Klarinet Archive - Posting 000359.txt from 1998/11

From: Note Staff Unlimited <notestaff@-----.ch>
Subj: Re: [kl] Mozart and a "new concerto"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:44:53 -0500

> If you say it is a delightful piece, I accept that. There are many delightful
> pieces that are not by Mozart. One cannot offer as a serious musicological
> argument that "the piece is so good that only Mozart could have composed it."
>
> I do not dispute that the music you refer to is lovely. That is not
> the issue. Anything could have happened but that is also not the
> issue.
>
> What is at issue is this: does there exist any evidence, serious
> scholarly evidence, that links this work to Mozart? And the answer
> to that is "No. There is no evidence."
>
> You cannot offer the fact (undisputed by me) that it is a pretty piece,
> or a lovely piece, or (for that matter) a terrible piece. None of
> this is relevant to who wrote it.
>
> Do you like the concertante, K. 297b? Terrific piece. Almost
> certainly not by Mozart in the form in which we know it. Does that
> make it a bad piece? No. But clarinet players won't let this one
> go either.
>
> The evidence on these works has moved so far forward since the
> Eulenberg scores were issued (most of them in 1920-1930 period) that
> they cannot be used to advance any serious argument.
>
> I am delighted that Klocker has come up with such a nice new work.
> I salute him. But the preponderance of the evidence suggests very
> strongly that he has not come up with a new work of Mozart.
>
> =======================================
> Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
> leeson@-----.edu
> =======================================

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your messages which came in last night after I went to bed (Middle European
Time, you know...) This eve. I just looked thru the messages on this thread and realized
that I'd sort of overlooked the claim in the original message that there was "scholarly
research". So that's why you guys were getting hot about, right?

This claim is puzzling to me and I am entirely sure that Dieter Kloecker himself did not
make it. Please let me quote from his record jacket:

<Let me begin by saying that I would not be so bold as to claim that the present Clarinet
Concerto in E flat major was composed in full in this form by Mozart himself. Nonetheless
I would not exclude the possiblility that large parts of the music derive from him and
from a musician in his immediate circle. One thing is certain: the concerto is a doublet
of the "Violin Concerto No. 6" from Mozarts's lifetime, a work whose origin and existence
the renowned Mozart scholar Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Plath of the new Mozart edition in Augsburg
has termed "ominous.." Perhaps the clarinet version will contribute to the solving of the
riddles connected with it. Perhaps the clarinet version is the original version, which
would hardly be surprising, given its E flat major key and the B flat clarinet. And if
Mozart is not its author, then who was?>

After describing the history of his findings, Kloecker goes on to say the following:

<As someone who is not a scholar, I may enjoy the luxury of an opinion without being able
to marshal the final scholarly proof. Please allow me an assessment a priori--independent
of the question of authenticity: I regard this clarinet concerto .... among the most
beautiful clarinet works of the 18th century, no matter who may have completed,
transcribed, or faked it.> (translation by S.M.Praeder)

>From the above, I think it is clear that Herr Kloecker is not the one claiming on any
"scholarly research". Au contrair, he is merely presenting his findings and delighting in
them whilst leaving the scholarly bit to others.

By the way, during my study time with Dieter, he once said to me with an impish look in
his eyes and a tone of conspiricy in his voice, "The symph. concertant is definitely NOT
by Mozart ... BUT don't you ever dare to tell that to a clarinettist because he/she will
kill you!! "

I'm sorry if I got anybody heated up by my careless oversight of this scurilous claim. I
guess the ball is back to Laroy Borcher who mentioned this claim. Or to HB records who
published it. Who might have written it? In any case, it wasn't Dieter Klöcker!

David
David Glenn
notestaff@-----.ch

-------------------------------------------------------------------------