# Did Mozart Really Master the Music of Bach ?



## robert newman

The excellent (and honest) Mozart researcher Dennis Pajot of MOZARTFORUM has written an article there that speaks of 3 part fugues based on music by JS Bach which have often been attributed to Mozart. Giving credit where it is due he writes -

_In the Köchel Catalogue listed under K404a are six 3-part Fugues arranged for String Trio. To the J.S. Bach (and one W.F.Bach) Fugues are prefixed four anonymous Adagios attributed to Mozart and two slow movements from Bach organ Sonatas:

Nr.1 Anon.Adagio Fugue= WTC I, Nr.8 D# minor (transposed to d-minor).

Nr.2 Anon.Adagio Fugue= WTC II, Nr.12 in F#major (transposed to F)

Nr.3 Anon.Adagio Fugue =WTC II Nr.14 in F# minor (transposed to g minor).

Nr.4 JS Bach Adagio (BWV527) Fugue from Art of Fugue Contrapunctus 8

Nr.5 JS Bach Largo and Fugue from Organ Sonata BWV 526

Nr.6 Anon.Adagio Fugue=WF Bach Fugue in f-minor (Falk No.31/8)

Mozart's authorship of these Fugue arrangements and of the 4 anonymous Adagios was first suggested HYPOTHETICALLY by Wilhelm Rust in 1860, based on Mozart's letters about the "Bach-a-thons" at van Swieten's and the precedent of K405. It must be remembered these arrangements are all anonymous, copied in the 19th Century and do not even mention Mozart's name. Also, K405 was arranged by Mozart for String Quartet and DID NOT have Adagio preludes.

In 1903 Ernst Lewicki attempted to describe the special character of these pieces and remarked it would be advantageous to publish the pieces even though Mozart's authorship could not be proven. Alfred Einstein in 1936 followed with his special line of reasoning to attribute these pieces to Mozart. To Einstein the only other composer besides Mozart who could have written these pieces was Johann Georg Albrechtsberger. However "As able and estimable Albrechtsberger was, a glance at the prelude (quoted in the article) is sufficient to show that no other master than Mozart could have written it". Einstein placed the arrangements in K3 as K404a. The pieces were published by Johann Nepomuk David in 1938 as Mozart's work._

Those interested in the full article can read it on Mozart Forum.

And so, once again, works attributed to Mozart are, at the very least, of dubious Mozartean origin.


----------



## Handel

Can't really say it for Bach, but I know he integrated a few Handel's stylistic traits in his music (in the Requiem for example).


----------



## robert newman

Yes, the Requiem does contain some Handelian traits. 

There is also (attributed to him) several arrangements including 'Messiah' and even 'Judas Maccabeus'. 

Regards


----------



## Handel

robert newman said:


> Yes, the Requiem does contain some Handelian traits.
> 
> There is also (attributed to him) several arrangements including 'Messiah' and even 'Judas Maccabeus'.
> 
> Regards


Not sure about Judas Maccabeus. But for sure, he arranged the Messiah, Acis and Galatea, Ode for St. Cecilia's Day and Alexander's Feast.


----------



## robert newman

Yes, Handel, Mozart is traditionally credited with arranging various oratorios of Handel. I won't go in to detail in any of these but, in fact, there are major questions on even this assumption.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

This is an interesting topic that brings us full circle to Mozart's tuition. Elsewhere, robert newman states that Mozart lacked the thorough musical education that other composers had and therefore his master was either hidden or he couldn't have written what he is said to have written.

That said, I think if Mozart actually did "master" Bach's fugal writing through vigorous study, this could at least make up in part for his lack of prolonged study with a master teacher. To what degree Mozart did or did not master Bach's work I cannot say.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Handel said:


> Not sure about Judas Maccabeus. But for sure, he arranged the Messiah, Acis and Galatea, Ode for St. Cecilia's Day and Alexander's Feast.


