IDRS JOURNAL

The History of the Mozart Concerto K. 314

Based on the Letters of the Mozart Family, a Review of Literature and Some Observations on the Work
By George T. Riordan Tallahassee, Florida

T
on

he Concerto K. 314 by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is unquestionably one of the most widely performed and studied works for both oboe and flute, and is arguably the most important concerto ever written for the former instrument. It is then curious that, prior to this, there has not been a single compilation of all of the written source material available (here accompanied by a listing of contemporary articles on the work), for easy reference by performers and scholars. Fortunately for posterity, the Mozart family carried on very active and lively correspondence during Wolfgangs life. Their existing letters fill two or three volumes, giving musicians today a rich and witty resource for research or amusement. What follows is a distillation of all of the material appearing in the letters of the Mozart family that pertains to the Oboe Concerto in C Major and the Flute Concerto in D Major, a brief review of much of the literature available on the Oboe Concerto, and some thoughts based on the evidence at hand. The author is grateful to Macmillan Press Ltd. for permission to reprint large excerpts from the volumes Letters of Mozart and His Family , edited by Emily Anderson, and published in 1938. He is likewise indebted to Professor Ronald Richards for graciously supplying a copy of the eighteenth-century manuscript of the solo oboe part from the Salzburg Mozarteum. The letters of the Mozart family by no means answer all of the questions that arise upon examination of the work. What they do clearly reveal is that the piece was originally composed in Salzburg during 1777 in C major for oboe and orchestra for the oboist Giuseppe Ferlendis (1755-1802), and that Mozart later reset the concerto in D major in Mannheim to quickly fulfill a commission from de Jean. The History of the Composition of the Work On April 1, 1777, Archbishop Hieronymous Colloredo signed a decree hiring the oboist Giuseppe Ferlendis to serve in the Salzburg Hofkapelle Orchestra. Ferlendis, probably born

in Bergamo in 1755, was already a respected performer at the time of his arrival in Salzburg.1 Later the same year, on September 22, Wolfgang Mozart and his mother left for Augsburg, Mannheim, and Paris to try to secure a permanent appointment for the young composer. He must have composed his Concerto in C Major for Oboe and Orchestra, K. 314 for Ferlendis some time between April 1 and his departure, as revealed by references in the letters of the Mozart family.2 The first known reference to an oboe concerto by Mozart appears in a letter from his father dated October 15, 1777, which contained the following: And if you had a copy of your oboe concerto, Perwein might enable you to make an honest penny in Wallerstein.3 Perwein, who had previously been in the employ of Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg and thus known to the Mozart family, became the oboist at the court of Prince Ernst Kraffts von Oettingen-Wallerstein in 1777. Apart from this reference, he does not appear to have a connection to the Oboe Concerto, K. 314. This letter makes it clear, however, that the younger Mozart had written a concerto for oboe by the fall of 1777 and that Leopold evidently felt it was a marketable commodity. The October 15 letter was written to Wolfgang when he was in Augsburg, on his way to Mannheim to try to secure a position at the court of the Elector Karl Theodor von der Pfalz. The paragraph that includes the above quote is a long harangue by Leopold that deals with the necessity for securing copyists in the various cities that Wolfgang would visit. The copyists were to write out parts from scores that Mozart carried with him to present to a Prince or some other patron.4 The context of the first quotation raises the possibility that Wolfgang had the score to an oboe concerto with him on his journey. On November 4, 1777, Wolfgang wrote his father from Mannheim about an oboist whose name I have forgotten, but who plays very well and has a delightfully pure tone. 5 He continued sarcastically,

IDRS JOURNAL

I have made him a present of my oboe concerto, which is being copied in a room at Cannabichs, and the fellow is quite crazy with delight. I played this concerto to him today on the pianoforte at Cannabichs, and, although everybody knew that I was the composer, it was very well received. Nobody said that it was not well composed , because the people here do not understand such matters they had better consult the Archbishop, who will at once put them right.6 The oboist in question was Friedrich Ramm (1744?-1811), the oboist in the famed Mannheim orchestra. In a letter from Mannheim to his father dated December 5, 1777, Wolfgang speaks of the possibility of his going on a Lenten trip to Paris in the company of Wendling, Ramm, who plays very beautifully, and Lauchry, the ballet-master.7 Later in the same letter he said, Ramm, the oboist is a very good, jolly, honest fellow of about 35, who has already travelled a great deal, and consequently has plenty of experience.8 On December 10-11 Mozart wrote to his father, Let me tell you just one more thing. The other day I went to lunch at Wendlings as usual. Our Indian, he said, meaning a Dutchman, a gentleman of means and a lover of all the sciences, who is a great friend and [admirer] of mine, our Indian is really a first-rate fellow. He is willing to give you 200 gulden if you will compose three short, simple concertos and a couple of quartets for the flute.9 Later in the same letter, he said, I shall have quite enough to write during the next two months, three concertos, two quartets, four or six duets for the clavier. And then I have an idea of writing a new grand mass and presenting it [to the Elector.]10 The Dutchman referred to here was H. de Jean, an amateur flute player. At this time Mozart was having lunch almost daily at the home of Johann Baptist Wendling (c. 17201797), 11 a flutist in the Mannheim court orchestra, and his wife Dorothea (n Spourni,

