- So you know what a bar bet is?
- No. What's a bar bet?
- It's a quiz game that's generally played in a bar. The questions sound easy but they're often deceptively difficult. Sometimes you can't win, no matter how you answer. Since you say you are a Mozart lover and know a lot about him, we should have a bar bet about Mozart. How would
you feel about, say, 1-10 odds?
- Explain a little better, please. There are few reasonable questions about Mozart that I can't answer but there is a lot of weird stuff that no one can answer.
-This is the way it works. I ask you a question about Mozart. Nothing weird. Just simple, reasonable questions like how many symphonies he wrote, the name of the principal character in Figaro. Stuff like that. If you get the answer, I pay you $10.00. If you don't, you pay me $1.00.
- OK, but nothing weird. Why not use one of the questions you just gave as an example, like the one about how many symphonies? - Ouch! It looks like I'm hoisted on my own petard. OK. I give up. We'll use that question. Which symphony is Mozart's 41st?
- Are you kidding? That's easy. The "Jupiter" Symphony! Give me $10.00.
-Wrong! You lose.
- Wrong?!! What do you mean wrong? The "Haffner" is 35. The "Linz" is 36. 37 seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. 38 is the "Prague." The next two, 39 and 40, don't have names, and 41 is the "Jupiter." Where do you get off telling me "wrong"? I've been listening to the "Jupiter" all my life and it's always been number 41. All the record jackets say so. The program notes of my local symphony say so. Where's my money?
- Sorry, but it isn't so and it never has been. The sequence of everyone of those numbers you quoted is wrong. Mozart wrote a lot more than 41 symphonies.
- The hell you say. How many did he write?
- Depending on how they're counted, the number is around 54 to 57.
- Baloney!! You are just making this up to get out of paying me $10. Either prove that the "Jupiter" is not number 41 or pay up!
-OK ...that's fair.
When Köchel finished his chronological catalogue in 1862, no complete edition of Mozart's
works yet existed. Two attempts had been made, both begun in 1798, and neither reached completion. The first effort failed in less than two years. The second lasted eight and produced 17 volumes containing approximately 50 compositions.
With the publication of the Köchel catalogue and his personal financial support of the project as an additional incentive — what a generous man Köchel had to have been! — a third effort to produce a complete edition was begun. The first sections, printed by the Leipzig publisher Breitkopf & Härtel, made their appearance in 1877. By 1890, the bulk of the edition was complete, though supplementary material continued to be released until 1905.
A small cadre of editors, less than a dozen, prepared the entire edition. It was an illustrious group and included such luminaries as Johannes Brahms, Phillipp Spitta, Gustav Nottebohm, Carl Reinecke, Joseph Joachim, and others. Even Köchel is credited with editing several compositions — a surprising fact since he was not a trained musician.
The edition had and continues to have many excellent things in its favor: the engraving is beautiful, although sometimes pages are crowded. The organization of the material within the edition was good. The pages were large and contained few serious printing errors. That the edition was a success can be shown by the fact that most performances of Mozart's orchestral and
vocal music still use it. By any standards, it was a successful technical and commercial venture that filled a much needed gap.
Paradoxically, few people in America, this writer included, have ever seen that edition. In the vast majority of libraries where one might go to use it, one finds not the original printing but a hololithographic reprint made available in the early 1950s by Edwards Brothers of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This is not simply a hair-splitting distinction; the reprint is different from the original, though the extent of the differences in all cases but one work (the "Hunt" Quartet) are minor. The most significant non-musical changes involved the addition of K3 numbers to the title pages of works whose chronology was changed by Einstein's revision of the Köchel catalogue. Three people supervised the Ann Arbor reprint, Einstein and two faculty members of the University of Michigan, Hans David and Bernard E. Wilson.
The reprint has 38 volumes, most of which contain many compositions. There are also two volumes of performance parts for some of the chamber music in the edition, plus two supplementary volumes of miscellaneous compositions, and one volume of editorial commentary. Orchestral performance parts extracted from the scores of these volumes and published by Breitkopf & Härtel are not part of the edition.
