Klarinet Archive - Posting 000087.txt from 2010/04

From: "Dan Leeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] K. 622 in G? Part 2
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:35:36 -0400

When a new theory about the composition of this or that arises, it is not
necessary to disprove it, though you may wish to do so. It is the party
proposing the theory who must provide evidence to support it.

While what you told was interesting, it has the same embrace as a conspiracy
theory. and it contradicts that which is offered as being the most rational
history of the piece.

In 1959, when you first came across the theory, it is safe to say that very
few statements about the history of K. 361 were correct. Koechel had it
wrong. Einstein had it wrong. Abert had it wrong. Everybody had it wrong. I
had it wrong because I read everything and believed it.

While I hesitate to use the words "everything was wrong," but that describe
about 95% of the literature on the subject. The history and circumstances
were so incorrect that Zaslaw and I had to work some five years just to lay
the groundwork of a valid history, and we would not begin that work until
about 1964. We completed our work in 1979.

You need to read my book, "gran Partitta." It took roughly 40 years to
write, and the title is very much justified. Lower case "g" and upper case
"P" with three "t-s" in Partitta.

Dan Leeson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Baxter" <martinbaxter1@-----.com>
To: "The Klarinet Mailing List" <klarinet@-----.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [kl] K. 622 in G? Part 2

>
> On 25 Apr 2010, at 22:55, Dan Leeson wrote:
>
>> Martin, first I was not suggesting that you had said, "If Mozart had had
>> a
>> contra..." I was voicing the argument in the abstract. And lots of
>> people
>> do articulate that argument, though the proper response to it is that "If
>> Mozart had had a tenor saxophone..."
>>
>> Tell me the detail of the story of the Mozart's original intention. I
>> don't
>> know of a single scholar over the past 2 centuries (and a bit more) that
>> give sanctity to that argument.
>
> Dan,
> Here is the story & the circumstances of my hearing it.
> In 1959/60 I was a pupil at the Royal Military School of Music (Kneller
> Hall). At this time the brilliant recordings of Karl Haas & the London
> Baroque Ensemble were just appearing and I met them for the first time.
> They inspired many of us to try playing some of this music and I played a
> lot of Mozart Serenades, Feldparthie by Haydn & Dittersdorf and so on. On
> one occasion one of the bandmasters ,who had obtained a basset horn
> appeared with the score and parts of the Grand Partita (he had arranged
> basset horn 2 for Bass Clarinet I remember. He suggested we round up the
> extra players and try it. As he outranked us considerably we agreed and
> were, of course, bowled over by it. We asked where it came from and he
> told us that Mozart had written it for an occasion where two
> German/Austrian noble men wanted both their private bands to play together
> at the end of some celebration; a wedding, he thought. One band was
> 2clars/2horns+Bassoon, the other the usual octet.
> I had no reason to believe or disbelieve him (anyway I was in no position
> to argue) but I mentioned it to my bassoon teacher at the next lesson. (He
> was Frank Rendall, an eminent bassoonist of the time and probably the
> leading contrabassoonist in the country - I know he was invited to give
> contra masterclasses in Moskow). He knew the story, said that in fact
> Michael Haydn was the Musical Director on the occasion, and had asked
> Mozart and various others to write short pieces for the combination. "In
> fact," he added, "There is a copy of one of Haydn's pieces in the
> library."
> He also said that Mozart only wrote one movement at the time, but later
> incorporated it in the Gran Partita. He didn't say which.
> We did find a short movement attrib. to Michael Haydn and for the same
> instrumentation. We played it but it was very simple. The only things I
> remember were a short, fairly showy, passage for the Horns and the
> grumbles of everyone else. The parts were in manuscript and may still be
> in Kneller Hall Library. I have no idea if the work was authentic; it
> could have been arranged from a Michael Haydn Feldparthia by some student
> for a long passed concert. It certainly COULD have come via Dr. Haas;
> Frank played with, and indeed recorded with the LBO.
> However
> When I was doing research for my MA I originally thought I would
> investigate this story further. I could find absolutely no proof and as
> my German is really not up to delving through masses of documents on
> social events in Vienna during the period I chose another topic. But
> whilst I don't believe that the story is true I have not been able to
> disprove it either. If Mozart really did recycle an earlier movement when
> he wrote the Gran Partita I imagine a lot of contra players would like to
> use it as justification for replacing the bass,
> Incidentally I have only once played it with contra on the part - with
> Frank Rendall when I was at Kneller Hall.
> Martin
>>
>> Dan Leeson
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Martin Baxter" <martinbaxter1@-----.com>
>> To: "The Klarinet Mailing List" <klarinet@-----.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [kl] K. 622 in G? Part 2
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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

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