A Questionable Canon
The Misattribution of Mozart’s K.2 89a (K.6 73i)
K.2 89a (K.6 73i) is no grand work of genius, but rather a simple canon exercise for four sopranos. Its problems range from missing voices and unresolved harmonies to a lack of text, suggesting it’s a poorly copied version of an earlier work.
Modern editors have tried to patch it up, but can we really still call this a work by Mozart? It’s time to question whether it belongs in his catalogue at all.
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.
"A copy with missing voices and incomplete harmonies—Mozart would have known better."
Mozart: The Fall of the Gods
K.2 89a (K.6 73i), attributed to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, is a simple canon exercise in A major for four sopranos in unison. This piece closely resembles the Kyrie K.89, which is also written for four sopranos in unison. However, unlike the Kyrie, which serves a clear liturgical purpose, K.2 89a (K.6 73i) seems more like an incomplete experiment.
In this supposed composition, Mozart wrote only six measures for four voices. The piece is stagnant, with no modulations as it remains firmly in A major throughout. There is an overwhelming amount of repetition, suggesting a lack of imagination, even if one were to excuse it as a contrappuntal exercise.
This is where things become problematic. Although Wolfgang arranged the piece for four voices, the canon actually requires five to achieve complete harmonies. Without a fifth voice, the piece sounds incomplete, leaving discordant gaps that Mozart, if he had composed it, would surely have recognized.
The fifth voice is not indicated in the original manuscript, yet modern editors, including the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe (NMA), have added it in parentheses. This fifth voice logically enters at measure 13, filling the incomplete harmonies that otherwise sound weak. Curiously, Mozart left the final three measures filled with pauses, which suggests he may not have fully solved the harmonic puzzle presented by the canon.
Moreover, Amadé didn’t bother writing out any text, leaving many notes in a disjointed state, as though he were copying from an original source that had syllables of text he ignored. In an attempt to fill this void, modern editions have introduced whimsical verses, such as:
“Hei, wenn die Gläser klingen, so lasst uns alle fröhlich sein, und lasst uns lustig singen, ja singen ja lustig singen, am Tisch beim kühlen Wein.”
(“Hey, when the glasses clink, let’s all be merry and sing happily, sing sing joyfully, at the table with cool wine.”)
Breitkopf’s edition, unlike the NMA, corrected the canon by discreetly adding the fifth voice without explicitly saying so, transforming the piece into a Kanon für 5 Stimmen (canon for five voices) to make it more marketable.
Given that this is clearly a poorly resolved copy of a canon by an anonymous author, with Mozart forgetting the fifth soprano’s entrance, it should neither be considered an original composition nor included in his official catalogue.
You May Also Like
Rediscovering Musical Roots: The World Premiere of Gasparini and Mysliveček
This December, history will come alive as the Camerata Rousseau unveils forgotten treasures by Quirino Gasparini and Josef Mysliveček. These premieres not only celebrate their artistry but also reveal the untold influence of Gasparini on Mozart’s Mitridate re di Ponto. A pivotal event for anyone passionate about rediscovering music history.
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?