1737-1811), a noted operatic soprano. 12 On December 18, Frau Maria Anna Mozart reported to her husband about the kindnesses shown to her and her son by Monsieur Wendling, who loves Wolfgang as his own son. 13 The younger Mozart helped Wendling orchestrate a flute concerto, and Wolfgang had written a French song for the Wendlings daughter Gustl (Oiseaux, si tous les ans, K. 307) and an aria for Dorothea (Dans un bois solitaire, K. 308). At this time de Jean was probably studying flute with Wendling, and Mozart must have met the Dutchman at the house of the Mannheim flutist. Wendling no doubt had a hand in securing a commission from the wealthy amateur.14 The promise of 200 gulden for the commissions from de Jean was a significant event for the Mozart family. The letters during this period show that Wolfgang and his mother were obliged to secure complimentary or inexpensive lodging and meals, since they had very little money left and Leopold had run up substantial debts to support his sons journey and search for employment. The projected 200 gulden is mentioned in letters from Frau Mozart on December 14; from Leopold on December 18, 1777, February 11-12, 1778, and February 25-26; and from Wolfgang on December 18, December 27-28, 1777, and February 4, 1778. The young Mozart mentions the commission in a rather ribald poem penned in Worms to his mother in Mannheim on January 31, 1778, but he mentions four quartets and a concerto, rather than the original three concerti and two quartets.15 Wolfgang wrote to his father on December 18, 1777, I shall soon have finished one quartet for the Indian Dutchman, that true friend of humanity.16 The quartet to which he refers is the Flute Quartet in D major, K. 285 , completed on December 25.17 During this time, late 1777 and early 1778, Wolfgang had still planned to travel to Paris with Wendling, Ramm and de Jean during Lent. His plans changed, however, after he made the acquaintance of the Weber family. Fridolin Weber (1733-1779) was a bass singer at the Mannheim court (coincidentally, he was the uncle of the early Romantic composer Carl Maria von Weber). He had, by Wolfgangs report in a letter from Mannheim to his father on January 17, 1778, six children, five girls and one son, including a daughter who sings admirably and has a lovely, pure voice; she is only fifteen.18 This daughter was

THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314

Aloysia Weber (1760-1839), who was really about seventeen years old at the time.19 On January 24, Frau Mozart reported from Mannheim to her husband in Salzburg, Wolfgang went off yesterday with Herr Weber and his daughter to KirchheimBolanden to visit the Princess of Weilburg. I hardly think that she will let them go before the week is out, for she is a passionate lover of music and plays the clavier and sings. Wolfgang took with him a supply of arias and symphonies to present to her.20 After returning to Mannheim from this trip, Wolfgang spoke to his father of Aloysia Weber in a letter dated February 4: I got to know her properly and as a result to discover her great powers.21 Mozart seems to have fallen under her spell, for he decided not to make the Paris trip with Wendling and Ramm. Wolfgang explained this away to his father on February 4 by writing from Mannheim that the former has no religion whatever and that Ramm is a decent fellow, but a libertine.22 Furthermore, he stated his preference for staying with the Webers because of the inexpressible pleasure of making the acquaintance of a thoroughly honest, good Catholic Christian family. 23 He continued, I propose to remain here and finish entirely at my leisure that music for de Jean, for which I am to get 200 gulden.24 Paumgartner explained the obviousin reality Wolfgang became infatuated with Aloysia Weber and could not bear to leave Mannheim.25 He even proposed to his father (in the letter of February 4) that he travel to Italy with the Webers, with a two-week visit to Leopold in Salzburg on the way.26 Throughout the period, letters from the two Mozarts in Mannheim to Leopold spoke of how busy Wolfgang was, and how it was impossible for him to compose in a systematic manner. The letters frequently gave excuses for a lack of progress on the commission for de Jean. Then, on February 14, 1778, Mozart wrote from Mannheim to his father, Herr Wendling and Herr Ramm are leaving early tomorrow morning M. de Jean is also leaving for Paris tomorrow and, because I have only finished two concertos and three quartets for him, has sent me 96 gulden (that is, 4 gulden too little, evidently supposing that this

was the half of 200); but he must pay me in full, for that was my agreement with the Wendlings, and I can send him the other pieces later. It is not surprising that I have not been able to finish them, for I never have a single quiet hour here. I can only compose at night, so that I cant get up early as well; besides, one is not always in the mood for working. I could, to be sure, scribble off things the whole day long, but a composition of this kind goes out into the world, and naturally I do not want to have cause to be ashamed of my name on the titlepage. Moreover, you know that I become quite powerless whenever I am obliged to write for an instrument I cannot bear Yesterday there was a concert at Cannabichs, where all the music was of my composition, except the first symphony, which was his own. Mlle. Rosa played my concerto in B flat, then Herr Ramm (by way of a change) played for the fifth time my oboe concerto written for Ferlendis, which is making a great sensation here. It is now Ramms cheval de bataille.27 It is important to note that in the above letter Mozart claimed that two flute concerti were composed. Leopolds letter of reply to his sons revelation of the receipt of only 96 gulden for an incomplete commission was dated February 23; in it he predictably scolded Wolfgang at length.28 Later in the year, on October 3, after his mothers death in Paris, Mozart wrote his father from Nancy, I am not bringing you many new compositions, for I havent composed very much. I have not got the three quartets and the flute concerto for M. De Jean, for, when he went to Paris, he packed them into the wrong trunk and so they remained in Mannheim. But he has promised to send them to me as soon as he returns to Mannheim and I shall ask Wendling to forward them.29 Contrary to his letter of February 14, Wolfgang is speaking here of only one flute concerto associated with de Jean. Leopold, on August 3, 1778, reported to Wolfgang in Paris,

IDRS JOURNAL

Now for a piece of news! Ferlendis resigned three days ago, having left the service at the end of June. This has been the more unexpected and upsetting as during the last two months whenever Ferlendis played a concerto the Archbishop had been in the habit of giving him one or two ducats. Moreover he was the favorite in the orchestra and since Besozzis arrival in Salzburg had learnt a good deal from him.30 In 1783 Mozart was in Vienna; on February 15 he wrote to his father, Please send me at once the little book which contains the oboe concerto I wrote for Ramm, or rather for Ferlendis. Prince Esterhazys oboist is giving me three ducats for it and has offered me six, if I will write a new concerto for him. But if you have already gone to Munich, well, then, by Heaven, there is nothing to be done; for the only person to whom in that case we could apply, I mean Ramm himself, is not there either.31 On March 12, Wolfgang again wrote to Leopold, I entreat you most earnestly to send me the oboe concerto I gave to Rammand as soon as possible. 32 Finally, on March 29, Mozart wrote to his father, I have received the parcel of music and thank you for it.33 No further mention of the Oboe Concerto is made in the letters of the Mozarts. In the nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies, the Oboe Concerto was presumed lost. Two flute concerti were known, however: those in G major, K. 313, and in D major, K. 314, as well as the Andante in C for Flute and Orchestra, K. 315. Neither of the autograph scores of either flute concerto survived (although the autograph of the C major Andante did).34 An edition of the D major Concerto was published about 1800 by Falter in Munich (Op. 99).35 The first edition of the G major Concerto by Breitkopf and Hrtel (1803) was based on a handwritten original, which has disappeared.36 The Alte Mozart-Ausgabe based the G major Concerto on this 1803 Breitkopf edition; the D major Concerto was based on a score in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna.37 A 70measure fragment of the first movement of a fully orchestrated oboe concerto in F major has survived in autograph manuscript. Today this is known as K. 294 (416f).

