Download MOZART S REQUIEM - New College Choir

MOZART’SREQUIEM
The traditional version of Mozart’s Requiem, as handed to Count Franz von
Walsegg early in 1792 in fulfilment of a commission accepted the previous
summer,hasbeenthesubjectofintensemusicologicalandanalyticaldiscussion.
This has centred on the authorship of sections of the Requiem which Mozart
clearly did not complete himself, and where the contribution of Franz Xaver
Süssmayrfigures,moreorless.CriticsofSüssmayr’sroleinthecompletionhave
gone so far as to propose alternative solutions (in the last fifty years: Beyer,
Landon, Maunder, Druce and Levin). In the present recording, the traditional
Süssmayr completion has been used for reasons that are nowhere better
expressedthaninthefollowingsummarybyChristophWolff(p.81):
. . . the Süssmayr score deserves to be protected as the only contemporary
historical, philological, and musical document of those Requiem portions
which Mozart was unable to include in his draft score. To the listener, the
Süssmayrscorerevealsanaestheticdimensionaswell,becauseitistheonly
documentthatrepresentsthegenuinemusicaltruthoftheunfinishedwork.
In fact, its rough juxtaposition and open intermingling of perfection and
imperfection draws us directly into the realm and atmosphere of the inner
Mozartcircletryingtocopewithanoverwhelminglegacy.
Thefollowingnotestakethereaderthroughthestoryofthecompositionofthe
Requiem, and make a case for the virtues of the traditional version in which
SüssmayrbecameMozart’sprincipalcollaborator.
The circumstances of the composition of the Requiem are less extraordinary
than they are sometimes made out to be. Niemetschektouches on them in his
chronicle of Mozart’s life, published in 1798, just seven years after the
composer’sdeath.Hereliedonfirst‐witnessaccounts,includingthatofMozart’s
widow,Contanze.Weread:
Shortly before the coronation of emperor Leopold [August 1791], even
beforeMozarthadreceivedtheordertotraveltoPrague[wheretheimperial
commissioned La Clemenza di Tito would be performed as part of the
celebrations],aletterwithoutsignaturewasbroughttohimbyanunknown
messenger, which with many flattering remarks contained an enquiry as to
whether he would be willing to undertake to write a Requiem Mass. What
wouldbethecost,andhowlongwouldittaketocomplete?
Mozart, who never made the least move without his wife’s knowledge, told
herofthisremarkablerequest,andatthesametimeexpressedawishtotry
his hand at this type of composition, the more so as the higher forms of
churchmusichadalwaysappealedtohisgenius.Sheadvisedhimtoaccept
theoffer.Hethereforerepliedtohisanonymouspatronthathewouldwrite
aRequiemforagivensum;hecouldnotstateexactlyhowlongitwouldtake.
He wished, however, to know where the work was to be delivered when
ready. In a short while the same messenger appeared again, bringing back
not only the sum stipulated but also the promise, as Mozart had been so
modestinhisprice,thathewouldreceiveanotherpaymentonreceiptofthe
composition. He should, moreover, write according to his own ideas and
mood,butshouldnottroubletofindoutwhohadgiventheorder,asitwould
assuredlybeinvain.
This account mirrors an earlier report published in the Salzburger
Intelligenzblatt of 7 January 1792 (see Landon (1988), p.160). The identity of
themysteriouscommissionercomestolightinalaterdocumentwrittenin1839
by Anton Herzog (but brought into the public domain by Otto Deutsch only in
1964).Herzog’stestimonyisentirelycredible,sinceasayoungmanhehadbeen
intheemployoftheverypersonwho‘hadgiventheorder’forthecommission,
CountvonWalsegg.
On 14 February 1791, death snatched from Herr Count von Walsegg his
belovedwife,intheflowerofherlife.Hewantedtoerectadoublememorial
toher,andhehadanexcellentidea.Hearranged...thatoneoftheverybest
sculptorsinViennashouldmodelanepitaph;andMozartshouldcomposea
Requiem, for which he [the Count] as usual reserved the sole right of
possession.
. . . the Requiem, which was supposed to be played every year on the
anniversary of Madame Countess’s death, took longer than expected; for
death surprised Mozart in the midst of this worthy task. What to do now?
Who was going to dare imitate a Mozart? And yet the work had to be
finished; forMozart’swidow,who(aswaswellknown)was notinthebest
circumstances,wastohavereceivedonehundredducats.