Fairly recently was discovered a score that appears to be Mozart's version of Judas Maccabaeus, but the value of these arrangements I am not so sure. Do Mozart fans get anything out of these? Handel fans would correctly say that Handel's originals are much the better, in fact better that anything Mozart composed generally.


----------



## Handel

Rod Corkin said:


> Handel fans would correctly say that Handel's originals are much the better, in fact better that anything Mozart composed generally.


Actually, it's a bit a hit and miss. There are some good arrangements and some bad in a sole work.

Welcome to TC!


----------



## z9kd3d9

Anyone care to comment on Mozart's version of Handel's _Messiah_?


----------



## robert newman

Is that version of Handel's 'Messiah' really by Mozart ? There are reasons to believe it is not. 

But, since this arrangement is widely accepted as being Mozartean perhaps you can tell us on what grounds it is attributed to him ?


----------



## The Purple Wasp

In psychiatry, monomania (from Greek monos, one, and mania, mania) is a type of paranoia in which the patient has only one idea or type of ideas. Emotional monomania is that in which the patient is obsessed with only one emotion or several related to it; intellectual monomania is that which is related to only one kind of delirious idea or ideas.

In colloquial terms, the term monomania is often attached to subcultures that to the general public appear esoteric. However, the differences between monomania and passion can be very subtle and difficult to recognize.


----------



## robert newman

This thread began with evidence that arrangements said to be by Mozart (of Bach preludes and fugues) are not, in fact, versions by Mozart.

And, since ordinary readers will be more interested here in historical/.musical facts than Purple Wasp's babblings of pseudo-science (known to him as 'psychiatry' - a science which is unique in having no real history at all) I might add the following -

1. Having just seen that 'Mozart's' Bach arrangements were not, in fact, by Mozart (but were made by others of the van Sweiten circle in Vienna and much later wrongly attributed to Mozart ) it is surely fair, reasonable and right that we should not automatically attribute the arrangement of the Handel oratorio 'Messiah' to W.A. Mozart without readers at least being aware of the various arguments against such a thing. If Purple Wasp's psychology does not allow him to know the facts then let him remain ignorant in musical facts and full of his psychological delusions. Better still, let him find a psychological forum.

2. There is another Handel oratorio arrangement that has recently been attributed by some Mozart enthusiasts to W.A.Mozart - I am refering to the version of the Handel 'Judas Maccabeus' - copy found at Halifax Library in England only in recent years. But the evidence AGAINST that being a Mozart arrangement is now strong. Please psychologise this fact also, Purple Wasp !

3. Prior to the time when Mozart supposedly made the arrangement of Handel's 'Messiah' the man in charge of musical arrangements at the Vienna meetings of Baron van Sweiten was NOT your hero W.A. Mozart but the composer and arranger Joseph Starzer.

And what has Starzer to do with Handel oratorios ? Well, here is an excerpt from a discussion on 'Judas Maccabeus' which is easily found online at Mozart Forum. Notice what it says of Starzer -

'Sonnleithner reported other views from Vienna. Court Capellmeister Eybler stated the full score in the Royal Kaiser archive was "*owed to Starzer". *Abt. Stadler and Mosel commented "to their knowledge only *Starzer had instrumented Handel's Judas Maccabeus". *In addition many musical people (including Aloys Fuch) assured him *there was no Mozart arrangement. *Weigl related to Sonnleithner that Mozart (as well as Joseph Starzer) had participated in these concerts, but* Mozart never arranged Judas Maccabeus*. Weigl stated the Tonkünster-Widow Society only performed the piece in Starzer's arrangement which was "rather good and effective". He stated his copy was that of Starzer's. *Weigl concluded "I can with complete conviction declare that a Mozart arrangement or instrumentation of Judas Maccabeus never had existed".*

Thus, dear psychologist, the man in charge of musical arrangements at the circle of musicians in Vienna under Baron van Swieten during the time that Mozart was there and up until the time of his death in 1787 was, Starzer, HE HIMSELF ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE AN ARRANGER OF HANDEL ORATORIOS.