Otto Jahn, in his biography W.A. Mozart , provided more information on the composers alleged dislike for the flute. He had a dislike to the flute and a mistrust of flute players, but he made an exception in favor of Wendling. When Wendlings brother teased him for this he said: Yes, but you see, it is quite another thing with your brother. He is not a piper, and one need not be always in terror for fear the next note should be too high or too lowhe is always right, you see; his heart and his ear and the tip of his tongue are all in the right place, and he does not imagine that blowing and making faces is all that is needed; he knows too what adagio means.38 Review of Literature In 1920, Georges de Saint Foix published an article entitled Mozart ou Ferlendis in Rivista musicale italiana , in which he speculated about two scores in the library of the Conservatoire de Milan under the name Ferlendis. The first score, an Oboe Concerto in F major, Op. 13, he theorized was the work that Mozart composed for Ferlendis; Saint Foix proposed that the second concerto, Op. 14, might be an F major English Horn Concerto by Michael Haydn.39 About the same time that the Saint Foix article was published, Berhard Paumgartner discovered a set of hand-written parts from eighteenth-century Vienna in the archives of the Salzburg Mozarteum. These were in a bundle which Paumgartner believed was from the estate of Mozarts son. The heading read: Concerto in C / Oboe Principale / 2 Violini / 2 Oboe / 2 Corni / Viola / e / Basso Del Sigre W.A. Mozart. 40 He recognized that the music was virtually the same as that of the Flute Concerto in D Major, K. 314, but that the oboe version was a whole step lower.41 The first mention of the C major Oboe Concerto in the Kchel-Verzeichnis appeared in the third edition (KV3, 1947), edited by Alfred Einstein, the first edition to contain Einsteins renumbering of Kchels listing. In the KV 3, Einstein pointed out that two copies of the score to the Concerto K. 314 existed in the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna: one in D major and one in C major. He also noted that the set of parts in C major that Paumgartner discovered, with solo oboe,

THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314

existed in the library of the Mozarteum in Salzburg. He then concluded that K. 314 was originally an oboe concerto and was transcribed by Mozart in partial fulfillment of the de Jean commission.42 Einstein carried this further in his Mozart: His Character, His Work: Almost conclusive evidence that the original key was C major is the fact that in the transposition to D the violins never go below the A on the G string.43 Einstein also speculated that the oboist from the Esterhazy orchestra, mentioned in Mozarts letter of February 15, 1783, was Franz Joseph Czerwenka.44 In KV 3, Einstein assigned revised KchelEinstein numbers to the following five oboe works: 1. The K. 314 concerto appeared under 285d as Concerto for Flute (Oboe?).45 2. The 60-bar F major Oboe Concerto fragment was K. 293 (416f).46 3. Under 416g is listed a short segment of K.293.47 4. The oboe concerto discovered by Saint Foix in Milan was given the listing of 271k. Einstein stated that the concerto was not by Mozart, based on internal evidence, and that it should remain attributed to Ferlendis. The accompanying English horn concerto in F, however, he thought was by Michael Haydn, not Ferlendis.48 5. An oboe concerto in E flat was listed as Anh. 294b, with the notation that it was a spurious work from the nineteenth century.49 This concerto is still available in editions with attributions to Mozart (the KV7 lists this work as Anh. C14.06). The subsequent editions of the KchelVerzeichnis have reproduced the above KV 3 oboe concerto listings virtually intact. An article by Geoffrey Cuming entitled Mozarts Oboe Concerto for Ferlendis appeared in Music and Letters in 1940. The article repeats many of Einsteins contentions, and then focuses on the usage of the tempo marking Allegro aperto at the beginning of the first movement of the K. 314 concerto.50 Cuming asserts that Mozart was in the habit of taking an idea, perhaps from another composer, using it regularly for several works and then dropping it completely.51 This being the case,

Cuming reasons that the tempo marking for the first movement places the oboe/flute concerto in the time period 1775-1777 and provides another bit of evidence to support Einsteins thesis on the priority of the oboe version.52 In 1948 Paumgartner brought out the first edition of the Mozart Oboe Concerto in C , in both oboe-and-orchestra and oboe-and-piano versions, published by Boosey & Hawkes.53 In the Mozart-Jahrbuch of 1950, Paumgartner presented an extensive article that put forth his discovery of the eighteenth-century parts in the Mozarteum and built on the conclusion reached by Einstein: that this was the concerto written for Ferlendis and that it was hastily rewritten for flute by Mozart to fulfill part of the de Jean commission. Paumgartner also dismissed Saint Foixs contention that the Ferlendis score in Naples was the Mozart Oboe Concerto.54 To establish the priority of the oboe version, Paumgartner used some of the same ideas that had appeared in the two Einstein writings mentioned above: 1. The orchestral violins in the flute version never go below the A on the G string, whereas they do reach the open G in the C major version.55 2. The solo part of the D major version never goes above e, well short of the full range of the Classical flute, and a third lower than the repeated g in the G major Flute Concerto, K. 313. The flutes e appears in the oboe as a d, the normal high range of the classical oboe. Extraordinary players like Ramm could reach f, however, as is seen from the oboe quartet, K. 370. (Ferlendis, on the other hand, was characterized as an average player by Haydn, who heard him in London in 1795).56 3. In the second movement of the flute version, the orchestral oboes are set an octave lower in places than in the oboe version, so that they do not go above d; in the C major version the orchestral oboes do not reach d.57 4. The most convincing evidence for the priority of the oboe version, according to Paumgartner, was the setting of an imitative episode in the C major parts of the third movement, meas. 152-167. When the D major Flute Concerto was prepared for publication in the Alte Mozart-Ausgabe, the editors were aware that they did not have the proper reading for this passage, since