...FinallySüssmayrwaspersuadedtocompletetheunfinishedgreatwork,
and he admits . . . that during Mozart’s lifetime he often played and sang
through with him the pieces that had already been composed, namely
‘Requiem’, ‘Kyrie’, ‘Dies irae’, ‘Domine’, and so forth, and that he [Mozart]
very often discussed the completion of this work and communicated [to
Süssmayr]thewayandthereasonsofhisorchestration....
AfterHerrCountWalsegghadreceivedthescoreoftheRequiem,hecopied
the whole at once, in his usual fashion, note for note in his own very fair
hand;andgaveitmovementbymovementtohisviolinistBenaro,sohecould
copytheparts.
Whenalltheindividualpartswerewrittenout,preparationsforperforming
the Requiem were at once set in motion. But because in the region of
Stuppach [the location of Walsegg’s estate] not all the necessary musicians
could be brought together, it was arranged that the first performance take
place in Wiener Neustadt. Among the musicians, the choice of the
instrumentalandvocalsoloistswasmadefromamongthebestavailable;and
soithappenedthatthesopranowassungbyFerenz[aboy?]fromNeustadt,
thecontraltobyKernbeissfromSchottwien,thetenorbyKlein ofNeustadt,
and the bass by Thuner of Gloggnitz ‐ these were the soloists. On 12
December1793thegeneralrehearsalwasheldintheevening,inthechoir‐
loft of the Cistercian Abbey and Parish Church of Neustadt; and on 14
Decemberat10o’clockinthemorningarequiemmemorialservicewasheld
in that same church, during which this famous Requiem was given for the
firsttimeinthefashionforwhichitwasintended.
Thethreadsremainingtobeteasedoutoftheseaccountsare:Mozart’sstateof
mind as he embarked on this his last (and unfinished)composition, the role of
Süssmayr(andothers)inthecompletionoftheRequiem,andthestandingofthe
work in the Mozart canon. On the first matter, Nissen, Constanze’s second
husband,wrote:
AfterMozart’sreturnfromPrague[October1791],hebeganatoncetowork
ontheRequiemandtravailedwithexceptionaldiligenceandlivelyinterest;
buthisillnesscontinuedanddepressedhim.Withdeepsorrowhiswifesaw
his health gradually deteriorating. When, on a fine autumn day [in late
October],shedrovewithhimtothePratertodistracthim,andthetwowere
sitting alone, Mozart began to speak of death; he maintained that he was
writingtheRequiemforhimself.Ashesaidthis,thetearscametohiseyes,
and when she attempted to talk him out of those black thoughts, he
answered:’No,no,Ifeelittoostrongly,Iwon’tlastmuchlonger:surelyIhave
beenpoisoned!Ican’tfreemyselfofthesethoughts.’
...
On the day he died, he had the score of the Requiem brought to his bed.
‘Didn’tIsaybeforethatIwaswritingthisRequiemformyself?Thushespoke
andlookedoverthewholeattentively,withtearsinhiseyes.Itwasthelast
painfulfarewelltohisbelovedArt.
ItisnotthoughttodaythatMozartwaspoisoned(Salieri,thougharival,wasnot
amurderer).ButtowardstheendofOctober1791,Mozarthadcomplainedof‘a
great languor oppressing him by degrees’ (information recorded by Vincent
NovelloinJuly1829afteraconversationwithConstanze);bylateNovemberhe
was bedridden; and early on the morning of 5 December he died. The
contemporaryrecordofthecauseofdeathwasinflammatoryrheumaticfever,an
illness Mozart had suffered more than once during his infancy and childhood.
Mozarthadsomuchtoliveforthathisfrustrationatfallingterminallyillatthis
point in his career was intolerable. He had recently been offered the post of
KapellmeisteratStStephen’sCathedralinVienna,hehadcommissionspromised
from the Vienna and Prague theatres, and his perilous financial circumstances
werewithinsightofending.Hestruggledwithhisowndeathfarlessserenely
than with his mother’s in 1778, which he had accepted as part of divine
providence.