Furthermore, (as if this is not a relevant fact) there is lots of evidence of Handel 'Messiah' arrangements being made BEFORE that which is today attributed to Mozart. That of Hiller is one example. There are many others. There are even performances of arrangements of parts of Handel's 'Messiah' documented years BEFORE Mozart supposedly arranged the piece. And we even have Italian language texts by Salieri. We have performances of Messiah in Italy before the supposed 'Mozart' arrangement. And we have the plain fact that Mozart could easily have consulted the players in making 'his' arrangement - if he ever made one.

You do yourself some service, Purple Wasp, to practice your psychology on psychological forums.

I could add a great deal more on this subject. Sufficient to say there are real questions about 'Mozart's' arrangements of Handel oratorios - which was the point I made at the beginning.


----------



## Rod Corkin

z9kd3d9 said:


> Anyone care to comment on Mozart's version of Handel's _Messiah_?


I suggest it serves no useful purpose, musical or otherwise, whoever arranged it.


----------



## robert newman

We must screw down our chairs or they too will be attributed to W.A. Mozart


----------



## Leporello87

robert newman said:


> We must screw down our chairs or they too will be attributed to W.A. Mozart


Well now, Robert, some of Mozart's ancestors were carpenters, were they not? Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that he also cultivated some interest for that particular art, and perhaps he is responsible (secretly, of course) for pioneering models in chair design now used across the world. Perhaps we should indeed attribute our chairs to W.A. Mozart!


----------



## Handel

z9kd3d9 said:


> Anyone care to comment on Mozart's version of Handel's _Messiah_?


I think it is mainly a curiosity. Additions are not that great, except a few pieces. Here is one I think was rather well arranged by Mozart.

http://www.box.net/shared/jhoigk2k0u

I think somewhat did a better job in the two odes (St-Cecilia/Alexander Feast). Actually, it seems he went further in certain pieces.

An example: http://www.box.net/shared/0cnx0bd3op


----------



## robert newman

Hi Leporello, 

This idea of Mozartean omnipotence is surprisingly common. I remember reading that the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard was so affected by hearing Mozart's music that he suggested a new secular religion could be founded on it. An anti-religion, whose followers rejoiced in its supposedly unique, seductive, sensual qualities. On the other hand the theologian Karl Barth (who adored Mozart's music just as much) came to a very different interpretation - that of Mozart's music being (to him) a manifestation not of sensuality or of demonic power but of God acting THROUGH sensuality. 

The influence of Mozart (real or imagined) definitely challenges our ability to deal fairly with the subject of him and his music in the same way that we would wish to deal with other composers and their music. It's irrational, for example, that cases of blatant fakery, exaggeration and falsehood in Mozart's compositional career can make some otherwise sensible people live in flat denial of its existence or even of its implications for his status. 

So, yes, in a Mozartean universe there would be nothing wrong with attributing chairs or almost anything to W.A. Mozart. But, to me, that would definitely be a parallel universe and not this one.


----------



## Guest

Talking about J S Bach and fugues .....

I wonder how many readers of this Forum are aware of the controversy concerning the true authorship of J S Bach's *Toccata & Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565*, the exceptionally famous piece for organ.

Please read on, as this is no joke.

Some musicologists (e.g. Peter Williams) have argued that this famous organ piece is not by Bach, for various reasons including the lack of autograph score, the work allegedly contains markings not used in organ music of the day, and that some parts of the work are not up to Bach's exceptionally high standard. This original thesis, which sounded quite reasonable, was set out in an academic article by Williams in 1981.

This thesis was then subject to extensive counter-criticism in the usual way, i.e. by other musicologists in follow-up articles, books etc. Various effective counter-arguments were made including the fact that few of Bach's organ works survive in autograph score, and that Bach did in fact occasionally use some of the disputed markings occasionally. I will not attempt to summarise the whole debate, which requires a degree of specialised knowledge of J S Bach's style, and organ music history, etc.

