The Truth Behind Mozart’s Canons
Simplicity, Errors, and the Myth of Perfection
Mozart is often praised as a master of form and complexity, but his canonic output tells a different story. Of the few canons he composed, most are surprisingly simple, often for equal voices and in unison.
However, two canons, K.553 and K.554, stand out not for their brilliance, but for their errors in counterpoint. Additionally, the myth surrounding the canon “V’amo di cuore teneramente” K.348 (K.6 382g) is finally debunked—Mozart never completed it.
The truth about these works paints a less flattering picture of the composer during this period.
Mozart: The Fall of the Gods
This book compiles the results of our studies on 18th-century music and Mozart, who has been revered for over two centuries as a deity. We dismantle the baseless cult of Mozart and strip away the clichés that falsely present him as a natural genius, revealing the contradictions in conventional biographies. In this work, divided into two parts, we identify and critically analyze several contradictory points in the vast Mozart bibliography. Each of the nearly 2,000 citations is meticulously sourced, allowing readers to verify the findings. This critical biography of Mozart emerges from these premises, addressing the numerous doubts raised by researchers.
"The errors in Mozart’s canons, from contrary octaves to parallel fifths, suggest a composer far from the technical perfection often attributed to him."
Mozart: The Fall of the Gods
Mozart is revered as a genius in all aspects of musical composition, but the reality of his canonic output may surprise you. Among the few canons he composed, most are simple, written in unison for equal voices, with little to no complexity. These are far from the intricate counterpoint often associated with his larger works.
Take, for instance, Canone K.553 and K.554, both of which belong to the sacred music genre. K.553 draws on a pre-existing Alleluia melody, while K.554 uses only two words from the Ave Maria. A popular tale claims Mozart composed the latter on the visitor’s register at a Bavarian convent—a charming story that turns out to be nothing more than an invention of the inscription added in 1813.
In reality, the Canone dell’Ave Maria was composed in 1788, during Mozart’s 32nd year. Yet, when compared to his earlier work, it shows signs of regression. The melody disobeys classical counterpoint rules: the vocal line jumps erratically from low to high registers, introduces dissonances, and features awkward harmonic transitions. The entire piece is anchored in F major, with only a single passing modulation. Mozart, by this stage, should have known better, especially given the polished works he produced in that same year.
The errors are glaring. Contrary octaves, parallel fifths, diminished fifths—it reads like a checklist of mistakes no 18th-century composer should have made. These failures are incompatible with the rest of Mozart’s output in 1788, a year marked by his great symphonies, which followed the strict compositional rules of the time.
K.553 fares no better. While the melody flows through stepwise motions and broader notes, the harmonic structure is riddled with unresolved dissonances and awkward chromatic sequences. Simple modulations from C major to A minor offer little in the way of ingenuity, and once again, Mozart fails to meet the basic expectations of counterpoint. The piece is littered with parallel fifths and octaves, with dissonances that clash in a way that suggests not innovation, but error.
One rare exception is V’amo di cuore teneramente K.348, written in G major for 12 voices divided into three four-part choirs. Here, imitation takes center stage, but even this work is not without its issues. Mozart left the piece unfinished, and it was later completed by Maximilian Stadler. Constanze, Mozart’s widow, even confirmed in a letter to Johann Anton André that Stadler was responsible for the missing sections. So, even this more elaborate canon does not fully belong to Mozart.
Ultimately, these works challenge the myth of Mozart’s perfection, revealing that even in his later years, his compositional skills were far from flawless.
You May Also Like
Mozart’s Letters: A Legacy of Disappearances, Edits, and Forgeries
Mozart’s letters reveal missing originals, questionable authorship, and forgeries, adding complexity to his legacy.
The Curious Case of Mozart’s “Lullaby”
Though long credited to Mozart, the lullaby “Schlafe mein Prinzchen, schlaf ein” hides a murky history. Initially published by Nissen, Constanze’s second husband, it has endured as one of Mozart’s supposed works—despite a trail of doubts. In 1798, Constanze herself noted sending “another piece of Mozart’s in place of the lullaby,” raising questions about its origins. By the 20th century, researchers revealed it as the work of lesser-known composers, yet it remains deceptively tied to Mozart, its myth surviving through mere footnotes.
Mozart’s Bassoon Concerto: A Question of Authorship
The Bassoon Concerto K.191 raises more questions than it answers. Long thought to have been composed for a Munich bassoonist, new evidence suggests Mozart had no clear performer in mind. The concerto’s disjointed movements and other dubious compositions attributed to Mozart add further complexity to his legacy
The Contradictions Behind Mozart’s Horn Concerto K.412
The authenticity of Mozart’s Horn Concerto K.412 remains hotly debated, as the work bears numerous contradictions in its manuscript history. The first movement may be original, but what about the rest? The inclusion of Franz Xaver Süssmayr and later editorial meddling raises serious questions about what we are really listening to when we hear this ‘Mozart’ concerto.
The Forgotten Viennese Quartets
Attributing Offertorium K.34 to Mozart is not just misleading, it reflects the careless methods used by 19th-century scholars to inflate his legacy. Without an autograph or solid evidence, this work should not be considered part of his output.”
The Questionable Attribution of Mozart’s Offertorium K.34
Attributing Offertorium K.34 to Mozart is not just misleading, it reflects the careless methods used by 19th-century scholars to inflate his legacy. Without an autograph or solid evidence, this work should not be considered part of his output.”