AsforwhoreallywrotetheRequiem,thereisnodoubtthatitislargelythework
of Mozart, though only some sections are in his hand. Franz Xaver Süssmayr
(1766‐1803)istheprincipalsecondaryactor.SophieHaibel(Constanze’ssister)
confirmsNissen’saccountthatSüssmayrreceivedinstructionsfromMozart:
...SüssmayrwasatMozart’sbedside.Thewell‐knownRequiemlayonthe
quiltandMozartwasexplainingtohimhow,inhisopinion,heoughttofinish
it,whenhewasgone...Hislastmovementwasanattempttoexpresswith
hismouththedrumpassagesintheRequiem.
Vincent Novello also records these events following his conversations with
Constanzein1829:
A short time before his death [Mozart] sang with Madame [Constanze] and
Süssmayr the Requiem. Several of the movements oppressed him to tears.
HewrotetheRecordareandprincipalpartsfirst,saying,‘IfIdonotlivethese
areofthemostconsequence.’WhentheyhadfinishedhecalledSüssmayrto
himanddesiredthatifhediedbeforehehadcompletedthework,thefugue
hehadwrittenatthecommencement[Kyrie]mightberepeatedandpointed
out where and how other parts should be filled up that were already
sketched.Itwasinconsequenceofthis,thatSüssmayrafterwardswroteto
Breitkopf of Leipzig that he had written the principal part of this Requiem,
butasMadamejustlyobserved,anyonecouldhavewrittenwhathehaddone,
after the sketching and precise directions of Mozart, and nothing Süssmayr
everdid,beforeorafter,provedhimtohaveanytalentofasimilarkind.
Ofcourse,Constanzehadtoensurethatthecommissionwascompleted,andin
sofarasitwaspossible,asMozart’sownwork.ThemanuscriptsenttoCount
vonWalseggevencarriedaforgeryofMozart’ssignature,pennedbySüssmayr,
whosehandwasverysimilartoMozart’s.ConstanzewasrightthatSüssmayr’s
talent was well below that of Mozart’s, but Süssmayr was not incorrect in
claiming a significant level of authorship. As a matter of family honour,
Constanze may well have been playing down the role of Süssmayr, whilst he,
Süssmayr,mayhaveexaggeratedthelevelofhiscontribution.
But what was the level of this contribution? To abbreviate a long and complex
story: Mozart completed the opening movement (Requiem aeternam), and the
vocalpartsoftheensuingfugue(Kyrieeleison)withindicationsofinstrumental
scoring.HealsowrotethevocalmaterialofthemovementsoftheSequenz(Dies
irae, Tuba mirum, Rex tremendae, Recordare, Confutatis, Lacrimosa – here
stopping at bar 8), again indicating some details of the instrumentation,
includingforinstancethetrombonesoloatthebeginningofTubamirum.The
Offertorium’svocalmaterial(DomineJesuChristiandHostiasetpreces)isalso
inhishand.Allthismaterialwasreviewedandthencompletedbyotherhands,
not only Süssmayr’s (the principal contributor to the completion) but, at an
earlier stage, also those of Franz Jacob Freystädtler (who orchestrated the
Kyrie), and Joseph Eybler (who fleshed out the greater part of the
instrumentation of the Sequenz movements). All three of these musicians had
been pupils of Mozart, and members of an inner circle of professional
acquaintancesonwhomConstanzecouldnaturallycalltodealwiththeproblem
of completing the commission. Süssmayr’s predominance as the compositional
assistantintheprojectemergesinthefinalmovements‐intheorchestrationof
theOffertorium,andthenrathermoreproblematicallyinthecompositionofthe
Sanctus,BenedictusandAgnusDei.Asthehistoricalrecordsuggests,thereturn
to Mozart’s music for the closing Communio (which reprises the opening two
movements of the score) followed an instruction left by the composer to
Süssmayr.