A link to the debate about the Toccata & Fugue BWV 565 is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_Minor


----------



## Rod Corkin

Concerning the Toccata & Fugue, I was interested in the mention of fermetas in the Wikipedia page, for this piece has always struck me as unusual. Such boldly dramatic and rhetorical gestures are not typical of Bach from what I have heard, though the issue of ownership never occured to me with this piece.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Concerning the Toccata & Fugue, I was interested in the mention of fermetas in the Wikipedia page, for this piece has always struck me as unusual. Such boldly dramatic and rhetorical gestures are not typical of Bach from what I have heard, though the issue of ownership never occured to me with this piece.


I was merely trying to bring something of relevance to this thread. The debate on this particular issue gets very involved. It was mentioned on a Radio 3 programme recently. I had previously heard about this allegation but I thought it was a bit of a joke. Apparently it's not, and it has attracted quite a lot of respectable musicological counter-argument. My point is that this kind of thing is beyond the scope of Message Boards like this, except for a general discussion of the issues.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I was merely trying to bring something of relevance to this thread. The debate on this particular issue gets very involved. It was mentioned on a Radio 3 programme recently. I had previously heard about this allegation but I thought it was a bit of a joke. Apparently it's not, and it has attracted quite a lot of respectable musicological counter-argument. My point is that this kind of thing is beyond the scope of Message Boards like this, except for a general discussion of the issues.


Well I beg to differ, many a scholar has been responsible for a missattribution that even a humble enthusiast like me could realise the error of. Music scholars are not scientists, they have as many preconceptions and bias as any guy in the street, maybe more so. Nor is music a science in any case. A professors words should be treated with the same caution as you would if the same was said by a novice. On more than one occasion have I been forced to undertake the unpleasant task of writing to a music professor to correct basic and fundamental errors on their part. My remark below did not discount the possibility there may be more to the story of the T&F than meets the eye (or ear).


----------



## robert newman

Mango,

Unlike yourself I do not approve of the alarming tendency of the modern mass media to 'dumb down' virtually every issue that it deals with (or pretends to deal with). There is a very real sense in which we are today ignorant - this despite having at our disposal more books and sources of reference material on more subjects than we've ever had in any generation. The average person today is bombarded by news that is rarely well researched, is often at best hallf true, from sources that are virtually unaccountable, and is conditioned to believe that 'experts' whom they never meet or interacted with know best - though, in fact, such 'expert's are rarely accountable to their public, if at all.

Mango, take the example you refer to - Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Has this issue been resolved yet ? No. It has certainly aooeared in journals and has been discussed at some length. But it has NOT been resolved. Not that I am against journals. I believe they are really for a different sort of audience. You see Mango, experts do not live in a different society from the rest of the human race - they live in human society - and if they do not live in human society it seems to me they are, by definition, of dubious value to society. Journals are fine. They do have their place. But so do public forums such as this. Shouldn't the condensed truths found in journals be the education of us, the public ?

You keep refering to my supposed/alleged insults towards 'experts'. This is rather silly. I've already asked you twice to produce an example of this supposed 'insult of experts' occurring here, or anywhere else. We are still waiting for your answer. But it doesn't stop you rolling out this accusation over and over. Show us an example Mango. But it's yet another false statement.

Imagine a small boy who reports a fire buring in a factory but who is not believed by the Fire Brigade simply because he is not a registered member of the Fire Fighters Association. So that the factory burns down with great loss of life. Such a witness, young or old, experienced or not, is surely qualified to report a fire, is he not ? - and, as a witness his/her testimony has value and his report should be acted upon if he/she makes himself accountable for making one. Isn't that so ?

