historia mozart concerto.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
on
he Concerto K. 314 by Wolfgang Amadeus
Mozart is unquestionably one of the
most widely performed and studied
works for both oboe and flute, and is
arguably the most important concerto ever
written for the former instrument. It is then
curious that, prior to this, there has not been a
single compilation of all of the written source
material available (here accompanied by a
listing of contemporary articles on the work),
for easy reference by performers and scholars.
Fortunately for posterity, the Mozart family
carried on very active and l ively corres-
pondence during Wolfgang’s life. Their existing
letters f i l l two or three volumes, giving
musicians today a rich and witty resource for
research or amusement. What follows is a
distillation of all of the material appearing in
the letters of the Mozart family that pertains to
the Oboe Concerto in C Major and the Flute
Concerto in D Major, a brief review of much of
the literature available on the Oboe Concerto,
and some thoughts based on the evidence at
hand. The author is grateful to Macmillan Press
Ltd. for permission to reprint large excerpts
from the volumes Letters of Mozart and His
Family , edited by Emily Anderson, and
published in 1938. He is likewise indebted to
Professor Ronald Richards for graciously
supplying a copy of the eighteenth-century
manuscript of the solo oboe part from the
Salzburg Mozarteum.
The letters of the Mozart family by no
means answer all of the questions that arise
upon examination of the work. What they do
clearly reveal is that the piece was originally
composed in Salzburg during 1777 in C major
for oboe and orchestra for the oboist Giuseppe
Ferlendis (1755-1802), and that Mozart later
reset the concerto in D major in Mannheim to
quickly fulfill a commission from de Jean.
The History of the Composition of the Work
On April 1, 1777, Archbishop Hieronymous
Colloredo signed a decree hiring the oboist
Giuseppe Ferlendis to serve in the Salzburg
Hofkapelle Orchestra. Ferlendis, probably born
in Bergamo in 1755, was already a respected
performer at the time of his arrival in
Salzburg.1
Later the same year, on September 22,
Wolfgang Mozart and his mother left for
Augsburg, Mannheim, and Paris to try to
secure a permanent appointment for the young
composer. He must have composed his
Concerto in C Major for Oboe and Orchestra, K.
314 for Ferlendis some time between April 1
and his departure, as revealed by references in
the letters of the Mozart family.2
The first known reference to an oboe
concerto by Mozart appears in a letter from his
father dated October 15, 1777, which contained
the following: “And if you had a copy of your
oboe concerto, Perwein might enable you to
make an honest penny in Wallerstein.”3 Perwein,
who had previously been in the employ of
Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg and thus
known to the Mozart family, became the oboist
at the court of Prince Ernst Kraffts von
Oettingen-Wallerstein in 1777. Apart from this
reference, he does not appear to have a
connection to the Oboe Concerto, K. 314. This
letter makes it clear, however, that the younger
Mozart had written a concerto for oboe by the
fall of 1777 and that Leopold evidently felt it was
a marketable commodity.
The October 15 letter was written to
Wolfgang when he was in Augsburg, on his way
to Mannheim to try to secure a position at the
court of the Elector Karl Theodor von der
Pfalz. The paragraph that includes the above
quote is a long harangue by Leopold that deals
with the necessity for securing copyists in the
various cities that Wolfgang would visit. The
copyists were to write out parts from scores
that Mozart carried with him “to present to a
Prince or some other patron.”4 The context of
the first quotation raises the possibility that
Wolfgang had the score to an oboe concerto
with him on his journey.
On November 4, 1777, Wolfgang wrote his
father from Mannheim about an “oboist whose
name I have forgotten, but who plays very well
and has a delightfully pure tone.”5 He
continued sarcastically,
IDRS JOURNAL 5
The History of the Mozart Concerto K. 314
Based on the Letters of the Mozart Family,a Review of Literature and Some Observations on the Work
By George T. Riordan
Tallahassee, Florida
T
IDRS JOURNAL6
I have made him a present of my oboe
concerto, which is being copied in a
room at Cannabich’s, and the fellow is
quite crazy with delight. I played this
concerto to him today on the pianoforte
at Cannabich’s, and, although everybody
knew that I was the composer, it was very
well received. Nobody said that it was
not well composed, because the people
here do not understand such matters—
they had better consult the Archbishop,
who will at once put them right.6
The oboist in question was Friedrich Ramm
(1744?-1811), the oboist in the famed
Mannheim orchestra. In a letter from
Mannheim to his father dated December 5,
1777, Wolfgang speaks of the possibility of his
going on a Lenten trip to Paris “in the company
of Wendling, Ramm, who plays very
beautifully, and Lauchéry, the ballet-master.”7
Later in the same letter he said, “Ramm, the
oboist is a very good, jolly, honest fellow of
about 35, who has already travelled a great
deal, and consequently has plenty of
experience.”8
On December 10-11 Mozart wrote to his
father,
Let me tell you just one more thing. The
other day I went to lunch at Wendling’s
as usual. “Our Indian,” he said, meaning a
Dutchman, a gentleman of means and a
lover of all the sciences, who is a great
friend and [admirer] of mine, “our Indian
is really a first-rate fellow. He is willing to
give you 200 gulden if you will compose
three short, simple concertos and a
couple of quartets for the flute.”9
Later in the same letter, he said,
I shall have quite enough to write during
the next two months, three concertos,
two quartets, four or six duets for the
clavier. And then I have an idea of
writing a new grand mass and presenting
it [to the Elector.]10
The Dutchman referred to here was H. de
Jean, an amateur flute player. At this time
Mozart was having lunch almost daily at the
home of Johann Baptist Wendling (c. 1720-
1797),11 a f lutist in the Mannheim court
orchestra, and his wife Dorothea (né Spourni,
1737-1811), a noted operatic soprano.12 On
December 18, Frau Maria Anna Mozart
reported to her husband about the kindnesses
shown to her and her son by “Monsieur
Wendling, who loves Wolfgang as his own
son.”13 The younger Mozart helped Wendling
orchestrate a flute concerto, and Wolfgang had
written a French song for the Wendlings’
daughter Gustl (“Oiseaux, si tous les ans,” K.