One editorial decision had extremely serious consequences with respect to the way we speak about Mozart's music. This was the selection of an independent sequential numbering system for some of the works in the printing. For example, the symphonies, already uniquely identified by Köchel listings, received an unnecessary second set of identifying numbers. The first symphony bears the title "First Symphony in E-flat, K. 16" and the last "Forty-first Symphony in C, K. 551."
Though the reason for this second numbering system is not explained, it is not hard to guess the reason for that editorial decision: because Köchel numbers do not organize Mozart's compositions by type of work, they are not very convenient identifiers when such an organization
is used. But to have given the symphonies a double numbering system was a serious technical and administrative mistake, then or any time. The concordance of symphony numbers and Köchel listings as they appeared in the edition is as follows:
Sym. No. |
K. No. |
Sym. No. |
K. No. |
Sym. No. |
K. No. |
1 |
16 |
15 |
124 |
29 |
201 |
2 |
17 |
16 |
128 |
30 |
202 |
3 |
18 |
17 |
129 |
31 |
297 |
4 |
19 |
18 |
130 |
32 |
318 |
5 |
22 |
19 |
132 |
33 |
319 |
6 |
43 |
20 |
133 |
34 |
338 |
7 |
45 |
21 |
134 |
35 |
385 |
8 |
48 |
22 |
162 |
36 |
425 |
9 |
73 |
23 |
181 |
37 |
444 |
10 |
74 |
24 |
182 |
38 |
504 |
11 |
84 |
25 |
183 |
39 |
543 |
12 |
110 |
26 |
184 |
40 |
550 |
13 |
112 |
27 |
199 |
41 |
551 |
14 |
114 |
28 |
200 |
|
|
- See!! See!! I'm right. The last one is 41, the "Jupiter" and you owe me $10.
- No, I don't. Be patient. The story isn't over yet.
How does this concordance contrast with today's understanding of the chronology of Mozart's symphonies? The answer is that 38 of the 41 numbers no longer apply while three still do. Symphonies 1, 6, and 7 are still 1, 6, and 7, but nothing else matches. Of the 38 misnumbered symphonies, three are not by Mozart and 35 have been reordered. That's a 93% error!
The point is that, with the Köchel listings already identifying every Mozart composition, the editorial decision also to use a consecutive numbering system would have worked only if no new discoveries were ever made. And to avoid the accusation of criticism by 20-20 hindsight, I assert that the editors knew this situation even during the early days of the edition. The supplementary volumes contain additional symphonies that could not be retroactively included in the sequence because of its inflexibility.
To make a concordance between these late nineteenth-century sequence numbers and a newly derived chronology is not a difficult task; but to propose it as a new standard would be as wrong now as it was wrong then. The reason is obvious: it is possible to destroy the entire numbering
system with just one piece of new information.
There is another challenge facing anyone who wants to number the symphonies from 1 to n: no agreement exists on what "n" is. Several symphonies, K. 550 in G minor, for example, exist in two versions. How should they appear in the sequence, as one symphony or two? Mozart revised symphonies and added additional musical instruments. The "Haffner" symphony, for example, may be played with or without flutes and clarinets. How should one count such compositions, as two works or one? A different situation involves the "Paris" symphony because it may be played with either of two slow movements, further complicating enumeration. But
to show the seriousness of the error in the traditional sequencing of symphonies, one must construct a new one using the 1963 Köchel listings. The list counts all symphonies only once and reflects no scholar's official posture, least of all mine. This enumeration results in 54 symphonies. The "Jupiter," being the last known, is number 54. However, it is not now, nor was it ever, correct to call it 41. If one must refer to it by a number, the only universally
accepted one is K. 551-keeping in mind an earlier suggestion about how a future revision of Mozart's chronology could possibly change that, too.
