent inability to develop
his thematic material was probably symptomatic of this lack of skill. His
treatment of sonata form, characterized by short development sections that
are typically devoid of any real development or working out of the material,
but are rather brief periods of tonal instability that merely serve to
separate the outer two sections, is a case in point. By comparison, the
best composers of the period were experimenting with thematic manipulation
and development of ideas, something that would be more fully realized in
the Romantic period.
-
- Mozart's music for the Freemasons has also come under
scrutiny for being lack-lustre and ordinary, and various scholars have
conceded that "these compositions, 'all but one, never rise above
a middling artistic level'; some are 'banal'. 'Four-square' and 'routine'
also fit these songs, duos and cantatas; some of the choruses (male only,
of course) evoke a German glee club" (Roselli 1998: 116). To justify
their mediocrity by arguing that the recipients of such music had little
or no musical inclination is to not only ignore the fact that many members
of the Freemasons were professional musicians, or at least musically cultured,
but an attempt to dismiss Mozart' s failure to produce music correspondent
with his posthumous reputation. Even in such a work as Ein musikalischer
Spass, with its allegedly deliberate musical ineptitude, the parody is
neither subtle, intelligent nor witty (as in Haydn), but is crude and clumsy,
with "unusual bar lengths and tedious strumming on tonic and dominate
. instrumental entries which seem to come in too soon or too late, and
conspicuous lack of motivic development" (Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 224).
It is the kind of parody to be expected from a musical simpleton, and a
work that Einstein called "a negative 'key' to Mozart's whole aesthetic"
(Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 224). "The danger, as Jahn has observed, is that
'it is only by context that we can be assured that no actual mistake has
happened, and that the composer does not deserve to be hissed at on his
own account'" (Cavett-Dunsby 1991: 225). Otto Jahn was one of the
first important Mozart scholars, and the conditional nature of his observation
is important. What if the incompetence exhibited was not entirely intentional,
but only partially so, concealed by the nature of the context?
-
- Various aspects concerning the composition of Abduction
from the Seraglio seem to indicate that incompetence on Mozart's part had
a hand in shaping the final product, and the curiosities noted in John
Roselli's account certainly begin to make sense with this in mind. The
opera's librettist was Johann Gottlieb Stephanie, and, on more than one
occasion, Mozart demanded that Stephanie rewrite the libretto to accommodate
music which he had already composed, a demand which it was Stephanie's
prerogative to refuse, and one which should not have been necessary for
someone of Mozart's reputed ability. Roselli states that, "It was
almost certainly [Mozart] who demanded a lavish quartet as the new Act
2 finale; the quartet, marvellous in itself, put in the shade the climax
of the story in Act 3 - the failed abduction itself, now reduced to speech"
(1998: 87). That Mozart should have composed the music first without apparent
consideration for the words is strange, especially given that the words
are what define the plot, and the plot is the central feature of an opera
- without it, there can be no opera. Moreover, the fact that Mozart's quartet
diminished and overshadowed the climax is an absurd and critical error,
which shows in no uncertain terms not only an utter lack of appreciation
for the dynamics of the story, but also that he lacked the ability to bring
forth that story in an effective musical sense - a shortcoming already
observed in La finta giardiniera. One can only surmise that Mozart adopted
this practice because he could not compose to suit the libretto, and perhaps
even had to procure parts of the music from other sources. Aside from arrogance,
it offers the most likely explanation for his subsequently unreasonable
and inappropriate interactions with his librettists. A case in point: following
Seraglio, he commenced on another opera with Varesco, to which Mozart demanded,
"if the opera was to succeed Varesco 'must alter or recast the libretto
as much and as often as I wish'". As it turned out, however, Mozart
eventually gave up on the work (Roselli 1998: 89). In terms of Seraglio's
arias, Mozart composed a coloratura aria ('Martern aller Arten') for the
heroine, Konstanze, in quick succession to her aria of sorrow, and prefaced
it with a ritornello 60 measures in length, during which time "she
and her captor (who has just threatened her with torture) have to stand
glaring at one another" - inducing an unnecessary and ill-timed suspension
of the drama. Whilst Roselli states that the reason behind this may have
been to accommodate the singer, he further contends "A more fundamental
reason for his writing 'too many notes' in 'Martern aller Arten' and elsewhere
was sheer delight in the orchestra", and that "In Seraglio music-making
at times got out of hand" (1998: 87). It could otherwise be argued
that a true artistic talent would have shown greater sensitivity to the
other components of the opera and behaved more responsibly, and that it
was incompetence rather than zeal which produced the work's shortcomings.