307) and an aria for Dorothea (“Dans un bois
solitaire,” K. 308). At this time de Jean was
probably studying flute with Wendling, and
Mozart must have met the Dutchman at the
house of the Mannheim flutist. Wendling no
doubt had a hand in securing a commission
from the wealthy amateur.14
The promise of 200 gulden for the
commissions from de Jean was a significant
event for the Mozart family. The letters during
this period show that Wolfgang and his mother
were obliged to secure complimentary or
inexpensive lodging and meals, since they had
very little money left and Leopold had run up
substantial debts to support his son’s journey
and search for employment. The projected 200
gulden is mentioned in letters from Frau
Mozart on December 14; from Leopold on
December 18, 1777, February 11-12, 1778, and
February 25-26; and from Wolfgang on
December 18, December 27-28, 1777, and
February 4, 1778. The young Mozart mentions
the commission in a rather ribald poem
penned in Worms to his mother in Mannheim
on January 31, 1778, but he mentions four
quartets and a concerto, rather than the
original three concerti and two quartets.15
Wolfgang wrote to his father on December
18, 1777, “I shall soon have f inished one
quartet for the Indian Dutchman, that true
friend of humanity.”16 The quartet to which he
refers is the Flute Quartet in D major, K. 285,
completed on December 25.17
During this time, late 1777 and early 1778,
Wolfgang had still planned to travel to Paris
with Wendling, Ramm and de Jean during Lent.
His plans changed, however, after he made the
acquaintance of the Weber family.
Fridolin Weber (1733-1779) was a bass
singer at the Mannheim court (coincidentally,
he was the uncle of the early Romantic
composer Carl Maria von Weber). He had, by
Wolfgang’s report in a letter from Mannheim to
his father on January 17, 1778, “six children,
five girls and one son,” including “a daughter
who sings admirably and has a lovely, pure
voice; she is only fifteen.”18 This daughter was
Aloysia Weber (1760-1839), who was really
about seventeen years old at the time.19
On January 24, Frau Mozart reported from
Mannheim to her husband in Salzburg,
Wolfgang went off yesterday with Herr
Weber and his daughter to Kirchheim-
Bolanden to visit the Princess of
Weilburg. I hardly think that she will let
them go before the week is out, for she is
a passionate lover of music and plays the
clavier and sings. Wolfgang took with him
a supply of arias and symphonies to
present to her.20
After returning to Mannheim from this trip,
Wolfgang spoke to his father of Aloysia Weber
in a letter dated February 4: “I got to know her
properly and as a result to discover her great
powers.”21 Mozart seems to have fallen under
her spell, for he decided not to make the Paris
trip with Wendling and Ramm. Wolfgang
explained this away to his father on February 4
by writing from Mannheim that the former “has
no religion whatever” and that “Ramm is a
decent fellow, but a libertine.”22 Furthermore,
he stated his preference for staying with the
Webers because of “the inexpressible pleasure
of making the acquaintance of a thoroughly
honest, good Catholic Christian family.”23 He
continued, “I propose to remain here and finish
entirely at my leisure that music for de Jean,
for which I am to get 200 gulden.”24
Paumgartner explained the obvious—in
reality Wolfgang became infatuated with
Aloysia Weber and could not bear to leave
Mannheim.25 He even proposed to his father (in
the letter of February 4) that he travel to Italy
with the Webers, with a two-week visit to
Leopold in Salzburg on the way.26
Throughout the period, letters from the two
Mozarts in Mannheim to Leopold spoke of how
busy Wolfgang was, and how it was impossible
for him to compose in a systematic manner.
The letters frequently gave excuses for a lack
of progress on the commission for de Jean.
Then, on February 14, 1778, Mozart wrote
from Mannheim to his father,
Herr Wendling and Herr Ramm are
leaving early tomorrow morning … M. de
Jean is also leaving for Paris tomorrow
and, because I have only finished two
concertos and three quartets for him,
has sent me 96 gulden (that is, 4 gulden
too little, evidently supposing that this
was the half of 200); but he must pay me
in full, for that was my agreement with
the Wendlings, and I can send him the
other pieces later. It is not surprising
that I have not been able to finish them,
for I never have a single quiet hour here.
I can only compose at night, so that I
can’t get up early as well; besides, one is
not always in the mood for working. I
could, to be sure, scribble off things the
whole day long, but a composition of this
kind goes out into the world, and
naturally I do not want to have cause to
be ashamed of my name on the title-
page. Moreover, you know that I become
quite powerless whenever I am obliged
to write for an instrument I cannot bear
… Yesterday there was a concert at
Cannabich’s, where all the music was of
my composition, except the f irst
symphony, which was his own. Mlle.
Rosa played my concerto in B flat, then
Herr Ramm (by way of a change) played
for the f i fth time my oboe concerto
written for Ferlendis, which is making a
great sensation here. It is now Ramm’s
cheval de bataille.27
It is important to note that in the above
letter Mozart claimed that two flute concerti
were composed.
Leopold’s letter of reply to his son’s
revelation of the receipt of only 96 gulden for
an incomplete commission was dated February
23; in it he predictably scolded Wolfgang at
length.28
Later in the year, on October 3, after his
mother’s death in Paris, Mozart wrote his
father from Nancy,
I am not bringing you many new
compositions, for I haven’t composed
very much. I have not got the three
quartets and the flute concerto for M. De
Jean, for, when he went to Paris, he
packed them into the wrong trunk and
so they remained in Mannheim. But he
has promised to send them to me as
soon as he returns to Mannheim and I
shall ask Wendling to forward them.29
Contrary to his letter of February 14,
Wolfgang is speaking here of only one flute
concerto associated with de Jean.
Leopold, on August 3, 1778, reported to
Wolfgang in Paris,
THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314 7
IDRS JOURNAL8
Now for a piece of news! Ferlendis
resigned three days ago, having left the
service at the end of June. This has been
the more unexpected and upsetting as
during the last two months whenever
Ferlendis played a concerto the
Archbishop had been in the habit of
giving him one or two ducats. Moreover
he was the favorite in the orchestra and
since Besozzi’s arrival in Salzburg had
learnt a good deal from him.30
In 1783 Mozart was in Vienna; on February
15 he wrote to his father,
Please send me at once the little book
which contains the oboe concerto I
wrote for Ramm, or rather for Ferlendis.
Prince Esterhazy’s oboist is giving me
three ducats for it and has offered me
six, if I will write a new concerto for him.
But if you have already gone to Munich,
well, then, by Heaven, there is nothing to
be done; for the only person to whom in
that case we could apply, I mean Ramm
himself, is not there either.31
On March 12, Wolfgang again wrote to
Leopold, “I entreat you most earnestly to send
me the oboe concerto I gave to Ramm—and as
soon as possible.’32 Finally, on March 29,
Mozart wrote to his father, “I have received
the parcel of music and thank you for it.”33
No further mention of the Oboe Concerto is
made in the letters of the Mozarts.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth-
centuries, the Oboe Concerto was presumed
lost. Two flute concerti were known, however:
those in G major, K. 313, and in D major, K. 314,
as well as the Andante in C for Flute and
Orchestra, K. 315. Neither of the autograph
scores of either flute concerto survived
(although the autograph of the C major Andante
did).34 An edition of the D major Concerto was
published about 1800 by Falter in Munich (Op.