Old No. |
New No. |
Old No. |
New No. |
Old No. |
New No. |
1 |
1 |
15 |
24 |
29 |
39 |
2 |
spurious |
16 |
25 |
30 |
40 |
3 |
spurious |
17 |
26 |
31 |
44 |
4 |
2 |
18 |
27 |
32 |
45 |
5 |
4 |
19 |
28 |
33 |
46 |
6 |
6 |
20 |
29 |
34 |
48 |
7 |
7 |
21 |
30 |
35 |
49 |
8 |
11 |
22 |
32 |
36 |
50 |
9 |
12 |
23 |
34 |
37 |
spurious |
10 |
17 |
24 |
36 |
38 |
51 |
11 |
16 |
25 |
38 |
39 |
52 |
12 |
19 |
26 |
35 |
40 |
43 |
13 |
22 |
27 |
33 |
41 |
54 |
14 |
23 |
28 |
37 |
|
|
Where are symphonies number 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, and all others for which gaps exist in this concordance? The gaps represent the 13 or so symphonies not included in the sequencing of 1877-1905.
- So, as you can see, I don't owe you any money. Instead, you owe me $1.00. Asking the number of the "Jupiter" symphony is a great bar bet for Mozart lovers. No one can get the answer right because, for the moment at least, there is no right answer.
- Maybe so, but the only thing I am convinced of is that these multiple numbering systems are confusing. Perhaps we should leave things alone before we get sequenced to death.
- You won't get an argument from me on that. But there is also the consideration of how much Mozart you want to be accurate as opposed to convenient.
- Will the flawed sequence ever get changed?
- I hope so. It is a discredited numbering system though still in common use. Program
notes by people who really know their business give only the Köchel listings when referring to specific works. For example, you won't find a "Symphony Number 41" or a "Piano Concerto Number 14" advertised at the Salzburg Mozart Festival. On the other hand, most people are used to the traditional numbers even though they give a seriously distorted picture of order and scope of some of Mozart's compositional forms. Strangely enough, there are many Mozart works that are never referenced with sequence numbers. No one performs mass number 6, or canon number 17, or opera number 8.
- How come such a system works for Beethoven symphonies?
- Because it's not likely that we will discover another Beethoven symphony between, for example, 2 and 3. But if that were to happen, we could easily manage with only nine symphonies in the repertoire. Keep in mind that a similar situation resulted in the recent renumbering of the Dvorak symphonies. The same thing applies to Schubert though in miniature. His C major symphony
keeps popping between 7 and 9.
- OK. I give up. How about another bar bet at 1-10 odds?
- It's a deal. I'll take your money all night. 1955 marks two important Mozart events. First there was the reprint of the 1877-1905 complete edition. What other important Mozart event began that same year and is still going on?
- Uh, Uh! I think I've been had a second time!
To commemorate Mozart's 199th birthday, the first volume of a new complete edition of his music was released in 1955. It happened to have been the volume of music for two pianos. In February 1991, during the festivities of the International Mozart Kongress held in Salzburg, and at a gala champagne event, the two volumes of the final work in the edition, Così fan tutte, were released. It is really too strong a statement to say that the edition is now complete because supplemental material will continue to be issued for some time, but for all practical purposes, it's done. The edition, a joint effort undertaken by the Central Institute of Mozart Research of the Salzburg Mozarteum, the German publisher Bärenreiter, and others, has now become the standard, world-wide reference tool for the study and performance of Mozart's works. Called "The New Mozart Edition," it contains much that was not in the 1877-1905 Breitkopf & Härtel printing, now retroactively designated "The Old Mozart Edition."
- Hey!! Will the next edition be called "The Newer Mozart Edition"?
- Very funny. Knock it off!
During the 36 years of its publication, there were several different editorial policies and these can be detected in the array of volumes. The march of technology coupled with the economics of engraving have also affected the visual aspects of the edition. One can see several printing and engraving styles. Computers, having made the transition from laboratory experiments to devices that can now swiftly produce alterable-on-demand, error-free orchestral scores with
instantaneously extractable performance parts, played a significant role in the preparation of the final volumes. And to top off the event — one that took one year longer to produce than Mozart lived — Bärenreiter released the entire edition in a second and more practical form: Paperback, all 23,000+ pages of it!