10

IDRS JOURNAL

the autograph score had been lost. The assistance of Johannes Brahms was even sought, but still a satisfactory setting could not be found. The C major parts that Paumgartner discovered supplied the simple and elegant solution that had eluded the Mozart-Ausgabe editors.58 Paumgartner produced a second, shorter article on the same topic in Tempo , Winter 1950-1951, which briefly repeated much of what he had said in the Mozart-Jahrbuch article of 1950. This second article clearly states that the parts were copied from the score in Vienna but this score has since disappeared.59 It states that Anton Mayer was the oboist in the Esterhazy orchestra who offered to pay three ducats for a copy of the oboe concerto and who wanted to commission a new work for six ducats (see pages 4-5). This last statement disagreed with Einsteins speculation of 1945. Paumgartner also pointed out here that in the G major Flute Concerto K. 313 the writing is considerably more flutistic than in K. 314, although Mozart did extensively rewrite many passages in the latter to take advantage of the technique of the flute.60 Shortly after the Paumgartner articles were published, a brief article by Felix Schroeder repeated much of the earlier articles arguments. 61 He also added two ideas of his own that help establish the priority of the oboe version: (1) the string parts are more easily performed in the C major version, in spite of the fact that D major is usually easier for strings, and (2) the double stops in the C major version are more manageable than in the flute version, as the former consistently uses open strings.62 A nine-measure fragment relating to the Concerto K. 314 was discovered in 1971; it is now in the possession of Dr. F.G. Zeileis, Jr. 63 Written in Mozarts hand on one of his little travel papers, it duplicates the oboe concerto solo part in measures 51 through 53 of the first movement, then moves on with the material in a previously unknown manner. Most significantly, the fragment is set in the key of C major. This, the only autograph reference that survives to the work, indicates that Mozart did indeed write the piece in C major. 64 The fragment is reproduced in the back of the volume of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe that contains the concerti for flute, oboe, and bassoon.65 In 1976 the oboist Ingo Goritzki published

an eight-page article which accompanied his recording of the Mozart and Joseph Haydn C major Concerti.66 Goritzki agreed with Einstein and Paumgartner that the oboe version of Concerto K. 314 preceded the flute version; however, in this article he proposed the idea that this concerto was originally written for violin, then rewritten for oboe, and lastly for flute. Furthermore, Goritzki contended that the eighteenth-century manuscript solo part in the Mozarteum is a somewhat crude simplification by a foreign hand of the work as written by Mozart. Therefore, the flute version (although originally drawn from the oboe concerto by the composer) can now claim to be authentic Mozart.67 Goritzki subsequently claimed that a C major transposition of the solo part of the concerto flute version provides oboists with a piece both more musically satisfying and more historically accurate than the C major version as it exists in the Salzburg manuscript solo part (or as in the Paumgartner edition, which is based on that manuscript.)68 Goritzki supported his suppositions by stating that in several instances restatements of themes are significantly altered to compensate for the limited range of the oboe, thus demonstrating that Mozart had originally conceived the piece for another instrument: It is obvious that these somewhat clumsy-sounding restrictions of melodic structure could have come about only under the constraint of certain instrumental factors. We expect that Mozart, once he conceived a theme for a particular instrument, adapted every detail to fit idiomatically the character of the instrument. Because of that, any change in the themes original arrangement must almost inevitably detract from the ideal proportions of these themes.69 He then pointed out that the oboe solo and flute solo parts both have virtually identical orchestral accompaniments, and that Now the question presents itself whether Mozart really had composed two distinct solo voices to one and the same score. The text comparisons which follow make it clear that only the flute part is in harmony with the score and thus can make claim to be authentic Mozart. This essential unity in the flute version

THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314

11

between the solo voice and the score the unmistakable characteristic of the original ideais destroyed in the oboe version through the changes made in the solo part.70 After using his arguments to establish his opinion that the flute part is much closer to Mozarts original idea than is the solo oboe part, Goritzki pointed out several places where he believed the solo part was rewritten in the oboe version to simplify finger technique and breathing. Goritzki concluded, One must arrive at the conclusion that the two solo voices cannot be seen as alternatives. Rather the orchestra score and the solo voice of the flute versions were composed with and for one another. Considering the demonstratable priority of the oboe version, we can now conclude that the original score of the oboe concerto, from which Mozart had undertaken the transposition in 1778, must have already included this very solo part. We also arrive at the identical conclusion from another path, which we fleetingly encountered earlier. It struck us as unusual that the theme fragments which originated with the violin concerto but were constricted in the composition of the oboe concerto were not restored again to their original state during the transposition to the flute concerto although this could have been easily accomplished, especially in the second movement. Since Mozart did not even undertake these changes which presented themselves, then we can assume that in the haste with which he apparently had to write the transposition he transferred the oboe part verbatim, which also presumes the original identity of the two solo voices.71 On his recording, Ingo Goritzki performed the C major transposition of the flute concerto, the practice he advocated in his essay. In 1979 Goritzki published an article in Tibia which reiterated his speculations in the article accompanying his recording of the Concerto.72 In the winter 1978-1979 edition of the National Association of College Wind and Percussion Instructors NACWPI Journal, Ivar Lunde, Jr. published an article entitled