99).35 The first edition of the G major Concerto
by Breitkopf and Härtel (1803) was based on a
handwritten original, which has disappeared.36
The Alte Mozart-Ausgabe based the G major
Concerto on this 1803 Breitkopf edition; the D
major Concerto was based on a score in the
Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna.37 A 70-
measure fragment of the first movement of a
fully orchestrated oboe concerto in F major has
survived in autograph manuscript. Today this is
known as K. 294 (416f).
Otto Jahn, in his biography W.A. Mozart,
provided more information on the composer’s
alleged dislike for the flute.
He had a dislike to the f lute and a
mistrust of flute players, but he made an
exception in favor of Wendling. When
Wendling’s brother teased him for this
he said: “Yes, but you see, it is quite
another thing with your brother. He is
not a piper, and one need not be always
in terror for fear the next note should be
too high or too low—he is always right,
you see; his heart and his ear and the tip
of his tongue are all in the right place,
and he does not imagine that blowing
and making faces is all that is needed; he
knows too what adagio means.”38
Review of Literature
In 1920, Georges de Saint Foix published an
article entitled “Mozart ou Ferlendis” in Rivista
musicale italiana , in which he speculated
about two scores in the l ibrary of the
Conservatoire de Milan under the name
Ferlendis. The first score, an Oboe Concerto in
F major, Op. 13, he theorized was the work that
Mozart composed for Ferlendis; Saint Foix
proposed that the second concerto, Op. 14,
might be an F major English Horn Concerto by
Michael Haydn.39
About the same time that the Saint Foix
article was published, Berhard Paumgartner
discovered a set of hand-written parts from
eighteenth-century Vienna in the archives of
the Salzburg Mozarteum. These were in a
bundle which Paumgartner believed was from
the estate of Mozart’s son. The heading read:
“Concerto in C / Oboe Principale / 2 Violini / 2
Oboe / 2 Corni / Viola / e / Basso Del Sigre W.A.
Mozart.”40 He recognized that the music was
virtually the same as that of the Flute Concerto
in D Major, K. 314, but that the oboe version
was a whole step lower.41
The first mention of the C major Oboe
Concerto in the Köchel-Verzeichnis appeared in
the third edition (KV3, 1947), edited by Alfred
Einstein, the first edition to contain Einstein’s
renumbering of Köchel’s listing. In the KV3,
Einstein pointed out that two copies of the
score to the Concerto K. 314 existed in the
library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in
Vienna: one in D major and one in C major. He
also noted that the set of parts in C major that
Paumgartner discovered, with solo oboe,
existed in the library of the Mozarteum in
Salzburg. He then concluded that K. 314 was
originally an oboe concerto and was
transcribed by Mozart in partial fulfillment of
the de Jean commission.42
Einstein carried this further in his Mozart:
His Character, His Work:
Almost conclusive evidence that the
original key was C major is the fact that
in the transposition to D the violins
never go below the A on the G string.43
Einstein also speculated that the oboist from
the Esterhazy orchestra, mentioned in
Mozart’s letter of February 15, 1783, was Franz
Joseph Czerwenka.44
In KV3, Einstein assigned revised Köchel-
Einstein numbers to the following five oboe
works:
1. The K. 314 concerto appeared under 285d as
“Concerto for Flute (Oboe?).”45
2. The 60-bar F major Oboe Concerto fragment
was K. 293 (416f).46
3. Under 416g is listed a short segment of
K.293.47
4. The oboe concerto discovered by Saint Foix
in Milan was given the listing of 271k.
Einstein stated that the concerto was not by
Mozart, based on internal evidence, and
that it should remain attributed to
Ferlendis. The accompanying English horn
concerto in F, however, he thought was by
Michael Haydn, not Ferlendis.48
5. An oboe concerto in E flat was listed as
Anh. 294b, with the notation that it was a
spurious work from the nineteenth
century.49 This concerto is still available in
editions with attributions to Mozart (the
KV7 lists this work as Anh. C14.06).
The subsequent editions of the Köchel-
Verzeichnis have reproduced the above KV3
oboe concerto listings virtually intact.
An article by Geoffrey Cuming entitled
“Mozart’s Oboe Concerto for Ferlendis”
appeared in Music and Letters in 1940. The
article repeats many of Einstein’s contentions,
and then focuses on the usage of the tempo
marking Allegro aperto at the beginning of the
first movement of the K. 314 concerto.50 Cuming
asserts that Mozart was in the habit of “taking
an idea, perhaps from another composer, using
it regularly for several works and then
dropping it completely.”51 This being the case,
Cuming reasons that the tempo marking for
the first movement places the oboe/flute
concerto in the time period 1775-1777 and
provides another bit of evidence to support
Einstein’s thesis on the priority of the oboe
version.52
In 1948 Paumgartner brought out the first
edition of the Mozart Oboe Concerto in C, in
both oboe-and-orchestra and oboe-and-piano
versions, published by Boosey & Hawkes.53
In the Mozart-Jahrbuch of 1950, Paumgartner
presented an extensive article that put forth
his discovery of the eighteenth-century parts
in the Mozarteum and built on the conclusion
reached by Einstein: that this was the concerto
written for Ferlendis and that it was hastily
rewritten for flute by Mozart to fulfill part of
the de Jean commission. Paumgartner also
dismissed Saint Foix’s contention that the
Ferlendis score in Naples was the Mozart Oboe
Concerto.54
To establish the priority of the oboe
version, Paumgartner used some of the same
ideas that had appeared in the two Einstein
writings mentioned above:
1. The orchestral violins in the flute version
never go below the A on the G string,
whereas they do reach the open G in the C
major version.55
2. The solo part of the D major version never
goes above e’’’, well short of the full range
of the Classical flute, and a third lower than
the repeated g’’’ in the G major Flute
Concerto, K. 313. The flute’s e’’’ appears in
the oboe as a d’’’, the normal high range of
the classical oboe. Extraordinary players
like Ramm could reach f’’’, however, as is
seen from the oboe quartet, K. 370.