-
- Mozart's attempt to compose for Der Schauspieldirektor
(The Impresario) in 1786, to another libretto by Stephanie, is yet another
telling incident. The opera was to be presented at court together with
one by Salieri, the plot of which similarly involved rivalries amongst
operatic artists. But, where Salieri was able to deliver a successful score,
"All Mozart could get out of his was a sparkling overture, two mock-display
arias, and a brisk little trio" (Roselli 1998: 89). It has been postulated
that Mozart had the poorer libretto to work with, but his failure was more
likely a reflection of the disparity between himself and Salieri, the latter
being an accomplished composer, even by modern standards, who was much
more successful.
-
- Then, in his penultimate year, Mozart composed an opera
that surpassed the level of disfavour with which Don Giovanni and Figaro
were received, and which, with its middling musical score, was accepted
"as a routine comic opera" and nothing more - Cosi fan tutte
(1790) (Roselli 1998: 98). Criticized for being degrading to women, censure
and derision of the opera from both musicians and the public continued
well into the nineteenth century, as did the poor opinion of the music;
Wagner himself considered it no better than mediocre (Roselli 1998: 99).
Only in recent times have attempts been made to revive it.
-
- Thus, far from being a compositional genius and creative
force, one is left with the undeniable impression of Mozart as rather a
master of appropriation and imitation, and a musical hack, who was guilty
of fraud and deception. The doubtful might well ask if Mozart was indeed
capable of this, and if it was even in keeping with his character, and
the answer to this is most definitely 'yes'.
-
- Mozart's boorish and vulgar nature is a little-known
fact amongst the public at large, and one that is seldom publicized or
mentioned even within musical circles. It was this crude demeanour that
Milos Forman aptly captured in the film, Amadeus, though, judging by all
accounts, his portrayal of the composer was a somewhat watered-down version
of his real personality. Mozart 's correspondence, littered with obscenities,
well testifies to this fact, and it has been noted that not until he was
24 years of age did he even manage to write "for the first time. his
favourite 'little cousin' ('Bäsle') Maria Thekla Mozart a letter that
was not a cascade of nonsense language ferrying obscenities and innuendos,
must of them cloacal" (Roselli 1998: 23). However, Mozart's questionable
character extends beyond him simply being a lout. There is ample evidence
that he was morally corrupt, untruthful, lazy, unreliable, irresponsible,
arrogant and a generally unsavoury person.
-
- Mozart was not always truthful in his letters to friends
and family, and it is known that on more than one occasion he deliberately
misled his own father about his activities and lied about how many works
he had composed to conceal his idleness. Leopold frequently had need to
reproach his son on various counts throughout his life, including Mozart's
negligence and thoughtlessness, and whilst his remonstrances have in the
past garnered negative criticism, it has now been acknowledged that "There
is evidence that . Leopold was right" and fully justified in his treatment
of his son. In many of his letters, Leopold repeatedly had to urge his
son to make the effort to secure employment, instead of whiling away his
time on pleasure and frivolous pursuits. After his tour to Munich in 1777,
it had been decided that Mozart should go on to Paris where the opportunities
were probably greater, but, instead, Mozart informed his father that he
was going to follow the Weber family in pursuit of their daughter Aloysia,
who neither cared for him and was otherwise engaged. Leopold warned him
about their financial straits and the need to be hard working, and in response
Mozart penned a thoughtless letter, "Half of it nonsense greetings
to the whole alphabet" (Roselli 1998: 31). Then, in a subsequent letter
to his father, Mozart back-pedalled, stating that he had never intended
to follow the Webers, and eventually did go to Paris. However, "There
he failed. His failure was professional and social". Quite simply,
Mozart refused to do what was required to find a post. There was apparently
some talk of a possible position as court organist at Versailles, but such
was his arrogance and sense of self-importance that "he would have
none of it: he must be court composer or nothing" (Roselli 1998: 33,34).
