Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto K.622: Fact, Fiction, and Forgotten History
Mozart’s masterpiece is a work loved by many yet it’s authenticity raises many questions.
Over the past seventy-odd years, a resurgence of interest in the Clarinet Concerto has seen vigorous investigation into Mozart’s life and music, in the hope of gaining a greater understanding and knowledge. A catalyst for this inquiry was an article by George Dazeley, printed in 1948, entitled “The Original Text of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto,” which questioned the authenticity of the first published edition of the concerto by Breitkopf and Härtel. The combination of this article and the rediscovery of a review of the Breitkopf edition printed in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung (AMZ) in March of 1802 prompted an investigation into the originality of Mozart’s concerto, as it was known at the time. Dazeley proclaimed that the “ . . . solo part in the published text of the Concerto (the autograph of which is not known) is not as Mozart originally wrote it, but has been adapted to bring it within the usual compass of the clarinet” (Dazeley, 1948, 10). It is noteworthy that this statement was made without knowledge of the 1802 AMZ review (Lawson, 1996, p.52). The anonymous reviewer of the AMZ pointed out that
“. . . Mozart wrote this concerto for a clarinet, which goes down to c [sic] . . . But since clarinets with such a low range are still rarely encountered today, one must be thankful to the publisher for the transpositions and the alterations made to suit the common clarinet, which might even have improved the concerto. But perhaps it would also have been a good idea to publish it entirely in its original version, and indicate these transpositions and alterations with smaller notes.”
It is clear from this point that Mozart’s Concerto was intended for an instrument then unknown to both clarinettists and researchers. An especially valuable source pertaining to this study is the surviving autograph of Mozart’s sketch catalogued by Kochel as K621b (see below). The autograph of K621b, written for basset horn in G, contains the first 199 bars of Mozart’s draft of the first movement. This sketch was written for virtuoso and close friend of Mozart’s, Anton Stadler, and it has been housed since 1951 in Rychen Stiftung, Winterthur. It is clear that Stadler must have added an extension to his basset horn as Mozart’s writing includes notes down to the second ‘C’ below the stave.
The most intriguing discovery within this score is the alterations that Mozart made at bar 180. Studies by Colin Lawson have concluded that Mozart most likely changed his mind while writing the concerto (Lawson, 1995, 35). The first 179 bars of this twenty-four-page-long score are written in the key of G. Incidentally, a key change from G to A occurs in the orchestral part, accompanied by the addition of parts for a pair of bassoons. It is noticeable that the handwriting also becomes darker and smaller at this point. Lawson suggests in his book “Mozart Clarinet Concerto” that this is due to the use of a new pen and quill (1996, 52). Given the simultaneous key change and orchestration shift, it is reasonable to conclude that this was the point where Mozart became aware of Stadler’s new extended clarinet and began writing the concerto for a clarinet in ‘A’. The autograph of K.621b has since been reproduced and is available in the Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA) collection, V/14/4.
TRANSCRIPTION OF THE WINTERTHUR MANUSCRIPT K.621b
Basset Clarinet constructed by Peter van de Poel courtesy of Craig Hill.
Pamela Poulin’s studies into Anton Stadler uncovered some revealing information that was included in a concert programme dated February 20, 1788, announcing the arrival of a new clarinet. Further studies proved fruitful after Poulin discovered another programme of a concert given in Riga in 1794, which contained an engraving of Stadler’s own special instrument. This instrument, named the bass klarinet, was capable of reaching two tones below the normal compass of the clarinet to notes, D#, D, C# and C. Theodor Lotz, the court instrument maker, who made many of Stadler’s clarinets and improvements to the basset horn, also built the bass klarinet as described in the programme. To avoid confusion with the modern bass clarinet, clarinettist Jiri Kratochvil in 1957 renamed Lotz’s instrument ‘basset clarinet’ (Cook, 1997, p.10).