Corrections to the Paumgartner Edition of the Oboe Concerto in C Major, K. 314 , by W.A. Mozart.73 This article is essentially a listing of his performance suggestions for the Oboe Concerto. Lunde stated that Bernhard Paumgartner had told the French oboist Andr Lardrot of several errors in the Boosey & Hawkes edition of the Oboe Concerto. Lunde had learned of these errors from Lardrot, but in his article he does not specifically identify these errors. A 1981 doctoral treatise by Patricia Ann Malone dealt briefly with the historical background of the Mozart Oboe Concerto and the Oboe Quartet, but it was concerned primarily with the application of the appoggiatura and trill in those works.74 The Neue Mozart-Ausgabe edition of the woodwind concerti was published by Brenreiter in 1981. 75 The foreword by Franz Giegling provided a brief history and review of literature on the Oboe Concerto in C. Giegling supported the priority of the Oboe Concerto over the flute versions. He mentioned the two articles by Goritzki and referred specifically to Goritzkis idea that the oboe voice, as it is handed down to us, was reworked later by a foreign hand, and is not from Mozart. 76 Giegling states that the editors of the NMA do not agree in full with these thoughts; 77 however, he does mention some problematic features of the eighteenth-century manuscript of the oboe version. The tutti doublings in the solo part were written differently between the flute and oboe versions, and Giegling states that the flute version seems the more convincing and more musical than the oboe version, and that many of the tutti doublings cannot be meant by Mozart in the way they have been handed down to us.78 An additional special problem is the dynamics in the oboe version. Instead of marking crescendo [as] in the flute version, here we find crescendo forks [hairpins], which in such high numbers cannot be by Mozart. What is remarkable is that the solo parts of the principal oboe are also dynamically marked, which for Mozart [is] an untypical way of doing things.79 Giegling further states that the NMA editors agree with Goritzki that the oboe version contains melodic problems and problems in

12

IDRS JOURNAL

figurations in the solo part and that some details in this handing down of the work by the Salzbrg material are not correct.80 In spite of these reservations, the NMA editors chose to base their edition almost totally on the eighteenth-century Mozarteum manuscript, even reproducing the tutti doublings as shown in the MS (but in small notes rather than full-sized notes, as in the MS). The 1986 issue of The Journal of the International Double Reed Society carried an article entitled A New Edition of the Mozart Oboe Concerto, K. 314: A Checklist to Correct the Boosey & Hawkes Edition.81 This consisted simply of a listing of the places where the Boosey & Hawkes edition disagreed with the NMA. In the Winter, 1986, issue of the Double Reed, Islay-May Renwick published an article Authenticity in Mozarts Oboe Concerto: A Reappraisal, in which she basically dealt with the preceding article and made some corrections to it.82 Professor Ronald Richards 83 and Dr. Charles-David Lehrer84 have pointed out that the title page of the Salzbrg Mozarteum Solo Oboe part of K. 314 has Braun? written across the top. This is probably a reference to a member of a family of oboists and composers. Johann Friedrich Braun (17591824) held posts in various German court orchestras; he had two sons, Carl Anton Philipp (born 1788), who was active in Copenhagen, and Wilhelm (born 1791), who was an oboist in Ludwigslust, Berlin, and Stockholm.85 The Brauns, especially Wilhelm, wrote works for solo oboe. It is possible that at one time the Salzburg parts of the K. 314 had passed through the hands of one of the members of this family.86 Differences Between the Flute and Oboe Versions Most oboists who have performed or practiced the Oboe Concerto have used the popular Boosey and Hawkes edition by Paumgartner based on the eighteenth-century Salzburg manuscript. Upon hearing a performance or examining a score of the Flute Concerto K. 314 for the first time, oboists immediately realize that there are profound differences in the solo parts between the oboe and flute versions which have been passed down to us. In fact, differences of pitch and rhythm between the solo parts of the two

versions exist in some 20% of the total number of measures for the soloists (79 measures with discrepancies between the versions, out of a total of 397 measures for the soloist). Furthermore, if one compares the tutti doublings written into the solo part of the Salzburg manuscript with the doublings appearing in the early versions of the flute concerto, the figure would be much higher, as high as 36% of the total number of measures (202 out of 561).87 It would not be surprising if Mozart made substantial changes in the solo part when rescoring the work for flute, indeed it would have been surprising if he had not. Mozart certainly had a concept of what was inherently oboistic and what was flutistic, and in resetting K. 314 for the flute it is logical that he would have rewritten the solo part substantially to fit his conception of the latter instrument. After all, at the time instruments and instrumentalists were highly idosyncratic, not at all colorless musical eunuchs; each instrument carried its own subjective as well as historical musical and non-musical associations, and the flute and oboe were not at all capable of the same ranges of colors or expressions. It is further likely that Mozart felt that by substantially rewriting the solo part of the Oboe Concerto, the commissioner of the work, de Jean, might view it as a new piece. Since the Dutchman was present in Mannheim at the time that Ramm was performing the Oboe Concerto as his war horse (cheval de bataille, according to Mozart), de Jean was undoubtedly familiar with the piece. Wolfgang, in the face of having to deal with the consequences of his apparent laziness during the previous two months, might very well have imagined that he was creating a new work idiomatically suited only for the fluteor that de Jean would look upon it as a new work, which it essentially was. After all, composers had been recreating their own works (and the works of others) in alternative formats for several hundred years, and such rewritings were often regarded as new works; Mozart himself accepted and employed this practice on other occasions. Indeed, Wolfgang wrote to his father on February 14, 1778, claiming that he had finished two concertos for de Jean.88 This suggests that Mozart did indeed consider the D major Concerto to be a new piece, or at least, in his haste to finish his commission, he

THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314

13

may have (perhaps somewhat ingenuously) hoped the Dutchman would see it as such. Most likely, de Jean was not convinced, judging from his partial payment for the portion of the commission actually completed. If Mozart did, at the time, conceive of the oboe and flute versions as different pieces, it seems that he later changed his mind, as in the letter of October 3, 1778, he spoke of only one flute concerto for de Jean.89 Today we can look at the differences between what we know as the oboe and flute versions of K. 314 and judge for ourselves whether we should consider them two different works (assuming that the Salzbrg manuscript is to be accepted as a fairly true copy of the original). Some of the major differences are considered below. Mozarts Keys Mozart inescapably carried with him musical and extra-musical predispositions towards the oboe and the flute. He logically chose to cast the Oboe Concerto in C major, as that was the key most comfortably played on the classical oboe, and so would show off the soloist to best effect. In addition, all of the associations he carried with the oboe down through the years would be likely to flow forth from his pen: as but one example, he would have associated the oboe as an instrument well suited for outdoor and military applications, as he had spent his entire life seeing the instrument used in such manner, and he himself had written for it in such settings. Likewise, since the flute scale at the time lay most conveniently in D major, he set the flute in that key. Features he idiomatically associated with the flute would translate themselves into his music: he would likely have thought in more showy and virtuosic terms for the flute, and his writing might well have reflected the predispositions towards flutists that he had expressed to his father in his letter of February 14, 1778, and those later recounted by Otto Jahn in his biography and quoted earlier. Mozart had to have extra-musical associations with these keys, either conscious or unconscious: he would have been influenced by the Affektenlehre (theory of affects) described by various eighteenthcentury writers. During the time, composers generally set military symphonies, with their trumpets and drums, in C major (just consider