In Paris, Mozart was reliant upon the hospitality of an old patron of the
family, Baron Melchior Grimm, who provided him with house and board. He
too disapproved of Mozart's conduct, and, when Mozart began to quarrel
frequently with him, effectively "bundled him out of Paris".
This was upsetting, but certainly not surprising, to Leopold, who was well
aware of his son's flaws. In 1782 he wrote that his son was "far too
patient, or rather easygoing, too indolent, perhaps even too proud, in
short, that he is the sum total of all those traits which render a man
inactive", and that "if he is not actually in want . becomes
indolent and lazy" (Roselli 1998: 28,29).
-
- After the Paris failure Mozart was to return to Salzburg,
where his duties in service of the archbishop awaited him. But, against
his father's wishes once more, Mozart went to Nancy, Strasbourg and then
to Mannheim, in the hopes of running into the Webers (who had by then already
left). Leopold was furious, and with good reason. He had had to finance
all of Mozart's tours, and, instead of gainfully applying himself, "His
son was driving him further into debt while building 'castles in the air'"
(Roselli 1998: 35). Mozart claimed to love his father, yet time and again
let him down and failed in his duties as a son, promising to support him
and send money (as was done in those days), but never in fact doing so;
nor did he recognize that he owed his early touring successes to his father's
"careful planning and painstaking arrangements", or care about
the strain he was now placing him under (Steptoe 1991: 106).
-
- For his part, Leopold tried on numerous occasions to
secure a good post for his son, but to no avail - no one would have him.
Despite such dismal prospects, Mozart was neither grateful for his Salzburg
employment nor diligent in carrying out his duties there. The loaded remarks
found in Michael Haydn's Salzburg contract hint at the extent of Mozart's
negligence: "Michael's duties were to be the same as 'young Mozart's',
'with the additional stipulation that he show more diligence, instruct
the chapel [choir] boys [in keyboard playing], and compose more often for
our cathedral and church music'", instructions which Mozart had failed
to comply with (Roselli 1998: 40). In 1775, Mozart arrogantly requested
his discharge from the service of the archbishop "with a reference
to the parable of the talents in the Gospel: it would not do to leave his
talents hidden", and to which the archbishop replied, "'Father
and son herewith granted permission to seek their fortune according to
the Gospel'" (Roselli 1998: 45). Fortunately, Leopold was able to
save his own position, and even subsequently managed to get Mozart reinstated
for after the above-mentioned Paris tour, showing, as Roselli contends,
that the archbishop was not a vengeful man, and that Leopold was dedicated
to helping his son. Yet, as has been seen, Mozart clearly did not appreciate
his father's efforts or the archbishop's generosity, choosing instead to
blow it off in favour of chasing after Aloysia Weber, and, after eventually
returning to Salzburg, showing that he was nothing but ungrateful. He frequently
complained about not being able to reach his full potential in Salzburg's
poor musical climate, a criticism which, like so many other things he wrote,
was not only exaggerated but untrue (Roselli 1998: 80), and insisted that
his duties were holding him back from achieving greater success elsewhere.