But let me come to the specific case in hand - Mozart. You subscribe to the 'sound bite', chocolate coated, superficial, contradictory, preposterous, mythical, fictitious, fanciful and downright false story that Mozart was a virtual alien - a composer who (unlike Monteverdi, Bach, Beethoven, and virtually every other composer in the entire history of music) did next to no musical study in his entire life, never went to school for any real period of his life, and yet composed with ease operas, concertos, symphonies and masses - as easily as you and I can tie up the laces of our shoes. Not content with spreading this laughable nonsense (which proves under close examination to be bogus) you are also persuaded to side with such a myth and with those who pump it out , even in cases where it's apparent that Mozart's official compositional output (an output that is to be compared to a moveable feast in terms of its quantity and quality) has been grossly exaggerated, often falsified and rarely challenged in its particulars over the last 200 years or so. You will forgive me thinking that the academic/educational value of such a fantasy figure is virtually nil to students of music - this fabulous 'divine dictation' Mozart of the late Holy Roman Empire. Not only is this figure a fantasy by any fair definition of that term but the teaching of it teaches children that at the least example of them being creative they too are (in the eyes of lazy teachers and proud parents) about to become 'the next Mozart'. It's farcical. This is the very opposite of musical education. It's nonsense. For, the truth is, we have abundant proof that the great composers were all people who studied hard and long and who went to school - things Mozart rarely, if ever, did.

And how this fantastic Mozart bandwaggon has tricked you. He has taught you to forget basic things such as to exercise your fair judgement. Only in Mozart studies can you see example after example of fakery, forgery, exaggeration and downright falsehood and yet continue on with it having no cumulative effect on your understanding of him as a composer. It's the equivalent of a person not knowing that aircraft have fbreglass wings coated with aluminium. Or that jet fuel is really nothing but modified paraffin. Or that a fireball can only burn inside or outside a building - but that it can in no case melt steel. To suspend the laws of physics or to be so affected by mythology by fashionable interpretation is to throw away common sense and rationality and to subscribe tio delusion.

So please do not accuse me of 'attacking the church'. You have your Luther. One is quite enough if you are sensitive to that.

You say that reading my posts are 'like reading a comic book'. But such is your lack of understanding that in the very same post you complain that these issues are far too complex to be dicussed at all !!! Let me quote you in full -

_*The fact is that the vast majority of us here, including myself, do not have the necessary degree of historical knowledge, and technical know-how, to deal with many of Mr Newman's multifarious allegations about Mozart etc. Some of his allegations are far too specialised.*_

But you don't see the absurdities of your own words.

I again repeat that I have attacked/insulted nobody who has respected me. But if I am insulted or attacked I defend myself. Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

Well, I must break it to you gently. If you have time and interest and are not too busy studying the history of the Donation of Constantine, or some other history, I invite you to read, to share respectfully, and even to criticise on the proposition that much of what is generally believed of W.A. Mozart has been falsified.

Rgds


----------



## Guest

Dear Mr Newman.

You wrote this on 9 June:



robert newman said:


> Mango, I really don't mind being a laughing stock. Humour is vital if we are to deal with such a huge and often controversial subject.


I guess you regard being treated as a laughing stock as an occupational hazard.

In order to oblige further, I provided a sketch on the life and achievements of "Moxy" in my thread beginning on 11 June. I realise it's not half as funny as everything you have written but I did rattle it off very quickly indeed. Thank you for your replies which added further humour into it. I trust you learned a few lessons in how you come over.

In connection with your latest pile of twaddle at Post 24 above, you are merely repeating yourself. I would only say that it provides rich pickings for further possible send-ups in the "Moxy" thread, and I'm sorely tempted to do so, but I won't because it's clear that enough has been said.

Suffice to say in general summary:


It's you who has created the "controversy', which doesn't really exist

It's you who twist information and people's replies (you and others clearly didn't like it when I simply gave back in return some of your own medicine).

Your evidence is non-existent, and you rely on tittle-tattle.You are 99% pure assertion, seeing how many different ways you can say the same thing that, in your opinion, "Mozart is a fake".

Real experts won't waste their time in amateur music forums like this. So you are wasting your time. Most people would realise this but, as someone else recently remarked, this topic seems to be your fixation.


BTW, do you want flowers at the forthcoming event, which I gather is but hours away?

Regards.


----------

