Klarinet Archive - Posting 000506.txt from 1996/01

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Sinfonie Concertante continued
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:20:01 -0500

Connie Josias comments on the ongoing discussion with respect to the
Sinfonie Concertante. I always like what Connie writes and it has my
constant respect even though we may be in technical disagreement,
which, in this case, we are indeed at opposite ends of the musical pole.

Before discussing Connie's specifics I want to add an interesting
observation that appeared in the doctoral dissertation that had the
subtitle "The Rise and Fall of the Sinfonie Concertante" and that was
later summarized in an article for a musicological journal with that
very title.

The observation was this: once the question of the authenticity of the
work got to be a hot item, the dissertation writer noted that whenever
a review thought the work to be by Mozart (as Connie does), he or she
invariably said that it was a beautiful work. On the other hand,
whenever the reviewer thought the work to be of doubtful authenticity,
he or she invariably said how ugly and unMozartean the work was.

The point of the dissertation was to demonstrate that decisions about
a work's perceived beauty are often influenced by who it is we think
wrote the work. You can find this same phenomenon in the "Jena
Symphony" controversy of 50 years ago. It was a work attributed to
Beethoven, and as long as it was, the reviewers would comment on it's
"Beethovenian character and beauty," etc. But when Robbins Landon
established beyond doubt that it was by Witt, the reviewers then said
that the work "clearly had none of Beethoven's inherent architecture
and structure."

Now, having said that, let's talk specific. Connie says that "Style
departures notwithstanding, it just feels like Mozart... It's hard for me
to imagine anyone else other than Mozart writing something so
perfect."

I would like to suggest that the work in NO WAY feels like Mozart
(and I'll tell you why in a moment), and the work is very, very, very far
from being perfect (and I'll tell you why in a moment). These are not
trivial issues and at least two of them are such that it is inconceivable
for Mozart to have written the composition as it is heard in the
clarinet version.

Example #1: The piece begins with a very long orchestral introduction
in which the standard things are done; i.e., the major themes are
presented, etc. It is a very long introduction, but not so long as to
discount it being by Mozart for this reason alone.

Then the soloists begin to play. So far, everything is normal. This is
the first solo exposition, one of several in which they do their thing.
Now a problem so vast arises that it cannot be dismissed. After
playing for a little while (maybe a dozen measures), the orchestra then
reenters, plays a half cadence on the dominant, and WHAMMO!!, the
soloists start their first solo exposition all over again.

In effect, the piece has the first solo exposition beginning twice. I am
not making this up, nor is it a question of personal preference. It is
a fact: the first solo exposition begins twice.

Nowhere, and at no time during the entire classic period and well into
middle-to-late Romantic did anyone ever write a concerto in which the
soloist or soloists (in the case of a concerto for multiple instruments)
begin their first solo exposition twice, never, no time, nohow.

Except for the sinfonie concertante, which is the only case of this
happening in probably several thousand concerti from the classic and
early romantic periods, there is no other case of this anomaly ever
occurring. For Mozart to make a break with strict classic form by
permitting the soloists to make their first entry twice is absolutely
without precedent and is inconceivable. This egregious error alone
discounts Mozart's involvement.

Notice that I don't say I don't like it, or that it is ugly or beautiful, or
funny, or sad. That is not the issue. The issue is architecture. It is
as if someone presented a statue of a woman with a hoop skirt and
suggested that it came from classic Greece. Such an assertion would
be impossible. If someone unearthed a steel-girdered building under
the sands of the Sahara and then suggested that it was created in the
time of the Pharaohs, the reaction would be complete disbelief. It
could not have happened.

But this concertante does the musical equivalent of both acts and, as
such cannot "feel like Mozart."

I must tell you that I am not by a long shot the first person to have
noticed such anomalies. The great English critic and composer, Tovey
wrote in the 1930s about the Sinfonie Concertante, saying that "the
man who wrote this piece could not compose."

Example #2: Just how perfect is this piece? If one is going to suggest
that this work reaches the perfection exhibited by other Mozart works
(certainly by the 39 authentic Mozart concerti), one should not be able
to find a dozen or so musical, stylistic, and architectural anomalies
that cannot be explained if one presumes that Mozart wrote it.

Once again, I am not speaking of the work being pretty, or even
beautiful, simply consistent with Mozart's standard and lifelong
practices of composing. Let me take the case of the last movement,
the variations.

Nowhere, in any work of Mozart, are there a set of variations like
these. They fairly bristle with warning flags. First is the matter of the
orchestral ritornelli that separate variation from variation: this is the
only composition where such an anomaly arises. Second is the matter
of the absence of repeats in this a:b form. Mozart either insists on
repeats in all of his variations or, in those instances where he does
not, he composes the variation in the form of a:a':b:b'; i.e., he writes
out variations within variations. Look at the sixth movement
variations of the Gran Partitta if you want to see an absolute model
of how he wrote variations. Notice that variations 1 and 2 have
repeats, but variation 3 does not because there he writes a variation
within the variation.

The Sinfonie concertante variations are of a form and architecture
that exists nowhere in the musical world until about 1830 when the
form of variations movements was relaxed.

Once again it is Venus de Milo in a hoop skirt, the Mona Lisa with a
bow tie, and a tenor sax in a Beethoven symphony. It doesn't happen.
It is not "classical". That does not mean that the composition is not
pleasant or even beautiful. Surely not. I find it a pleasant
composition too.

But in the form in which we know the work, it cannot, absolutely,
positively, cannot have been created by Mozart. It does not "feel" like
Mozart for the objective reasons given and it has none of his
"perfection," again for the same reasons. Actually, the only objective
thing that one can say is that it does not have classical form, because
"feeling" like Mozart or exhibiting his "perfection" are terms that are
simply too subjective.

Connie then asks if there is the remotest possibility that Mozart
himself rearranged the original composition? And my answer has to
be an absolute "NO" because it is in this form that all these
architectural problems arise. If anything, the existence of the clarinet
version establishes beyond all doubt that Mozart could NOT have
made that arrangement. It breaks too many rules. It puts bow ties
on Venus de Milo and harem pants on satyrs (who never wore pants
in any case!!).

I have not said anything here or elsewhere that discounts Mozart's
involvement in the work in some way, but I prefer to let the discussion
go on for a while before bring that dog in. I simply could not let
Connie's view go unchallenged here.

In effect, the argument that a work "is too good to be by anyone but
Mozart" is a statement of a person's taste. As such it cannot be
agreed-to or disagreed-with. It is not a statement of fact but is an
opinion about something intensely person; i.e. music. And I have no
arguments with Connie if he finds the work beautiful. I do too. But
that is no reason to conclude it is by Mozart.
====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org