He also frequently insulted his colleagues and showed nothing but contempt
and disrespect for the archbishop in letters that he surely knew would
be checked. What is clear is that Mozart had no respect for the conventions
of the time concerning the place and duties of a musician, conventions
that all composers of the day, including Haydn, did abide by. It was only
a matter of time before this kind of inexcusable behaviour would no longer
be tolerated by the archbishop. That time came in 1781.
-
- In March 1781, the archbishop took Mozart with him to
Vienna, during which time Mozart became further disgruntled at being seated
"below the personal valets and above the cooks" (Roselli 1998:
46). When it was time for them to leave, Mozart moved to the Webers (who
happened to be in Vienna) and refused to return to Salzburg. He questioned,
"Was he to give up all this [i.e. the prospect of being in Vienna]
'for the sake of a malevolent prince who plagues me everyday and only pays
me a lousy salary'"? (Roselli 1998: 46). Yet, it should be remembered
that this "malevolent prince" was the only one in the whole of
Europe who would employ him, and who had seen fit to take him back once
before, and whose "lousy salary" had sustained him for many years.
The archbishop consequently fired Mozart, calling him a "'rascal'"
and "'dissolute fellow'", and Mozart remained in Vienna, completely
unconcerned that his behaviour may have jeopardized his father's employment
as well.
-
- Now left to his own devices, Mozart tried to secure a
permanent position in Vienna. But, true to form, failed to do so. It is
clear that he was widely viewed as a liability rather than an asset - someone
who was unable to act with decorum or perform his duties properly. The
Empress Maria Theresa had called him "useless", and had warned
her son off people like him, saying, "'If they are in your service
it degrades that service when these people go about the world like beggars'"
(Roselli 1998: 39), sentiments which Colloredo had also expressed. Mozart
dealt with his continual failure by casting blame on others and complaining
of not being appreciated. Yet the idea that Mozart was perpetually hard
done by at every turn (which only arises from the reputation he holds today),
wears thin, and begs the question of whether in fact his treatment was
well deserved, which, it becomes increasingly evident, it was. The disparity
between his own expectations and self-image and the reality of the situation
suggests that he was both arrogant and deluded. His international aspirations
and desire for fame clearly indicate that he was not really interested
in composition, but rather hungered for wealth and prestige, and was resentful
when he did not get it. His resentment towards the aristocracy was not
borne of any sense of injustice at class distinction per se, but a sense
of injustice at not being one of them. It really was a case of sour grapes,
because, as was widely known, he had expensive tastes and frequently aspired
to their level and affluence, but failed. His joining the Freemasons in
1784 was very much motivated by the chance to interact on equal footing
with some of Vienna's leading aristocracy and most influential officials,
rather than any lofty ideals. It has been acknowledged that he certainly
did not share any of their esoteric interests and was not a spiritual man.
His "Zoroastrian riddles", written in 1786, are "not so
much arcane as bawdy; .. The riddles confirm Mozart's delight in . obscene
jokes" and "what is certain is that they do not show Mozart delving
into the occult" (Roselli 1998: 113).
-
- What is more, he apparently did not hold to any spiritual
or moral values. His father suspected and feared that he was a womaniser
who had compromised innocent girls, including his young cousin, to which
Mozart defensively replied, "'If I had to marry all those with whom
I have jested I should have two hundred wives at least'". The comment,
Roselli notes, was "to deny - perhaps untruthfully - any serious entanglement
with Constanze Weber" (Aloysia's sister) (1998:61), whom he was eventually
obliged to marry, and whom, evidence suggests, he was subsequently unfaithful
to.
-
- Besides his infidelity, Mozart also gambled, and it was
this vice which undoubtedly put him into debt, explaining his "sudden,
repeated borrowings of amounts large and small" (Roselli 1998: 72).
