In September 1764, Leopold Mozart penned a letter to Lorenz Hagenauer from Chelsea, revealing that he had been gravely ill since early July. During this period, young Wolfgang Mozart, then only eight years old, was compelled to pause his concert tours and spend nearly two months in Chelsea. This hiatus led Wolfgang to compose a collection of forty-three simple keyboard pieces, recorded in a notebook Leopold titled ‘di Wolfgango Mozart à Londra’ (by Wolfgango Mozart in London).

These compositions are often dismissed as mere exercises for a child, lacking the complexity and sophistication associated with Mozart’s later works. Unlike Beethoven’s sketchbooks, which are revered for their insights into his compositional processes, Mozart’s London Notebook reveals the young composer’s experimental attempts at various forms and structures, but with little success. The period of inactivity due to Leopold’s illness and Wolfgang’s lack of keyboard access led him to create pieces that, while intended as exercises, are frequently criticised for their lack of harmonic sophistication and compositional maturity.

Critics like Abert have downplayed the significance of these works, suggesting they are nothing more than trivial exercises. Yet, these pieces provide valuable insight into the music that captivated audiences of the time. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that some of these pieces might not even be by Mozart himself; they could have been composed by others or inspired by the music Wolfgang heard during his travels. The truth is, many of the pieces in the London Notebook are rudimentary and exhibit common errors for a child of his age. They display parallel octaves, fifths, and dissonant sequences, and reveal a general lack of advanced compositional techniques such as counterpoint and complex harmony.

Moreover, the praise often attributed to Mozart’s early works is questionable. The celebrated music from this period may owe more to Leopold’s influence and contributions than to Wolfgang’s own abilities. The claim that Mozart had achieved significant compositional milestones at such a young age is contradicted by the evidence presented in this notebook. It suggests that the acclaim for Mozart’s early works may be misplaced and more accurately reflects Leopold’s organisational and compositional role.

The London Notebook’s simplistic pieces and frequent errors highlight the limitations of a young Mozart who was still developing his musical skills. Claims that Mozart could have composed complex fugues or improvised sophisticated music with Johann Christian Bach are dubious at best. The reality of these early compositions demonstrates that young Wolfgang’s abilities were far from the prodigious genius later attributed to him.

In the end, the London Notebook offers a sobering look at Mozart’s early compositions, revealing a child artist grappling with musical concepts that would only later be refined. The current critical editions that attempt to correct these youthful mistakes often replace Mozart’s original intent with more polished versions, thus obscuring the true nature of his early work.