the many C major symphonies of Haydn), while D major was the key of virtuosity. And by practice he chose his keys very carefully. Indeed, the flute version does have passages more showy and virtuosicand arguably more vacuousthan the oboe version, and some of these passages are described below. Cuthbert Girdlestone, in his Mozart and His Piano Concertos, describes Mozarts treatment of C and D major: The key of D major, much used at all times by Mozart, is the favorite key for overtures and occasional piecesin gallant music. Its superficial majesty has not the martial strains heard in many a C major composition, capable in certain chosen works of attaining to the expression of heroism, and it easily passes over to showiness and virtuosity. It is the concerto key par excellence and in those which Mozart has written in D virtuosity plays a great part. In his violin concertos, the most difficult are in this key; his D major flute concerto is more virtuoso than that in G; it is in D that he writes one of his three flute quartets which most resembles a concerto; his four piano sonatas in D, especially the first two, are works of technical display, and this is true also of his only violin sonata in this key. Finally two out of his three piano concertos in D are those where the display of technique enters most deeply into the personality of the work.90 One of the best-known descriptions of the affective content of the various keys was published by Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) in his work Das neu-erffnete Orchestre (1713). His characterizations of C, D, F, and G major, the keys present in the two versions of K. 314, appears below in a summary from a secondary source: To C major [oboe version, first and third movements] (Ionian) Mattheson ascribes a rather rude and impertinent character but says that it is suited to the expression of joy. A clever composer who chooses the accompanying instruments well can even use it for tender and charming compositions. F major [oboe version, second movement] (transposed Ionian) is capable of

14

IDRS JOURNAL

expressing the most beautiful sentiments, whether these be generosity, steadfastness, love, or whatever else may be high on the list of virtue. It is natural and unforced when used to express such affects. D major [flute version, first and third movements] is found to be somewhat sharp and stubborn, very suitable to noisy, gay, war-like, and cheering things. No one will deny, however, that if a flute is used instead of a clarinet and a violin is the predominant instrument instead of the kettledrum, it can be very well used for delicate things. G major [flute version, second movement] (Hypoionian) Mattheson calls insinuating and persuasive. It is, besides, somewhat brilliant and suited to the expression of serious as well as gay affects.91 Even in Matthesons day, many composers would probably have considered his attempts to classify keys as somewhat naive or oversimplistic. However, his descriptions do demonstrate the fact that composers could not escape carrying non-musical associations with keys. Quantz summarized this as follows There is no agreement as to whether certain keys, either major or minor, have particular individual effects As for myself, until I can be convinced of the contrary, I will trust to my experience, which assures me of the different effects of different keys.92

Technical Figurations Regarding concertos, Quantz stated, at times the solo sections must be singing, and at times these flattering sections must be interspersed with brilliant melodic and harmonic passage work appropriate to the instrument. 93 Einstein added as regards Mozarts concertos for wind instruments the character of their melodic invention is determined by the limitations of the instruments.94 Mozart undoubtedly had his own ideas of what was appropriate to the instrument, as well as what were the limitations of each.

These concepts may well have been translated into what we today see as differences in the technical figures between the oboe and flute solo lines of the Concerto K. 314. For example, in measures 44 and 45 of the first movement, the flute version virtuosically displaces by an octave the third sixteenth note in each group of four sixteenths. Two more examples are found in the fact that the oboe version contains important triplet passages in the first and last movements, while the flute version has no triplets at all in either movements. It is important to note that any of the figures in the solo part of the oboe version could have been easily been played transposed up a step by a flutist, while any competent classical oboist could perform the figures in the flute version moved down a stop. Therefore, the differences between the two versions cannot be explained by limitations of either of the instruments. I am suggesting here that Mozart deliberately wrote the solo parts differently to fit his conception of what he idiomatically associated with each of the instruments. Some illustrations of this point follow. It is most curious that the flute version of K. 314 contains so few triplet passages for the soloist, in contrast to the oboe version, which has important passages in triplet rhythms in each movement. Mozart frequently utilized triplet passages in concertos; they appear in every violin concerto he wrote, along with his bassoon and clarinet concertos, and even the G major Flute Concerto. Extensive passages in triplets are also a common feature in his piano concertos. The concertos by Mozarts contemporaries routinely employed passages in triplets as a matter of course; indeed, such passages may be regarded as a part of the classical concerto style. It is more than a bit of a puzzle that the D major Flute Concerto has come down to us with so few triplet figures only three beats of triplets, all in the slow movementwith no triplets at all in the outer movements. The triplet passages in the first movement of the Oboe Concerto provide rhythmic variety and serve a formal function as well, as they break up the regularity of the rhythm, thus helping to announce impending important cadences.95 The triplets in measures 90 and 91 of the first movement, along with the eighth note figure in measure 92, set up the last burst of sixteenth notes (bars 93 through 95) in the oboe part, which brings the first solo section to a heroic close. Similar observations may be

THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314

15

made for the passages that include the tripleted measures 116-117 and 167-168. How different in the flute version! One gets the impression that the writing here in bars 9095 (as well as similar passages containing measures 116-117 and 167-168) springs from Wolfgangs famous wita joke at the flutists expense, perhaps as if this were a wry musical parody in reaction to being obliged to write for an instrument I cannot bear.96 The flutist is given sixteenth notes wherever the oboe version has triplets, as if he was insistent on showing off his virtuosity, unmindful of the fact that the section is about to come to a close, and unwilling to set up the upcoming cadence in bar 96 (or 120, or 174). This results in cadences that are less well-defined and not at all as satisfying or heroic, and each passage vacuously lacks the great rhythmic interest of the oboe version. Similarly, the last movement of the oboe version features a mixture of three different rhythmic figures in bars 90 through 98, while the flute version has only incessant sixteenth notes for eight measuresvery unimaginative by comparison with the oboe version, reminiscent of mindless practice of a very pedantic etude. Recall Mozarts comment to Wendlings brother, as reported by Otto Jahn, quoted earlier, and the transformation from a passage of great rhythmic variety (oboe version) to a much more predictable part (flute version) suddenly becomes apparent: here is a product of Mozarts sense of humor. Another of Mozarts witticisms can be found in the virtuosic octave displacements in the flute version in measures 44 and 45 of the first movement: the resultant rewriting sounds like the disjointed product of the practice room, rather than the arguably more elegantly lyrical figures of the oboe version. These are but three examples.97 One error in the Boosey and Hawkes version that clearly needs to be corrected appears in measure 72 of the first movement. The correct reading is as follows:

Movement I, Measure 72 Both the Salzburg manuscript and the flute version agree on this reading.