It has been calculated that "though Mozart's estimated income would
not have brought wealth, it should have been enough to support him and
his family in some style and leave him reasonably free from care. Nevertheless
- the earliest evidence dates from February 1783, six months after [his]
wedding - Mozart frequently borrowed money, often in a hurry and pleading
urgent need" (Roselli 1998: 71), and his records show that he had
"outstanding debts and heavy expenditure" beyond everyday living
expenses (Roselli 1998: 71).
-
- This financial circumstance has caused doubts to be raised
over the truthfulness of Mozart's reports about his tours to his father,
and whether the accounts of his earnings "masked his gambling losses".
Many have acknowledged that Mozart "was apparently willing to misstate
his earnings" to suit his purposes, both to family and friends. His
attempt to borrow money in December 1789 is a commonly cited example: "he
told his friend and long-suffering creditor Michael Puchberg, from whom
he urgently wished to borrow 400 florins, that he would soon collect a
fee for Cosi fan tutte of 900 florins, but the imperial accounts show only
a payment of the standard fee for an opera of 450 florins" - clearly,
"Mozart, in a tight corner, lied to his friend" (Roselli 1998:
72).
-
- Given this and other misdemeanours, and his obvious dissolute
character, it is not surprising that eyewitnesses and early biographers
"talked of Mozart' s 'weaknesses', 'human failings', 'hazardous' contacts,
and 'debaucheries'", words with serious implications both then and
now. What we are faced with is a man who was lewd and behaved like an imbecile,
who frequently lied, who lacked any sense of morality or moral responsibility,
who practiced deceit, and who was ambitious, but lacked any real or exceptional
talent. It is inexplicable that such a person could be capable of writing
spiritual or uplifting music, or of eloquent and deeply felt expression.
That Mozart was deliberately underhanded in his musical practices indeed
seems certain, and it is patent that what has been called 'indebtedness'
and 'influences' were actually symptoms of his creative poaching and thievery.
Indeed, his habitual practice of copying the works of other composers can
have no other reasonable explanation other than he wished to plagiarize
from them and/or pass them off as his own, which is in fact what happened
in a number of instances. The argument is further strengthened by the fact
that, viewed within the context of his own time, Mozart was, for all intents
and purposes, nothing more than a run-of-the-mill composer who failed to
rise above mediocrity, and whose status reflected as much. How such a composer
could be elevated to greatness and subsequently inducted into the canonic
ranks is the issue that remains to be addressed. The explanation has to
do with the formation of the musical canon itself.
-
- The western musical canon is essentially an Austro-German
musical canon, the invention of which took place over the course of the
nineteenth century, and whose "ideological significance" issued
from its association "with a dominant national culture, perceived
as both specifically German and at the same time representative of universal
values, a paradox well in tune with German classical art and the new philology"
(Samson 1995: 96). Integral to the formation of this canon was music publishing,
the leading firm of which was Breitkopf and Härtel. Beginning in 1850,
Breitkopf began publication of an extended series of collected editions
of the works of major composers that centred almost exclusively on the
Austro-German school. Completed over a 40-year period, it helped to consolidate
the notion of a German musical tradition, and effectively gave "official"
recognition to its chosen composers, bestowing upon them the status of
a "great" composer and the connotations of prestige and value
the title carried with it. Mozart's transition from mediocrity to greatness
was facilitated by his inclusion in this series. Left to deal with his
outstanding debts following his death, Mozart's widow, Constanze, campaigned
and lobbied publishers to buy her husband's autographs, to the extent that,
"within a few years she consolidated Mozart's reputation by selling
many of his works to leading German publishing houses" (Roselli 1998:
158). Among these were Breitkopf and Härtel, who purchased about 40
autographs for their projected collection, the rest of the autographs going
to the publisher Johann Anton André. Mozart's inclusion in the Breitkopf
series cannot be viewed as anything other than ideologically convenient,
and a necessary stylistic bridge between Bach and Handel, and Beethoven
and Schubert for the sake of continuity. His inclusion was nonetheless
fortuitous. As is widely known, the Austro-German canon wielded tremendous
influence throughout Europe, and commentators have remarked on its "practical
and ideological force". It facilitated the promotion of certain composers
and the marginalization of others, whilst "Ideologically it manipulated
an innocent repertory to confirm the social position of a dominant group
in society" (Samson 1995: 96). By inclusion, Mozart automatically
garnered universal approval - and so the myth was born, to be augmented
and coloured by the Romantic ethos. For instance, it has now been acknowledged
that "Mozart as a spontaneous artist who composed music in his head
and wrote it down without a second thought is a romantic fiction"
(Roselli 1998: 42). It is also worth noting that the phraseology that has
been used to describe his music is not grounded in any truth, but rather
belongs to this Romantic vocabulary that has been passed down and repeated
over the centuries with little thought for its validity; in the same breath
critics have widely pronounced that Mozart changed the course of musical
composition, yet was a traditionalist "who took the musical language
of the day as he found it" (Roselli 1998: 4), without realizing the
contradiction and incompatibility of the two statements.