(Ferlendis, on the other hand, was
characterized as an “average” player by
Haydn, who heard him in London in 1795).56
3. In the second movement of the flute
version, the orchestral oboes are set an
octave lower in places than in the oboe
version, so that they do not go above d’’’; in
the C major version the orchestral oboes do
not reach d’’’.57
4. The most convincing evidence for the
priority of the oboe version, according to
Paumgartner, was the setting of an imitative
episode in the C major parts of the third
movement, meas. 152-167. When the D
major Flute Concerto was prepared for
publication in the Alte Mozart-Ausgabe, the
editors were aware that they did not have
the proper reading for this passage, since
THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314 9
IDRS JOURNAL10
the autograph score had been lost. The
assistance of Johannes Brahms was even
sought, but still a satisfactory setting could
not be found. The C major parts that Paum-
gartner discovered supplied the simple and
elegant solution that had eluded the
Mozart-Ausgabe editors.58
Paumgartner produced a second, shorter
article on the same topic in Tempo, Winter
1950-1951, which briefly repeated much of
what he had said in the Mozart-Jahrbuch article
of 1950. This second article clearly states that
“the parts were copied from the score in
Vienna but this score has since disappeared.”59
It states that Anton Mayer was the oboist in
the Esterhazy orchestra who offered to pay
three ducats for a copy of the oboe concerto
and who wanted to commission a new work for
six ducats (see pages 4-5). This last statement
disagreed with Einstein’s speculation of 1945.
Paumgartner also pointed out here that in the
G major Flute Concerto K. 313 the writing is
“considerably more flutistic” than in K. 314,
although Mozart did extensively rewrite many
passages in the latter to take advantage of the
technique of the flute.60
Shortly after the Paumgartner articles were
published, a brief article by Felix Schroeder
repeated much of the earlier articles’
arguments.61 He also added two ideas of his
own that help establish the priority of the
oboe version: (1) the string parts are more
easily performed in the C major version, in
spite of the fact that D major is usually easier
for strings, and (2) the double stops in the C
major version are more manageable than in
the flute version, as the former consistently
uses open strings.62
A nine-measure fragment relating to the
Concerto K. 314 was discovered in 1971; it is
now in the possession of Dr. F.G. Zeileis, Jr.63
Written in Mozart’s hand on one of his “little
travel papers,” it duplicates the oboe concerto
solo part in measures 51 through 53 of the first
movement, then moves on with the material in
a previously unknown manner. Most sig-
nificantly, the fragment is set in the key of C
major. This, the only autograph reference that
survives to the work, indicates that Mozart did
indeed write the piece in C major.64 The
fragment is reproduced in the back of the
volume of the Neue Mozart -Ausgabe that
contains the concerti for flute, oboe, and
bassoon.65
In 1976 the oboist Ingo Goritzki published
an eight-page article which accompanied his
recording of the Mozart and Joseph Haydn C
major Concerti.66 Goritzki agreed with Einstein
and Paumgartner that the oboe version of
Concerto K. 314 preceded the flute version;
however, in this article he proposed the idea
that this concerto was originally written for
violin, then rewritten for oboe, and lastly for
flute. Furthermore, Goritzki contended that the
eighteenth-century manuscript solo part in the
Mozarteum is a somewhat crude simplification
by a foreign hand of the work as written by
Mozart. Therefore, the flute version (although
originally drawn from the oboe concerto by
the composer) can now “claim to be authentic
Mozart.”67 Goritzki subsequently claimed that a
C major transposition of the solo part of the
concerto flute version provides oboists with a
piece both more musically satisfying and more
historically accurate than the C major version
as it exists in the Salzburg manuscript solo
part (or as in the Paumgartner edition, which
is based on that manuscript.)68
Goritzki supported his suppositions by
stating that in several instances restatements
of themes are significantly altered to
compensate for the limited range of the oboe,
thus demonstrating that Mozart had originally
conceived the piece for another instrument:
It is obvious that these somewhat
clumsy-sounding restrictions of melodic
structure could have come about only
under the constraint of certain
instrumental factors. We expect that
Mozart, once he conceived a theme for a
particular instrument, adapted every
detail to fit idiomatically the character of
the instrument. Because of that, any
change in the theme’s original
arrangement must almost inevitably
detract from the ideal proportions of
these themes.69
He then pointed out that the oboe solo and
flute solo parts both have virtually identical
orchestral accompaniments, and that
Now the question presents itself whether
Mozart really had composed two distinct
solo voices to one and the same score.
The text comparisons which follow make
it clear that only the flute part is in
harmony with the score and thus can
make claim to be authentic Mozart. This
essential unity in the f lute version
between the solo voice and the score—
the unmistakable characteristic of the
original idea—is destroyed in the oboe
version through the changes made in the
solo part.70
After using his arguments to establish his
opinion that the flute part is much closer to
Mozart’s original idea than is the solo oboe
part, Goritzki pointed out several places where
he believed the solo part was rewritten in the
oboe version to simplify finger technique and
breathing.
Goritzki concluded,
One must arrive at the conclusion that
the two solo voices cannot be seen as
alternatives. Rather the orchestra score
and the solo voice of the flute versions
were “composed” with and for one
another. Considering the demonstratable
priority of the oboe version, we can now
conclude that the original score of the
oboe concerto, from which Mozart had
undertaken the transposition in 1778,
must have already included this very solo
part. We also arrive at the identical
conclusion from another path, which we
fleetingly encountered earlier. It struck
us as unusual that the theme fragments
which originated with the violin concerto
but were constricted in the composition
of the oboe concerto were not restored
again to their original state during the
transposition to the flute concerto—
although this could have been easily
accomplished, especially in the second
movement. Since Mozart did not even
undertake these changes which
presented themselves, then we can
assume that in the haste with which he
apparently had to write the transposition
he transferred the oboe part verbatim,
which also presumes the original identity
of the two solo voices.71
On his recording, Ingo Goritzki performed
the C major transposition of the flute concerto,
the practice he advocated in his essay.
In 1979 Goritzki published an article in Tibia
which reiterated his speculations in the article
accompanying his recording of the Concerto.72
In the winter 1978-1979 edition of the
National Association of College Wind and
Percussion Instructors NACWPI Journal, Ivar
Lunde, Jr. published an article entitled
“Corrections to the Paumgartner Edition of the
Oboe Concerto in C Major, K. 314, by W.A.
Mozart.”73 This article is essentially a listing of
his performance suggestions for the Oboe
Concerto. Lunde stated that Bernhard
Paumgartner had told the French oboist André
Lardrot of “several errors” in the Boosey &
Hawkes edition of the Oboe Concerto. Lunde
had learned of these errors from Lardrot, but
in his article he does not specifically identify
these errors.