The loss of the original manuscript of the Clarinet Concerto has been a source of great speculation. Anton Stadler, the dedicatee, is said to be responsible for the loss of the basset clarinet autograph as well as a number of other compositions by Mozart, including the Clarinet Quintet K.581, which he claimed were “stolen” during a tour of Europe between 1791 and 1795. A letter from Mozart’s wife, Constanze, after the composer’s death to the publisher Johann Anton André in May of 1800, regarding the location of these works’ manuscripts, suggests this theory:
“For information about the works of this kind you should apply to elder Stadler, the clarinettist, who used to possess the original MSS. of several, and has copies of some trios for basset horns that are still unknown. Stadler declared that while he was in Germany, his portmanteau, with these pieces in it, was stolen. Others however, assure me that the said portmanteau was pawned there for 73 ducats; but there were, I believe, instruments and other things in it as well” (Etheridge, 1983, 12).
Despite the loss of the original manuscript, the revival of the basset clarinet in the latter part of the 20th century has allowed for performances that honour the original composition’s intended range. The first modern performance on a reconstructed basset clarinet of the Clarinet Quintet K.581 was given by Jiri Kratochvil in 1957, some five years after Josef Janous performed the Clarinet Concerto on a reconstructed basset clarinet (Lawson, 1996, 52). Kratochvil later published a series of articles regarding the concerto’s reconstruction, further establishing the belief that Mozart’s composition was intended for the basset clarinet. Additional research by Alan Hacker, including his 1969 article “Mozart and the Basset Clarinet,” reinforced this conclusion, explaining how “ . . . many players and musicologists had long suspected that the concerto was written for an extended clarinet” (Hacker, 1969, 360).
Stadler’s last documented performance of this concerto was in 1796 (Lawson, 1996, 37). However, from 1796 to 1800, there is a distinct lack of concrete historical data surrounding performances or publications of K.622. This caused great uncertainty among performers and scholars regarding the authenticity of the manuscripts we use today, some two hundred years after the work’s conception. Publishers Breitkopf and Härtel and André were both searching intensely for Mozart’s manuscripts of the concerto at this stage (1796). Pamela Weston, renowned English clarinettist, scholarly writer, and pedagogue, discovered that these publishing houses had approached Niemetschek, a close friend of Mozart’s, to find the lost manuscripts. According to Ian Cook’s dissertation, “An Overview of Current Research: The Basset Clarinet as the Intended Instrument in the Clarinet Concerto K622 W.A. Mozart,” Niemetschek offered Härtel a copy of the concerto on July 26, 1800 (1997, 29). Breitkopf and Härtel went on to publish the score in 1801 for A clarinet and piano. Weston believed that the source of the concerto is a mystery because it was a copy and not the original (1996, 65). Very soon after, published editions by Sieber in Paris and André in Offenbach surfaced, which are considered now “as the earliest complete sources extant today” (Meyer et al., 1987).
Despite the mystery surrounding Mozart’s lost manuscript, research and reconstructions have brought new clarity to its intended instrumentation. Evidence strongly suggests that Mozart wrote the concerto for Stadler’s extended basset clarinet, which allowed for a lower range than the standard clarinet in A. The loss of the original autograph led to centuries of speculation, but modern scholarship and historically informed performances have revived Mozart’s vision, offering a deeper appreciation of this masterpiece.
References
Cook, I. (1997). The basset clarinet as the intended instrument in the Clarinet Concerto K.622, W. A. Mozart (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Dazeley, G. (1948). The original text of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto. Music Review, 9, 166.
Etheridge, D. (1983). Mozart’s clarinet concerto: The clarinettist’s view. Los Angeles, CA: Pelican.
Hacker, A. (1969). Mozart and the basset clarinet. The Musical Times, 110(1514), 359-362.
Lawson, C. (1996). Mozart: Clarinet Concerto. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mozart, W. A. (2003). Concerto in A major for clarinet and orchestra (Bärenreiter Urtext) [Sheet music]. Kassel, Germany: Bärenreiter.
Poulin, P. (1995). An updated report on new information regarding Stadler’s concert tour of Europe and two early examples of the basset clarinet. The Clarinet, 22(2), 24-28.