-
- Thus, the connotations of greatness that surround the
name of Mozart stem from a reputation that was created posthumously, and
which was conveniently bolstered by his notoriety as a child prodigy. It
is this wrongful inclusion and elevation into the canonic ranks that has
led to musical talent being erroneously equated with compositional skill
and creative genius - qualities that are neither correlative nor equivalent.
This misconception, and the skewed historical perspective it has spawned
and influenced, represents one of, if not the greatest transgressions in
musical history. It is high time that scholars and Mozartians take off
the rose-coloured glasses and view the facts without reference to an image
or ideal of the composer which is not only illusory but fraudulent, and
give due credit to the real masters of the Classical period.
-
- Works Cited
-
- Cavett-Dunsby, Esther. 1991. "A Conspectus of Mozart's
Music". In The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music.
Ed. H.C. Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson. 206-238.
-
- Eisen, Cliff. 1989. "Salzburg under Church Rule".
In The Classical Era: From the 1740s to the end of the 18th Century. Ed.
Neal Zaslaw. London: Macmillan. 166-185.
-
- -------. 1991. "Sources for Mozart's Life and Works".
In The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music. Ed. H.C.
Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson. 160-191.
-
- -------. 1991. "The Music: Symphonies". In
The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music. Ed. H.C. Robbins
Landon. London: Thames and Hudson. 255-262.
-
- Heartz, Daniel. 1995. Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese
School 1740-1780. New York: Norton.
-
- Humphreys, David. 1991. "The Origins of Mozart's
Style: Sacred". In The Moza rt Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life
and Music. Ed. H.C. Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson. 83-87.
-
- Rice, John A. 1989. "Vienna under Joseph II and
Leopold II". In The Classical Era: From the 1740s to the end of the
18th Century. Ed. Neal Zaslaw. London: Macmillan. 126-165.
-
- Robbins Landon, H.C. "The Music: Doubtful and Spurious".
In The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music. Ed. H.C.
Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson. 351-354.
-
- Robbins Landon, H.C. and David Wyn Jones. 1988. Haydn:
His Life and Music. n.c: Thames and Hudson.
-
- Roselli, John. 1998. The Life of Mozart. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
-
- Samson, Jim. 1995. "Chopin Reception: Theory, History,
Analysis". Musica Iagellonica. 91-114.
-
- Steptoe, Andrew. 1991. "Mozart as an Individual:
Family Background". In The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's
Life and Music. Ed. H.C. Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson.102-103.
-
- -------. 1991. "Mozart's Appearance and Character".
In The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music. Ed. H.C.
Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson.104-107.
-
- Wyn Jones, David. 1991. "The Origins of Mozart's
Style: Instrumental". In The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's
Life and Music. Ed. H.C. Robbins Landon. London: Thames and Hudson. 78-83.
-
- © 2003 Dr. Pei-Gwen South
|
