Klarinet Archive - Posting 000088.txt from 2010/04

From: Martin Baxter <martinbaxter1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] K. 622 in G? Part 2
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:32:28 -0400

Thanks for the comments Dan.
I shall be very interested to read the book.
Martin
On 26 Apr 2010, at 22:35, Dan Leeson wrote:

> 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

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