Klarinet Archive - Posting 000082.txt from 2010/04

From: Martin Baxter <martinbaxter1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] K. 622 in G? Part 2
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:03:08 -0400


On 24 Apr 2010, at 16:16, Dan Leeson wrote:

>
> Martin Baxter wrote:
>
>> I don't think that Bear is claiming this as evidence; but surely it is
>> rumours like this that set people on looking for evidence either way. The
>> version of the rumour that I heard was that another person contemporary
>> with Mozart transcribed it with Mozart's agreement, but I don't offer this
>> as evidence either, although it seems more possible than that Mozart did
>> it himself. It seems like the story that Mozart originally intended to
>> use Contrabassoon in the Gran Partita; the appearance of a part marked
>> Contrafagott in Mozart's handwriting would be needed to settle it,
>> although the score of the semi-mythical work by Michael Haydn (?) for 13
>> wind instruments, if it really exists, might suggest that there is some
>> likelihood of Mozart also originally wanting contrafagott also. However,
>> as things are, I think we must agree that "Serenade for 13 wind" is a
>> misnomer. But I cannot consider it actually proven.
>> Martin
>> On 24 Apr 2010, at 04:02, Dan Leeson wrote:
>
> There is no story that "Mozart originally intended to use the Contrabassoon
> in the gran Partitta." It's a fantasy unsupported by any serious evidence.
> The very best that one could suggest along this line is that the first
> edition of the work -- done in 1803 by the Bureau des Arts et d'Idustrie in
> Vienna -- had, on the title page, the words, "Contrabasso ou
> contra-fagotto." And considering the source and circumstances of the first
> edition, it cannot be used to support that instrumentation.
>
> Further there is no likelihood that Mozart directly or indirectly accepted
> such an instrumentation. Directly, he specifies contrabasso in the
> manuscript, and indirectly, the part calls for "pizzicato" and "arco," terms
> that are foreign to the contra bassoon.
>
> Finally this: Mozart never wrote out instrumental parts. He had
> professional copyists doing that, so "the appearance of a part marked
> Contrafagott in Mozart's handwriting would be needed to settle it" is not an
> event that is ever likely to happen.
>
> I'm jumping on this because it is exactly how bad ideas start, and once
> started they behave like a disease that is immune to antibiotics.
>
> Dan Leeson
>
> P.S. And to say that if Mozart had had a contrabassoon, he would have used
> one puts the author's words in Mozart's mouth.

>
Dan,
I don't think I have ever said that "if Mozart had a contrabassoon he would have used it" so please don't put words in the author's mouth!!!
In fact, as I am sure you know, the story is that Mozart's ORIGINAL intention, or possibly commission, before the work was even composed, was to use a contrabassoon so argument from the completed work, which was certainly intended for contrabass, does NOT refute the story. I am not a believer in the theory that Mozart intended contrabassoon, but none of the evidence seems to refute the original story; in fact, IF the Michael Haydn work does exist as well (and I have never seen it, but I have played a movement alleged to come from it) I have to accept the possibility.
Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Klarinet mailing list
> Klarinet@-----.com
> http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com

_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com