A 1981 doctoral treatise by Patricia Ann
Malone dealt briefly with the historical
background of the Mozart Oboe Concerto and
the Oboe Quartet, but it was concerned
primarily with the application of the
appoggiatura and trill in those works.74
The Neue Mozart-Ausgabe edition of the
woodwind concerti was published by
Bärenreiter in 1981.75 The foreword by Franz
Giegling provided a brief history and review of
literature on the Oboe Concerto in C. Giegling
supported the priority of the Oboe Concerto
over the flute versions. He mentioned the two
articles by Goritzki and referred specifically to
Goritzki’s idea that the “oboe voice, as it is
handed down to us, was reworked later by a
foreign hand, and is not from Mozart.”76
Giegling states that the editors of the NMA “do
not agree in full with these thoughts”;77
however, he does mention some problematic
features of the eighteenth-century manuscript
of the oboe version.
The tutti doublings in the solo part were
written differently between the flute and oboe
versions, and Giegling states that the flute
version “seems the more convincing and more
musical than the oboe version,” and that many
of the tutti doublings “cannot be meant by
Mozart in the way they have been handed
down to us.”78
An additional special problem is the
dynamics in the oboe version. Instead of
marking crescendo [as] in the f lute
version, here we find crescendo forks
[“hairpins”], which in such high numbers
cannot be by Mozart. What is remarkable
is that the solo parts of the principal
oboe are also dynamically marked, which
for Mozart [is] an untypical way of doing
things.79
Giegling further states that the NMA editors
agree with Goritzki that the oboe version
contains melodic problems and problems in
THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314 11
IDRS JOURNAL12
figurations in the solo part and that “some
details in this handing down of the work by the
Salzbürg material are not correct.”80
In spite of these reservations, the NMA
editors chose to base their edition almost
totally on the eighteenth-century Mozarteum
manuscript, even reproducing the tutti
doublings as shown in the MS (but in small
notes rather than full-sized notes, as in the
MS).
The 1986 issue of The Journal of the
International Double Reed Society carried an
article entitled “A New Edition of the Mozart
Oboe Concerto, K. 314: A Checklist to Correct
the Boosey & Hawkes Edition.”81 This consisted
simply of a listing of the places where the
Boosey & Hawkes edition disagreed with the
NMA. In the Winter, 1986, issue of the Double
Reed, Islay-May Renwick published an article
“Authenticity in Mozart’s Oboe Concerto: A
Reappraisal,” in which she basically dealt with
the preceding article and made some
corrections to it.82
Professor Ronald Richards83 and Dr.
Charles-David Lehrer84 have pointed out that
the title page of the Salzbürg Mozarteum Solo
Oboe part of K. 314 has “Braun?” written
across the top. This is probably a reference to
a member of a family of oboists and
composers. Johann Friedrich Braun (1759-
1824) held posts in various German court
orchestras; he had two sons, Carl Anton
Philipp (born 1788), who was active in
Copenhagen, and Wilhelm (born 1791), who
was an oboist in Ludwigslust, Berlin, and
Stockholm.85 The Brauns, especially Wilhelm,
wrote works for solo oboe. It is possible that at
one time the Salzburg parts of the K. 314 had
passed through the hands of one of the
members of this family.86
Differences Between
the Flute and Oboe Versions
Most oboists who have performed or
practiced the Oboe Concerto have used the
popular Boosey and Hawkes edition by
Paumgartner based on the eighteenth-century
Salzburg manuscript. Upon hearing a
performance or examining a score of the Flute
Concerto K. 314 for the first time, oboists
immediately realize that there are profound
differences in the solo parts between the oboe
and flute versions which have been passed
down to us. In fact, differences of pitch and
rhythm between the solo parts of the two
versions exist in some 20% of the total number
of measures for the soloists (79 measures with
discrepancies between the versions, out of a
total of 397 measures for the soloist).
Furthermore, i f one compares the tutti
doublings written into the solo part of the
Salzburg manuscript with the doublings
appearing in the early versions of the flute
concerto, the figure would be much higher, as
high as 36% of the total number of measures
(202 out of 561).87
It would not be surprising if Mozart made
substantial changes in the solo part when
rescoring the work for flute, indeed it would
have been surprising if he had not. Mozart
certainly had a concept of what was inherently
oboistic and what was f lutistic, and in
resetting K. 314 for the flute it is logical that he
would have rewritten the solo part
substantially to fit his conception of the latter
instrument. After all, at the time instruments
and instrumentalists were highly idosyncratic,
not at all colorless musical eunuchs; each
instrument carried its own subjective as well
as historical musical and non-musical
associations, and the flute and oboe were not
at all capable of the same ranges of colors or
expressions.
It is further likely that Mozart felt that by
substantially rewriting the solo part of the
Oboe Concerto, the commissioner of the work,
de Jean, might view it as a new piece. Since the
Dutchman was present in Mannheim at the
time that Ramm was performing the Oboe
Concerto as his war horse (“cheval de
bataille,” according to Mozart), de Jean was
undoubtedly familiar with the piece. Wolfgang,
in the face of having to deal with the
consequences of his apparent laziness during
the previous two months, might very well have
imagined that he was creating a new work
idiomatically suited only for the flute—or that
de Jean would look upon it as a new work,
which it essentially was. After all, composers
had been recreating their own works (and the
works of others) “in alternative formats” for
several hundred years, and such rewritings
were often regarded as new works; Mozart
himself accepted and employed this practice
on other occasions.
Indeed, Wolfgang wrote to his father on
February 14, 1778, claiming that he had
“finished two concertos” for de Jean.88 This
suggests that Mozart did indeed consider the
D major Concerto to be a new piece, or at
least, in his haste to finish his commission, he
may have (perhaps somewhat ingenuously)
hoped “the Dutchman” would see it as such.
Most likely, de Jean was not convinced, judging
from his partial payment for the portion of the
commission actually completed. If Mozart did,
at the time, conceive of the oboe and flute
versions as different pieces, it seems that he
later changed his mind, as in the letter of
October 3, 1778, he spoke of only one flute
concerto for de Jean.89
Today we can look at the differences
between what we know as the oboe and flute
versions of K. 314 and judge for ourselves
whether we should consider them two different
works (assuming that the Salzbürg manuscript
is to be accepted as a fairly true copy of the
original). Some of the major differences are
considered below.
Mozart’s Keys
Mozart inescapably carried with him
musical and extra-musical predispositions
towards the oboe and the flute. He logically
chose to cast the Oboe Concerto in C major, as
that was the key most comfortably played on
the classical oboe, and so would show off the
soloist to best effect. In addition, all of the
associations he carried with the oboe down
through the years would be likely to flow forth
from his pen: as but one example, he would
have associated the oboe as an instrument well
suited for outdoor and military applications, as
he had spent his entire l i fe seeing the
instrument used in such manner, and he
himself had written for it in such settings.
