Wolfgang Amadé Mozart
The Deceptive Nature of Mozart’s Catalogue
The Thematic Catalogue traditionally credited to Mozart is fraught with inaccuracies, suggesting that many of his famous works might not be his at all. This prompts a necessary reevaluation of Mozart’s legacy and the authenticity of his compositions.
Mozart The Construction of a Genius: The Untold Story
Mozart: The Construction of a Genius” uncovers how the myth of Mozart was crafted after his death in 1791, initially to support his widow, then exploited by publishers, and later used to elevate Mozart as a cultural icon. Bianchini and Trombetta reveal that the personal catalogue attributed to Mozart is a late 18th-century fabrication, challenging long-held beliefs about his legacy.
“If Mozart had truly authored the Catalogue, he would not have mistakenly attributed the Arietta K. 541 to a bass when it was clearly intended for a tenor-baritone, casting further doubt on the document’s authenticity.”
Mozart: The Construction of a Genius
The Questionable Authenticity of K. 456
The legitimacy of Mozart’s Thematic Catalogue has long been debated, particularly regarding the inclusion of the Concerto K. 456 for Harpsichord and Orchestra, supposedly composed for the blind harpsichordist Teresa Paradis. The Catalogue indicates that the piece was completed on 30 September, just two days before Paradis’s final performance in Paris on 2 October. This timeline raises serious doubts. It seems highly unlikely that Mozart could have composed the Concerto, prepared all the necessary parts, and sent them to Paris in such a short span. The inclusion of this Concerto in the Catalogue without addressing these logistical challenges suggests a likely error or falsification in the dating.
Inconsistencies Surrounding K. 541
Further inconsistencies arise with the Arietta for Bass, K. 541, titled ‘Un bacio di mano’. The Catalogue lists this work as composed in May, yet it was later included in a Viennese revival of Pasquale Anfossi’s opera that same year. The Catalogue incorrectly attributes the performance to the famous bass Albertarelli, while in reality, it was sung by the tenor-baritone Del Sole. Such a mistake would be improbable if Mozart himself had recorded the information, casting further doubt on the Catalogue’s authenticity.
The Mystery of the Jupiter Symphony (K. 551)
The doubts surrounding Mozart’s Catalogue also extend to the famous Jupiter Symphony (K. 551). Some scholars point to similarities between this Symphony and the Arietta K. 541 to support Mozart’s authorship. However, if K. 541 was wrongly attributed to Mozart, the legitimacy of the Jupiter Symphony’s attribution is also questionable. Moreover, the original manuscript of the Symphony lacks Mozart’s signature or date, leading to speculation that the Catalogue was compiled posthumously to attribute this and other works to Mozart without solid evidence.
Discrepancies in Other Works
Questions also surround the authenticity of the Trio for Harpsichord, Violin, and Cello, K. 564, and the Masonic music, K. 477. Both works are listed in Mozart’s Catalogue, but with suspicious details that suggest someone else may have composed or copied them. The strikingly similar handwriting between the Catalogue and the manuscripts suggests potential forgery. Albert Osborn, a scholar on falsifications, argued that anyone who reproduces handwriting exactly is likely a forger, as it is impossible for a person to replicate the same phrase, musical passage, or signature identically multiple times.
Conclusion: A Catalogue of Errors
Often regarded as a definitive record of Mozart’s works, the Thematic Catalogue is fraught with inaccuracies, questionable attributions, and possible forgeries. These issues indicate that much of what has been traditionally accepted about Mozart’s later works, including some of his most celebrated compositions, may not be as it seems.
The discrepancies found in the Catalogue suggest it was likely created after Mozart’s death, potentially by those with an interest in enhancing his legacy. Given all these contradictions, the authenticity of many works attributed to Mozart must be reconsidered.
You May Also Like
The Myth of Mozart’s Sight-Reading Genius
Mozart’s so-called sight-reading miracles were less about supernatural talent and more about clever improvisation, as two key 18th-century witnesses make clear.
The Hidden Legacy of Michael Haydn
Mozart’s Symphony No. 37, K.444, is more Haydn than Mozart. How did this happen? A story of deception and misattribution unfolds.
The Myth of Mozart’s Education
For centuries, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has been celebrated as a musical prodigy, effortlessly composing masterpieces from a young age. However, when we peel back the layers of myth surrounding his early education, a different picture emerges—one in which his father, Leopold Mozart, plays a far more controlling and influential role than is often acknowledged. This article explores the true nature of Mozart’s education, examining how much of his early works can be attributed to his own genius, and how much was the product of his father’s meticulous and often self-serving guidance. Was Wolfgang’s brilliance entirely his own, or was it a crafted image designed by Leopold?
The Myth of Mozart’s Childhood
Mozart’s childhood is often romanticised, but behind the myth lies a more complex reality. This post explores the hidden dynamics within his family, questioning the traditional narrative of Mozart's early years and shedding light on the forgotten role of his sister,...
Bohemia or Moravia: Reconfiguring Music History
Why does music history insist on an Austrian narrative, when the contributions of other nations are just as crucial?
The True Caregiver: A Closer Look at Mozart’s Final Days
Who truly cared for Mozart in his final days: his wife Constanze or his sister-in-law Sophie? The True Caregiver unravels this age-old mystery, challenging our perceptions and shedding light on the figures closest to the composer in his last hours.