The Questionable Origins of Mozart’s Violin Concertos
A Closer Look at the Ambiguities and Influences
Mozart’s first five violin concertos, composed in just eight months during 1775, present numerous contradictions, from unclear dates on manuscripts to varying levels of technical difficulty. These inconsistencies raise doubts about the true origins of these works.
Could Josef Mysliveček, a contemporary of Mozart, have provided more than just inspiration? Was Mozart’s “genius” merely an appropriation of ideas from those around him?
This article examines these questions, focusing on the stylistic similarities between the concertos and the works of Mysliveček.
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 undeniable influence of Mysliveček on Mozart’s violin concertos leaves one to wonder where genius ends and imitation begins."
Mozart: The Fall of the Gods
Contradictions in Manuscripts and Dates
The first five violin concertos attributed to Mozart—K.207, K.211, K.216, K.218, and K.219—are said to have been written between April and December 1775. Yet, the manuscripts tell a different story. The date for K.207, for example, appears multiple times on the autograph, suggesting “April 13, 1775,” “April 14, 1775,” or even “April 1780.” The numerous revisions of dates raise suspicion about when—and perhaps by whom—these works were truly composed.
Adding to the confusion is the absence of any commissioner for the concertos. These were not works requested for a particular occasion, which was unusual for Mozart, a composer who rarely wrote without a specific purpose. Moreover, the varying technical difficulty and style within the set of five concertos suggest inconsistencies not typical of a singular composer working on a cohesive project.
The Influence of Josef Mysliveček
It is impossible to ignore the role that Josef Mysliveček may have played in these works. Mozart met the Czech composer during his Italian travels, and their friendship endured until around 1778. Mysliveček’s influence on Mozart is particularly evident in K.207, which bears striking resemblances to his earlier compositions. The syncopated opening of K.207 mirrors Mysliveček’s style, and the structure of its movements closely follows the standard forms found in Mysliveček’s violin concertos.
Notably, Wolfgang Plath, a 20th-century Mozart scholar, suggested that K.207 might have been written as early as 1773, based on an analysis of the paper used for the autograph. However, even if we accept this earlier date, the question remains: how much of Mozart’s first violin concerto is truly his?
Borrowing or Imitation?
The similarities between Mozart’s violin concertos and those of Mysliveček extend beyond K.207. In fact, K.211, known as the “Concerto facile,” and K.218 also exhibit clear influences from Mysliveček’s compositions. Several phrases from these concertos reappear in Mozart’s later works, including his serenade Il Re Pastore.
Mozart himself acknowledged this practice of borrowing, as evidenced by a letter in which he humorously mentioned copying the title page of one of Mysliveček’s concertos. But did the borrowing stop at the title page? The resemblances between the two composers’ works suggest that Mozart, still learning the ropes of concerto composition, leaned heavily on his friend’s established mastery.
The Legacy of Collaboration
While some may argue that Mozart’s borrowings were merely a tribute to Mysliveček’s genius, others suggest a more collaborative relationship between the two. As musicologist Giuseppe Rausa theorizes, the two composers may have exchanged favors, with Mysliveček gifting Mozart some of his works in exchange for assistance with commissions in Salzburg.
If so, what does this say about the authorship of works like K.216, often hailed as a masterpiece? The structure and virtuosic demands of K.216 align more closely with Mysliveček’s style than with Mozart’s early works. Could this celebrated concerto have been more an act of appropriation than of creation?
You May Also Like
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?
Unpacking Mozart’s Early Education
The story of Ligniville illustrates the pitfalls of romanticizing Mozart’s early life and education, reminding us that the narrative of genius is often a construct that obscures the laborious aspects of musical development.
The False Sonnet of Corilla Olimpica
Leopold Mozart’s relentless pursuit of fame for his son Wolfgang led to questionable tactics, including fabricating a sonnet by the renowned poetess Corilla Olimpica. This desperate attempt to elevate Wolfgang’s reputation casts a shadow over the Mozart legacy.
Mozart’s K 73A: A Mystery Wrapped in Ambiguity
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?
A Farce of Honour in Mozart’s Time
By the time Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart received the Speron d’Oro, the once esteemed honour had become a laughable trinket, awarded through networking and influence rather than merit. Far from reflecting his musical genius, the title, shared with figures like Casanova, symbolised ridicule rather than respect.
The Legend of Mozart’s Miserere
The enduring popularity of the narrative surrounding Mozart’s Miserere highlights the allure of the prodigy myth, but as we peel back the layers, we uncover a more nuanced picture of his life and the musical landscape of the time. The reality often contrasts sharply with the romanticized tales that have shaped our understanding of his genius.