Likewise, since the flute scale at the time lay
most conveniently in D major, he set the flute
in that key. Features he idiomatically
associated with the flute would translate
themselves into his music: he would likely
have thought in more showy and virtuosic
terms for the flute, and his writing might well
have reflected the predispositions towards
flutists that he had expressed to his father in
his letter of February 14, 1778, and those later
recounted by Otto Jahn in his biography and
quoted earlier.
Mozart had to have extra-musical
associations with these keys, either conscious
or unconscious: he would have been
influenced by the Affektenlehre (“theory of
affects”) described by various eighteenth-
century writers. During the time, composers
generally set military symphonies, with their
trumpets and drums, in C major (just consider
the many C major symphonies of Haydn), while
D major was the key of virtuosity. And by
practice he chose his keys very carefully.
Indeed, the flute version does have passages
more showy and virtuosic—and arguably more
vacuous—than the oboe version, and some of
these passages are described below.
Cuthbert Girdlestone, in his Mozart and His
Piano Concertos, describes Mozart’s treatment
of C and D major:
The key of D major, much used at all times
by Mozart, is the favorite key for
overtures and occasional pieces—in
gallant music. Its superficial majesty has
not the martial strains heard in many a C
major composition, capable in certain
chosen works of attaining to the
expression of heroism, and it easily passes
over to showiness and virtuosity. It is the
concerto key par excellence and in those
which Mozart has written in D virtuosity
plays a great part. In his violin concertos,
the most difficult are in this key; his D
major flute concerto is more virtuoso than
that in G; it is in D that he writes one of his
three flute quartets which most resembles
a concerto; his four piano sonatas in D,
especially the first two, are works of
technical display, and this is true also of
his only violin sonata in this key. Finally
two out of his three piano concertos in D
are those where the display of technique
enters most deeply into the personality of
the work.90
One of the best-known descriptions of the
affective content of the various keys was
published by Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) in
his work Das neu-eröffnete Orchestre (1713). His
characterizations of C, D, F, and G major, the
keys present in the two versions of K. 314,
appears below in a summary from a secondary
source:
To C major [oboe version, first and third
movements] (Ionian) Mattheson ascribes
a rather rude and impertinent character
but says that it is suited to the
expression of joy. “A clever composer
who chooses the accompanying
instruments well can even use it for
tender and charming compositions.”
F major [oboe version, second move-
ment] (transposed Ionian) “is capable of
THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314 13
IDRS JOURNAL14
expressing the most beautiful senti-
ments, whether these be generosity,
steadfastness, love, or whatever else may
be high on the list of virtue. It is natural
and unforced when used to express such
affects.”
D major [flute version, first and third
movements] is found to be somewhat
sharp and stubborn, very suitable to
noisy, gay, war-like, and cheering things.
“No one will deny, however, that if a flute
is used instead of a clarinet and a violin
is the predominant instrument instead of
the kettledrum, it can be very well used
for delicate things.”
G major [flute version, second move-
ment] (Hypoionian) Mattheson calls
insinuating and persuasive. It is, besides,
somewhat brilliant and suited to the
expression of serious as well as gay
affects.91
Even in Mattheson’s day, many composers
would probably have considered his attempts
to classify keys as somewhat naive or
oversimplistic. However, his descriptions do
demonstrate the fact that composers could not
escape carrying non-musical associations with
keys. Quantz summarized this as follows
There is no agreement as to whether
certain keys, either major or minor, have
particular individual effects … As for
myself, until I can be convinced of the
contrary, I will trust to my experience,
which assures me of the different effects
of different keys.92
Technical Figurations
Regarding concertos, Quantz stated, “at
times the solo sections must be singing, and at
times these f lattering sections must be
interspersed with bril l iant melodic and
harmonic passage work appropriate to the
instrument.”93 Einstein added “as regards
Mozart’s concertos for wind instruments …
the character of their melodic invention is
determined by the l imitations of the
instruments.”94
Mozart undoubtedly had his own ideas of
what was “appropriate to the instrument,” as
well as what were the limitations of each.
These concepts may well have been translated
into what we today see as differences in the
technical figures between the oboe and flute
solo lines of the Concerto K. 314. For example,
in measures 44 and 45 of the first movement,
the flute version virtuosically displaces by an
octave the third sixteenth note in each group
of four sixteenths. Two more examples are
found in the fact that the oboe version
contains important triplet passages in the first
and last movements, while the flute version
has no triplets at all in either movements.
It is important to note that any of the figures
in the solo part of the oboe version could have
been easily been played transposed up a step
by a flutist, while any competent classical
oboist could perform the figures in the flute
version moved down a stop. Therefore, the
differences between the two versions cannot
be explained by limitations of either of the
instruments. I am suggesting here that Mozart
deliberately wrote the solo parts differently to
fit his conception of what he idiomatically
associated with each of the instruments. Some
illustrations of this point follow.
It is most curious that the flute version of K.
314 contains so few triplet passages for the
soloist, in contrast to the oboe version, which
has important passages in triplet rhythms in
each movement. Mozart frequently utilized
triplet passages in concertos; they appear in
every violin concerto he wrote, along with his
bassoon and clarinet concertos, and even the
G major Flute Concerto. Extensive passages in
triplets are also a common feature in his piano
concertos. The concertos by Mozart’s
contemporaries routinely employed passages
in triplets as a matter of course; indeed, such
passages may be regarded as a part of the
classical concerto style. It is more than a bit of
a puzzle that the D major Flute Concerto has
come down to us with so few triplet figures—
only three beats of triplets, all in the slow
movement—with no triplets at all in the outer
movements.
The triplet passages in the first movement
of the Oboe Concerto provide rhythmic variety
and serve a formal function as well, as they
break up the regularity of the rhythm, thus
helping to announce impending important
cadences.95 The triplets in measures 90 and 91
of the first movement, along with the eighth
note figure in measure 92, set up the last burst
of sixteenth notes (bars 93 through 95) in the
oboe part, which brings the first solo section
to a heroic close. Similar observations may be
made for the passages that include the
tripleted measures 116-117 and 167-168.
How different in the flute version! One gets
the impression that the writing here in bars 90-
95 (as well as similar passages containing
measures 116-117 and 167-168) springs from
Wolfgang’s famous wit—a joke at the flutist’s
expense, perhaps as if this were a wry musical
parody in reaction to being “… obliged to write
for an instrument I cannot bear.”96 The flutist is
given sixteenth notes wherever the oboe
version has triplets, as if he was insistent on
showing off his virtuosity, unmindful of the fact
that the section is about to come to a close,
and unwilling to set up the upcoming cadence
in bar 96 (or 120, or 174). This results in
cadences that are less well-defined and not at
all as satisfying or heroic, and each passage
vacuously lacks the great rhythmic interest of
the oboe version.