As we have seen, such oboists as Ingo Goritzki feel that oboists are better served to play a transposed version of the solo part of the concerto. Robert Bloom and others have argued for the priority of the flute version along parallel lines, with the supposition that a composer improves a piece when he or she rewrites it, therefore oboists should perform the improved flute version.98 These theories are interesting, but they are highly speculative. While it is indeed possible that Mozart intended to strengthen the work in spots when he rewrote it for the flute, it is more likely that he intended to make the work more flutistic, that is, more idiomatically suited to his ideal of what a flute piece should be. The acceptance of the idea that Mozarts reworkings result in a stronger concerto overlooks the fact that changes in the solo part could well be attributable to the differences in his basic conception of the two instruments. In other words, the composer certainly had strong feelings about what is inherently or subjectively oboistic or flutistic, and that many of the differences between the two versions are attributable to this. Such a dichotomy in his conception of the two instruments, coupled with the fact that he was attempting to write a new concerto to partly fulfill de Jeans commission, could account for the scores of substantive differences between the two solo parts. Certainly in the practice of the eighteenth century it would have been defensible to substitute freely between the versions, and musicians should feel free to do so. One place oboists should especially consider borrowing from the flute version is in the second movement. The Flute Concerto features many little ornamental turns that appear throughout the slow movement, in the solo part as well as in the orchestra parts. These may be employed to great effect by oboists as well as by accompanying violinists. In addition, it is quite permissible to tastefully and judiciously add ornaments not appearing in either version. There is every reason to believe that the manuscripts that we have today, though not in Mozarts hand, are reasonably correct copies of what the composer wrote. The solo part of the Salzbrg manuscript may be criticized for such problems as missing ties, inconsistent articulation markings, erroneous accidentals, and incomplete tutti doublings in the solo part; however, there is no compelling reason to doubt its basic authenticity with regard to

16

IDRS JOURNAL

pitches and durations in the solo part. Apparently, Franz Giegling, who edited the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe edition of the Oboe Concerto, agreed with this premise in basing his version on the eighteenth-century manuscript now in the Mozarteum, as previously noted. Oboists can consider the version of K. 314 handed down to them to be a substantially different piece from the Flute Concerto in D, and they should treat it as such. y

FOOTNOTES Bernhard Paumgartner, Zu Mozarts OboenConcerto C-dur, KV 314 (285d), Mozart Jahrbuch 1950: 24. 2 Ibid., 25. 3 Emily Anderson, ed., The Letters of Mozart and His Family, (London: Macmillan, 1938), 2:466. 4 Ibid., 2:465. 5 Anderson, 2:520. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 2:591 8 Ibid., 2:592. 9 Anderson, 2:611. 10 Ibid., 2:612. 11 Paumgartner, 24. 12 Ronald Wrtz, Wendling, from Stanley Sadie, ed., The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians , (London, Macmillan, 1980) 20:340. 13 Anderson, 2:629. 14 Paumgartner, 26. 15 Anderson, 2:674. 16 Ibid., 2:632. 17 Anderson, 2:632. 18 Ibid., 2:661 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 2:665. 21 Anderson, 2:679. 22 Ibid., 2:680. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Paumgartner, 28. 26 Anderson, 2:681. 27 Ibid., 2:709-712. 28 Anderson, 2:724-726. 29 Ibid., 2:924. 30 Ibid., 2:877. 31 Anderson, 3:1252. 32 Ibid., 3:1255. 33 Ibid., 3:1257-1258. 34 Franz Giegling, Vorwort to the Neue MozartAusgabe, xi.
1

35 Ludwig Ritter von Kchel, Chronologischthematisches Verzeichnis smtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amad Mozarts, 6th ed., ed. Franz Giegling, Alexander Weinmann, and Gerd Sievers (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hrtel, 1964), 295. 36 Giegling, xi. 37 Alte Mozart-Ausgabe, Revisionsbericht, 9. 38 Otto Jahn, Life of Mozart , trans. Pauline D. Townsend (originally published 1891; New York: Cooper Square, 1970), 1:385. (The original German edition, W.A. Mozart , was printed in four volumes, 1856-1859.) 39 Georges de Saint Foix, Mozart ou Ferlendis, Rivista musicale italiana 27 (1920), 543-560 (translation used is by Suzanne Watson). 40 Paumgartner, 33. 41 Paumgartner, 33. 42 Ludwig Ritter von Kchel, Chronologischthematisches Verzeichnis Smtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amad Mozarts, 3rd ed., ed. Alfred Einstein (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hrtel, 1937; reprint, Ann Arbor, Michigan: J.W. Edwards, 1947), 358-359 (page references are to the reprint edition). 43 Alfred Einstein, Mozart: His Character, His Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945; reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 283 (page references are to the reprint edition). 44 Einstein: Mozart: His Character, His Work, 283284. 45 Kchel, KV 358-359. 46 Ibid., 520. 47 Ibid., 521. 48 Ibid., 346-347. 49 Ibid., 908-909. 50 Geoffrey Cuming, Mozarts Concerto for Ferlendis, Music and Letters 21 (1940), 18-22. 51 Ibid., 20. 52 Ibid., 19-22. 53 Mozart, Oboe Concerto, ed. Paumgartner. 54 Paumgartner, 32-33. 55 Ibid., 33. 56 Ibid., 33-34. 57 Paumgartner, 35-36. 58 Ibid., 36-39. 59 Bernard Paumgartner, Mozarts Oboe Concerto, Tempo 18 (Winter 1950-1951), 4. 60 Paumgartner, Tempo, 4-7. 61 Felix Schroeder, ist uns Mozarts Oboenkonzert fr Ferlendi erhaltn?, Die Musikforschung 5 (1952), 209-210 (translation used is by Wolfgang Adolph). 62 Ibid., 210. 63 Goritzki, 1.

THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314

17

Mozart, NMA, 174. Goritzki, Mozart and Haydn Oboenkonzerte (recording cited in footnote 63). 67 Goritzki, 3. 68 Ibid., 3-6. 69 Ibid., 2 (translation by Krause and Williams revised by Wolfgang Adolph). 70 Goritzki, 3. 71 Goritzki, 7. 72 Ingo Goritzki, Mozarts Oboenkonzert unter neuen Aspekten, Tibia 4 (1979), 302-308. 73 Ivar Lunde, Jr., Corrections to the Paumgartner Edition of the Oboe Concerto in C Major, K. 314, by W.A. Mozart, NACWPI Journal 27 (Winter 1978-1979): 24-26 and 35-37. 74 Patricia Ann Malone, Usage of the Appoggiatura and Trill in W.A. Mozarts Oboe Concerto, K. 314, and Oboe Quartet, K. 370, (D. Mus. treatise, Florida State University, 1981). 75 Mozart, Neue Mozart-Ausgabe . This will hereafter referred to as NMA; consult footnote 6, Chapter I for full reference. 76 Franz Giegling, Vorwort to the Mozart NMA, vii-xii (translation used is by Karin Sturm, George Riordan and Wolfgang Adolph). 77 Ibid., x. 78 Giegling, x. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Geoffrey Burgess, A New Edition of the Mozart Oboe Concerto , K. 314: A Checklist to Correct the Boosey & Hawkes Edition, The Journal of the International Double Reed Society 14 (July 1986), 57-65. 82 Islay-May Renwick, Authenticity in Mozarts Oboe Concerto : A Reappraisal, The Double Reed 9 (Winter 1986): 58-59. 83 Ronald Richards, Buffalo, New York, letter to the author, Tallahassee, Florida, 1 December 1986. The author is grateful to Professor Richards for supplying a copy of the Salzbrg Mozarteum solo part. 84 Charles-David Lehrer, Los Angeles, California, telephone interview from Tallahassee, Florida, 5 September 1987. 85 Phillip Bate, The Oboe , 2nd ed. (London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1962), 166. 86 Richards; also Lehrer. 87 In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common practice for composers and publishers to reproduce, in full-size notes, one of the tutti orchestral parts (or, in the case of the Salzbrg manuscript, an amalgam of several parts) in the solo part, whenever the soloist did not have an independent line. Generally, editions
66

65

today do not reproduce such extensive tutti doublings and the soloist is expected to observe rests, but according to the evidence, historically soloists must have been expected to play along with the orchestra while it was playing the tutti sections. Modern players might wish to experiment with this when performing 18th and early 19th century concertos, provided they have the stamina. (Indeed, more and more this seems to becoming accepted practice once again.) Playing along with the tuttis certainly solves the soloists problem of what to do with ones hands or where to look during the initial tutti, while waiting for the solo part to begin! 86 Anderson, 2:681. 89 Ibid., 2:924. 90 Cuthbert Girdlestone, Mozarts Piano Concertos, 2nd ed. (London, Cassell & Company, Ltd., 1958; reprinted as Mozart and His Piano Concertos , New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1964), 462-463 (page references are to the reprint edition). 91 Hans Lenneberg, Johnn Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music, Journal of Music Theory 2 (1958): 235. 92 Johann Joachim Quantz, On Playing the Flute, trans. Edward R. Reilly (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), 202. 93 Quantz, 312. 94 Alfred Einstein: Mozart: His Character, His Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945; reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 282 (page reference is to the reprint edition). 95 The usage of rhythmic devices to set up notable cadences was a common part of composers palettes. For example, Baroque composers regularly used hemiolas in a similar manner, to unsettle the regularity of the rhythm of a passage in order to announce the imminent arrival of the important cadences. 96 See previous reference to this statement, page 3. Anderson, 2:711. 97 One particular puzzling point is the fact that so many oboists who otherwise accept the oboe version essentially verbatim play the flute versions measure 40 in the first movement, i.e., as four slurred eighth notes, quarter note e, eighth rest and eighth note e, rather than the oboe versions four sixteenths, quarter note e, quarter and eighth rests, and eighth note e. The Salzbrg manuscript solo part very clearly indicates that the initial f -e -d sharp -e are sixteenths. Although the flute version with the long slurred eighth notes is

18

IDRS JOURNAL

defensible, to these ears the oboe version, with its lively sixteenths, sounds much more oboistic, and better fits the character of the passage. Up to this point in the solo part there have only been quarters, sixteenths, and long held notesno eighths. If there were some structural reasonsuch as to announce a forthcoming cadenceit would be understandable for Mozart to introduce here a new rhythmic element to upset the interplay of long-short balance within the first sixteen bars of the solo part, especially on a downbeat. (The eighths in bar 41 are a different matter, as they are not on the downbeat, are rising, and are shortnot at all akin to the long slurred eighths in measures 40 of the flute version.) Stranger still, to these ears, long slurred eighth notes in bar 40 sound perfectly fitting, when performed on the flute! This could well be a product of Mozarts genius in idiomatically illustrating his conception of each of the

instruments: perhaps he conceived of the flute as being better suited to more lyrical playing in an opening movement (hence the slurred long eighths), while he associated the oboe with a more spirited, character-rich, matter-offact style of delivery (resulting in sixteenths). Or, perhaps the eighth notes that appear in the flute version were merely a copyists error! 98 Robert Bloom, statement in oboe master class held at New College Music Festival, Sarasota, Florida, June 1, 1982.

About the author George Riordan is an assistant dean at the Florida State University School of Music, and performs on period and modern oboe. This article is based on his 1988 doctoral treatise.