Mozart's K 71
A Fragment Shrouded in Doubt and Uncertainty
Mozart’s K 71, an incomplete aria, is yet another example of musical ambiguity. The fragment’s authorship, dating, and even its very existence as a genuine Mozart work remain open to question. With no definitive evidence, how can this fragment be so confidently attributed to him?
Mozart in Italy: The Untold Story
Was Mozart truly a solitary genius, or was he merely the instrument of his father’s ambition? “Mozart in Italy” challenges the conventional narrative, revealing a complex dynamic between father and son that shaped the course of music history. Prepare to question everything you thought you knew.
“In the world of Mozart, certainty is often a luxury we cannot afford.”
Mozart in Italy
Mozart’s K 71, “Ah, più tremar non voglio,” is yet another aria that challenges our understanding of Mozart’s creative process—or, perhaps more accurately, the myth surrounding it. A mere 48-bar fragment, this aria is based on a text by Metastasio from Demofoonte, Act I, Scene 1, yet its attribution to Mozart remains as speculative as ever. Despite being included in the Köchel catalogue, its legitimacy as a work by Mozart is, at best, dubious.
First, there’s the issue of its provenance. No signature or clear indication of the composer exists within the surviving fragment. The only source for the details we have about this piece comes from Johann Anton André, who, in the early 19th century, provided a so-called “completion” of the score. The lack of direct evidence leads us to wonder: if this aria were truly by Mozart, why would he not have signed it as he did with many other works? The absence of Mozart’s autograph casts doubt on its authenticity, yet it continues to be hailed as a Mozart composition in the Köchel catalogue.
Then there’s the troubling issue of dating. Some sources place the aria as contemporary with Lucio Silla (1772), while the Köchel catalogue places it in 1769 or early 1770. The conflicting dates alone should raise red flags. Could Mozart, a composer so meticulous about his cataloging, have forgotten to date this fragment properly? Or are we witnessing a careless inclusion in the canon, more based on the myth of Mozart’s genius than on reliable documentation?
The fragment’s incomplete nature further complicates matters. Only 48 bars remain, suggesting that much of the piece is lost, and the possibility that entire sections of the aria were never written down at all looms large. Furthermore, the aria’s context remains a mystery: was it an unfinished experiment? A discarded attempt at opera seria? Or, perhaps, just a fragment of something more substantial that was never completed or deemed worthy of preservation?
As with many other works attributed to Mozart, K 71 serves as a reminder of how the myth of Mozart often overshadows the reality of his creative output. The incomplete, ambiguous nature of this aria makes us question whether it truly belongs to Mozart at all, or if it’s merely another piece of historical fiction we’ve come to accept because of the composer’s legendary status.
You May Also Like
The Curious Case of Mozart’s Phantom Sonata
In a striking case of artistic misattribution, the Musikwissenschaft has rediscovered Mozart through a portrait, attributing a dubious composition to him based solely on a score’s presence. One has to wonder: is this music really Mozart’s, or just a figment of our collective imagination?
The Illusion of Canonic Mastery
This post explores the simplistic nature of Mozart’s Kyrie K.89, revealing the truth behind his early canonic compositions and their implications on his perceived genius.
The Unveiling of Symphony K.16
The Symphony No. 1 in E-flat major, K.16, attributed to young Wolfgang Mozart, reveals the complex truth behind his early compositions. Far from the prodigious work of an eight-year-old, it is instead a product of substantial parental intervention and musical simplification.
The Cibavit eos and Mozart’s Deceptive Legacy
The Cibavit eos serves as a striking reminder that Mozart’s legacy may be built on shaky foundations, questioning the very essence of his so-called genius.
K.143: A Recitative and Aria in the Shadows of Doubt
K.143 is a prime example of how Mozart scholarship has turned uncertainty into myth. With no definitive evidence of authorship, date, or purpose, this uninspired recitative and aria in G major likely originated elsewhere. Is it time to admit this is not Mozart’s work at all?
The Enigma of Mozart’s Symphony K.73
The Symphony in C Major K.73 has long puzzled Mozart scholars. Touted as a youthful work of prodigious talent, its origins are murky at best. The title “Symphony,” inscribed on the first page of the autograph, is devoid of the composer’s name, casting immediate doubt on its attribution to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Was this truly his work, or is the Symphony yet another victim of overzealous attribution?