Similarly, the last movement of the oboe
version features a mixture of three different
rhythmic figures in bars 90 through 98, while
the flute version has only incessant sixteenth
notes for eight measures—very unimaginative
by comparison with the oboe version,
reminiscent of mindless practice of a very
pedantic etude. Recall Mozart’s comment to
Wendling’s brother, as reported by Otto Jahn,
quoted earlier, and the transformation from a
passage of great rhythmic variety (oboe
version) to a much more predictable part (flute
version) suddenly becomes apparent: here is a
product of Mozart’s sense of humor.
Another of Mozart’s witticisms can be found
in the virtuosic octave displacements in the
flute version in measures 44 and 45 of the first
movement: the resultant rewriting sounds like
the disjointed product of the practice room,
rather than the arguably more elegantly lyrical
figures of the oboe version. These are but
three examples.97
One error in the Boosey and Hawkes version
that clearly needs to be corrected appears in
measure 72 of the first movement. The correct
reading is as follows:
Movement I,
Measure 72
Both the Salzburg manuscript and the flute
version agree on this reading.
As we have seen, such oboists as Ingo
Goritzki feel that oboists are better served to
play a transposed version of the solo part of
the concerto. Robert Bloom and others have
argued for the priority of the flute version
along parallel lines, with the supposition that a
composer improves a piece when he or she
rewrites it, therefore oboists should perform
the “improved” flute version.98
These theories are interesting, but they are
highly speculative. While it is indeed possible
that Mozart intended to strengthen the work in
spots when he rewrote it for the flute, it is
more likely that he intended to make the work
more “flutistic,” that is, more idiomatically
suited to his ideal of what a flute piece should
be. The acceptance of the idea that Mozart’s
reworkings result in a stronger concerto
overlooks the fact that changes in the solo part
could well be attributable to the differences in
his basic conception of the two instruments.
In other words, the composer certainly had
strong feelings about what is inherently or
subjectively oboistic or flutistic, and that many
of the differences between the two versions are
attributable to this. Such a dichotomy in his
conception of the two instruments, coupled
with the fact that he was attempting to write a
“new” concerto to partly fulf i l l de Jean’s
commission, could account for the scores of
substantive differences between the two solo
parts.
Certainly in the practice of the eighteenth
century it would have been defensible to
substitute freely between the versions, and
musicians should feel free to do so. One place
oboists should especially consider borrowing
from the f lute version is in the second
movement. The Flute Concerto features many
little ornamental turns that appear throughout
the slow movement, in the solo part as well as
in the orchestra parts. These may be employed
to great effect by oboists as well as by
accompanying violinists. In addition, it is quite
permissible to tastefully and judiciously add
ornaments not appearing in either version.
There is every reason to believe that the
manuscripts that we have today, though not in
Mozart’s hand, are reasonably correct copies
of what the composer wrote. The solo part of
the Salzbürg manuscript may be criticized for
such problems as missing ties, inconsistent
articulation markings, erroneous accidentals,
and incomplete tutti doublings in the solo part;
however, there is no compelling reason to
doubt its basic authenticity with regard to
THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314 15
IDRS JOURNAL16
pitches and durations in the solo part.
Apparently, Franz Giegling, who edited the Neue
Mozart-Ausgabe edition of the Oboe Concerto,
agreed with this premise in basing his version
on the eighteenth-century manuscript now in
the Mozarteum, as previously noted. Oboists
can consider the version of K. 314 handed down
to them to be a substantially different piece
from the Flute Concerto in D, and they should
treat it as such. ❖
FOOTNOTES
1Bernhard Paumgartner, “Zu Mozarts Oboen-
Concerto C-dur, KV 314 (285d),” Mozart
Jahrbuch 1950: 24.2Ibid., 25.3Emily Anderson, ed., The Letters of Mozart and
His Family, (London: Macmillan, 1938), 2:466.4Ibid., 2:465.5Anderson, 2:520.6Ibid.7Ibid., 2:5918Ibid., 2:592.9Anderson, 2:611.10Ibid., 2:612.11Paumgartner, 24.12Ronald Würtz, “Wendling,” from Stanley
Sadie, ed., The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians , (London, Macmillan, 1980)
20:340.13Anderson, 2:629.14Paumgartner, 26.15Anderson, 2:674.16Ibid., 2:632.17Anderson, 2:632.18Ibid., 2:66119Ibid.20Ibid., 2:665.21Anderson, 2:679.22Ibid., 2:680.23Ibid.24Ibid.25Paumgartner, 28.26Anderson, 2:681.27Ibid., 2:709-712.28Anderson, 2:724-726.29Ibid., 2:924.30Ibid., 2:877.31Anderson, 3:1252.32Ibid., 3:1255.33Ibid., 3:1257-1258.34Franz Giegling, “Vorwort” to the Neue Mozart-
Ausgabe, xi.
35Ludwig Ritter von Köchel, Chronologisch-
thematisches Verzeichnis sämtlicher Tonwerke
Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts, 6th ed., ed. Franz
Giegling, Alexander Weinmann, and Gerd
Sievers (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1964),
295.36Giegling, xi.37Alte Mozart-Ausgabe, Revisionsbericht, 9.38Otto Jahn, Life of Mozart, trans. Pauline D.
Townsend (originally published 1891; New
York: Cooper Square, 1970), 1:385. (The
original German edition, W.A. Mozart, was
printed in four volumes, 1856-1859.)39Georges de Saint Foix, “Mozart ou Ferlendis,”
Rivista musicale italiana 27 (1920), 543-560
(translation used is by Suzanne Watson).40Paumgartner, 33.41Paumgartner, 33.42Ludwig Ritter von Köchel, Chronologisch-
thematisches Verzeichnis Sämtlicher Tonwerke
Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts, 3rd ed., ed. Alfred
Einstein (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1937;
reprint, Ann Arbor, Michigan: J.W. Edwards,
1947), 358-359 (page references are to the
reprint edition).43Alfred Einstein, Mozart: His Character, His
Work (New York: Oxford University Press,
1945; reprint, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1968), 283 (page references are to the
reprint edition).44Einstein: Mozart: His Character, His Work, 283-
284.45Köchel, KV 358-359.46Ibid., 520.47Ibid., 521.48Ibid., 346-347.49Ibid., 908-909.50Geoffrey Cuming, “Mozart’s Concerto for
Ferlendis,” Music and Letters 21 (1940), 18-22.51Ibid., 20.52Ibid., 19-22.53Mozart, Oboe Concerto, ed. Paumgartner.54Paumgartner, 32-33.55Ibid., 33.56Ibid., 33-34.57Paumgartner, 35-36.58Ibid., 36-39.59Bernard Paumgartner, “Mozart’s Oboe
Concerto,” Tempo 18 (Winter 1950-1951), 4.60Paumgartner, Tempo, 4-7.61Felix Schroeder, “ist uns Mozarts
Oboenkonzert für Ferlendi erhaltn?,” Die
Musikforschung 5 (1952), 209-210 (translation
used is by Wolfgang Adolph).62Ibid., 210.63Goritzki, 1.