The edition is magnificent: handsome, clear, illustrative, scholarly, practical, thorough, and useful. But, because things will always continue to turn up, the edition will not — nor will any edition of Mozart's music — ever be complete. The single serious criticism that one can bring against the edition is the slowness with which performance parts have been made available for use with the printed scores. No volume is perfect. Every one has difficulties, both mechanical and scholarly; but these issues are small when contrasted with such benefits as variant readings, printing of fragments, superb introductions, and many supplementary critical commentaries to explain the decisions of the individual editors.
It was in its statement of policy to its editors that the new edition will have its most important long-range impact. The editors were directed to work under the assumption that the purpose of the edition was to represent Mozart's, not the editor's intentions. That sounds like a self-evident aspiration. But when one examines the old Mozart edition, the need for such
direction becomes clear.
For example, when Johannes Brahms edited the Mozart Requiem for the old Mozart
edition, he perceived that glorious work through the eyes of the greatest Romantic composer of his age. As a result Brahms could not and did not accept the surface texture of Mozart's original conception. The winds used too much tongue; the strings not enough bow. By adding slur marks not found in Mozart's original score, Brahms' edition creates a texture that Mozart would have created, were he Brahms. In effect, Brahms edited portions of the Requiem as he edited his own music.
That general theme runs through every volume of the old Mozart edition. That is, the editors prepared editions as they thought Mozart should sound in light of late 19th century performance practice. Phrasings were changed to create long, uninterrupted melodic lines, a characteristic of
late Romantic music. Slurs were added to change the surface texture of the music. Romantic interpretations of dynamic markings created gradual ebb and flow instead of instantaneous change. Musical direction, for example "fp" and "sf," were perceived in terms of their then current definitions that, in some cases, differed from the meanings of the same symbols in Mozart's era.
The editors of the old Mozart edition were at a serious technical disadvantage. Availability of and access to autograph material, either original, or in photographic, xerographic, or facsimile copy, was far more restricted than is the case today. For example, beautifully reproduced facsimiles of many Mozart autographs are sold over the counter to anyone, and for modest prices. Typical is Oxford University Press which sells a paperbound facsimile of the autograph of the "Haffner" symphony for less than $25.00. Such a luxury was unheard of in the late nineteenth century. But even those editors of the old Mozart edition who had access to Mozart's manuscripts still interpreted what he wrote from the perspective of a late 19th century musician.
In contrast, the new Mozart edition attempts to present what Mozart wrote, not necessarily what the editor believes he meant. There will always be conflict in dealing with such subtleties, particularly in the face of an absent autograph. However, in setting the direction, the editorial
board of the New Mozart Edition has done much to change the way we will hear Mozart's music for the next century. The die is cast. (There is yet another view: people of every age think that only they really understand Mozart's intentions, all previous efforts being flawed. Perhaps it is naive to think that the New Mozart Edition editorial policy just expressed can be carried out. In any case, its success cannot yet be judged.)
- Here's $2.00. The lecture was worth it.
- I'll offer you double or nothing for the real name of the principal character in Figaro.
- This I can't lose. It's Figaro, of course. I broke even!
- No! I asked for his real name. You owe me $4.00.
- Wait a minute! What is his real name?
- "Rafaello de Bartolo," of course.
-Aaagh! I'm going home.
- Wait! Would you like to bet $100 that the original title of The Magic Flute was
The Magic Tenor Saxophone?
- Shove off!!
- How about $200 at 5-1 odds that the players for whom Mozart wrote his five violin concerti were the Marques brothers: Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, and Gummo.
- Go away!
- Last chance: $500 at 10-1 that Don Giovanni died a virgin?
- Unh?...Give me a minute to think about that one.
This is the third in a series of five articles by Daniel N. Leeson to commemorate the Mozart jubilee. Daniel N. Leeson is a retired professional businessman who worked for the IBM Corporation for 30 years. He is also a leading Mozart scholar and co-editor of the volume of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe which contains the wind serenades. He plays bass clarinet with the San Jose Symphony Orchestra and is a busy basset hornist throughout California. He also teaches mathematics at De Anza College.
|