65Mozart, NMA, 174.66Goritzki, Mozart and Haydn Oboenkonzerte
(recording cited in footnote 63).67Goritzki, 3.68Ibid., 3-6.69Ibid., 2 (translation by Krause and Williams
revised by Wolfgang Adolph).70Goritzki, 3.71Goritzki, 7.72Ingo Goritzki, “Mozarts Oboenkonzert unter
neuen Aspekten,” Tibia 4 (1979), 302-308.73Ivar Lunde, Jr. , “Corrections to the
Paumgartner Edition of the Oboe Concerto in C
Major, K. 314, by W.A. Mozart,” NACWPI Journal
27 (Winter 1978-1979): 24-26 and 35-37.74Patricia Ann Malone, “Usage of the
Appoggiatura and Trill in W.A. Mozart’s Oboe
Concerto, K. 314, and Oboe Quartet, K. 370,”
(D. Mus. treatise, Florida State University,
1981).75Mozart, Neue Mozart -Ausgabe . This will
hereafter referred to as NMA; consult footnote
6, Chapter I for full reference.76Franz Giegling, “Vorwort” to the Mozart NMA,
vii-xii (translation used is by Karin Sturm,
George Riordan and Wolfgang Adolph).77Ibid., x.78Giegling, x.79Ibid.80Ibid.81Geoffrey Burgess, “A New Edition of the
Mozart Oboe Concerto, K. 314: A Checklist to
Correct the Boosey & Hawkes Edition,” The
Journal of the International Double Reed Society
14 (July 1986), 57-65.82Islay-May Renwick, “Authenticity in Mozart’s
Oboe Concerto: A Reappraisal,” The Double
Reed 9 (Winter 1986): 58-59.83Ronald Richards, Buffalo, New York, letter to
the author, Tallahassee, Florida, 1 December
1986. The author is grateful to Professor
Richards for supplying a copy of the Salzbürg
Mozarteum solo part.84Charles-David Lehrer, Los Angeles, California,
telephone interview from Tallahassee, Florida,
5 September 1987.85Phillip Bate, The Oboe, 2nd ed. (London:
Ernest Benn Limited, 1962), 166.86Richards; also Lehrer.87In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common
practice for composers and publishers to
reproduce, in full-size notes, one of the tutti
orchestral parts (or, in the case of the Salzbürg
manuscript, an amalgam of several parts) in
the solo part, whenever the soloist did not
have an independent line. Generally, editions
today do not reproduce such extensive tutti
doublings and the soloist is expected to
observe rests, but according to the evidence,
historically soloists must have been expected
to play along with the orchestra while it was
playing the tutti sections. Modern players
might wish to experiment with this when
performing 18th and early 19th century
concertos, provided they have the stamina.
(Indeed, more and more this seems to
becoming accepted practice once again.)
Playing along with the tuttis certainly solves
the soloist’s problem of what to do with one’s
hands or where to look during the initial tutti,
while waiting for the solo part to begin!86Anderson, 2:681.89Ibid., 2:924.90Cuthbert Girdlestone, Mozart’s Piano
Concertos, 2nd ed. (London, Cassell &
Company, Ltd., 1958; reprinted as Mozart and
His Piano Concertos , New York, Dover
Publications, Inc., 1964), 462-463 (page
references are to the reprint edition).91Hans Lenneberg, “Johnn Mattheson on Affect
and Rhetoric in Music,” Journal of Music Theory
2 (1958): 235.92Johann Joachim Quantz, On Playing the Flute,
trans. Edward R. Reilly (London: Faber and
Faber, 1966), 202.93Quantz, 312.94Alfred Einstein: Mozart: His Character, His
Work (New York: Oxford University Press,
1945; reprint, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1968), 282 (page reference is to the
reprint edition).95The usage of rhythmic devices to set up
notable cadences was a common part of
composers’ palettes. For example, Baroque
composers regularly used hemiolas in a similar
manner, to unsettle the regularity of the
rhythm of a passage in order to announce the
imminent arrival of the important cadences.96See previous reference to this statement, page
3. Anderson, 2:711.97One particular puzzling point is the fact that
so many oboists who otherwise accept the
oboe version essentially verbatim play the
flute version’s measure 40 in the f irst
movement, i.e., as four slurred eighth notes,
quarter note e’’, eighth rest and eighth note e’’,
rather than the oboe version’s four sixteenths,
quarter note e’’, quarter and eighth rests, and
eighth note e’’. The Salzbürg manuscript solo
part very clearly indicates that the initial f’’ -e’’
-d sharp’’ -e’’ are sixteenths. Although the flute
version with the long slurred eighth notes is
THE HISTORY OF THE MOZART CONCERTO K. 314 17
IDRS JOURNAL18
defensible, to these ears the oboe version,
with its lively sixteenths, sounds much more
oboistic, and better fits the character of the
passage. Up to this point in the solo part there
have only been quarters, sixteenths, and long
held notes—no eighths. If there were some
structural reason—such as to announce a
forthcoming cadence—it would be
understandable for Mozart to introduce here a
new rhythmic element to upset the interplay of
long-short balance within the first sixteen bars
of the solo part, especially on a downbeat.
(The eighths in bar 41 are a different matter, as
they are not on the downbeat, are rising, and
are short—not at all akin to the long slurred
eighths in measures 40 of the flute version.)
Stranger still, to these ears, long slurred eighth
notes in bar 40 sound perfectly fitting, when
performed on the flute! This could well be a
product of Mozart’s genius in idiomatically
illustrating his conception of each of the
instruments: perhaps he conceived of the flute
as being better suited to more lyrical playing
in an opening movement (hence the slurred
long eighths), while he associated the oboe
with a more spirited, character-rich, matter-of-
fact style of delivery (resulting in sixteenths).
Or, perhaps the eighth notes that appear in the
flute version were merely a copyist’s error!98Robert Bloom, statement in oboe master class
held at New College Music Festival, Sarasota,
Florida, June 1, 1982.
About the author …
George Riordan is an assistant dean at the
Florida State University School of Music, and
performs on period and modern oboe. This
article is based on his 1988 doctoral treatise.