These later movements (Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei) have been the
subject of particular debate among musicians and musicologists. Some have
seen in them infelicities (voice‐leading crudities, short‐winded fugues, curious
tonal planning, lack of invention), all said to be the inevitable and regrettable
consequence of having a next‐to‐competent hack complete a masterwork. But
this is to ignore the evidence for Mozart having discussed his ideas with
Süssmayr,andtheexistenceofhissketches(singlemanuscriptleaves,onlyone
ofwhichhassurvived).Itisalsotobesurprisedbytheobjectionsraisedtosome
of the aspects of these movements. For instance the Benedictus has been
described as being overscored inplaces (Druce, p.vii), suffering from harmonic
stagnation (Druce, p.viii), and its instrumental opening being ‘particularly
clumsy and inappropriate’ (Wolff, p.76). Similarly the Sanctus has been
criticisedforitsperfunctorynature,andtheHosannaforcrudevoice‐leadingand
brevity (Levin, p.5). These seem to be misplaced judgements. For example,
Mozart does indeed write simple instrumental anticipations of vocal entries in
Benedictussettings(seehisMissabrevisinBflat,K275).Thevocaldoublingby
trombones is not inelegant when played on small‐bore instruments. And the
tonal planning of the movement appears wholly competent, with its central
dominantcadence,itssubdominantcolouratthereprise(withthetenorentry),
not to mention its telling references, in the instrumental interludes, to the
scoring and musical figures heard first in the opening movement of the score.
This is too assured and inventive to be simply the work of a hack. As for the
criticismlevelledattheHosannas,itisperhapsmoreastrokeofgeniusthatthey
arenotinthesamekey(withthecustomarydacapoeffect),butindifferentkeys
(DmajorandBflatmajor),theprogressionfromBflatmajor(secondHosannato
Agnus) being decidedly more powerful in effect than a simple change of mode
(from D major to D minor). The Sanctus with its first Hosanna was always set
succinctly in the Viennese Mass tradition because it was necessary for the
BenedictustoactasanElevationmotet,andtheElevationoftheHostcouldnot
belongdelayedsincethe(silent)recitationoftheCanonoftheMass(thePrayer
of Consecration) began immediately after the Sursum corda and Preface. It is
morethanlikelythatSüssmayrandMozartknewexactlywhattheyweredoing
innothavingtheBenedictusdelayedbyafirstHosannaanylongerthantheone
thathascomedowntous.
Christoph Wolff has suggested that in his Requiem ‘Mozart wanted to give the
genre of sacred music, in which he had been rather inactive for so long, a
completely new direction’ (p.75). This may be seen in the entirely vocal
orientation of the score, the singular instrumentation (of the woodwind, only
basset‐horns and bassoons are used, as in his Masonic music), the cross‐
references throughout the score (one of the more subtle examples being the
melodicsimilarityoftheopeningbarsofDiesiraeandSanctus),thecontrapuntal
rigour,andaspectsoftonalplanning.Theabsenceofaseparatefugal‘Amen’at
theendoftheSequenz(forwhichthereisasketchofadozenbars)mayalsobea
‘newdirection’.Indeed,giventhesearingqualityoftheLacrimosa,itsconcluding
and powerful plagal ‘Amen’ cadence seems entirely convincing, retaining the
impactofthetext,ratherthanhavingitdissipatedina‘clever’fugue.Andwithin
the realm of historical speculation, to which we are bound to return, a
conversationmayhaveoccurredbetweenMozartandSüssmayrinwhichMozart
voicedapreferenceforintegratingthe‘Amen’withintheLacrimosa,ratherthan
makingitaseparatemovement,sketchnotwithstanding.
These, and other arguments, strongly support the view that the traditional
versionoftheRequiemdeserves,asWolffconcluded,‘tobeprotected’.
And what of the Requiem’s musical qualities? Its demeanour is very different
from that of Mozart’s earlier Salzburg church music, not least because this is a
Masssettingforthedead.Theemphasisissquarelyonthevocalwriting,andon
thorough‐going contrapuntal practice. At the same time, Mozart reveals a
growing taste for choral homophony, as exemplified in sections of Rex
tremendae, Confutatis, Lacrimosa and Hostias. (This interest in chordal
declamationisafeatureofthesettingofAveverumcorpus(K618)writtensome
months earlier.) The orchestral palette is decidedly darkened by the choice of
basset‐horns and the absence of other woodwinds besides bassoons. The
affiliation of this scoring with Mozart’s Masonic music is unmistakeable.
Springing from the Viennese church tradition are the quotationof a plainchant
lineat‘Tedecethymnus’(herethetonusperegrinus),theflamboyanttrombone
solo at the commencement of Tuba mirum, coupled with its Sarastro‐like
incantationsfromthebasssoloist,andthechoiceofDminorasakeyassociated
withdeepsolemnity.Thedramaticcharacterisationofthemusicalsettingwasa
quality immediately appreciated by Mozart’s contemporaries. It has never lost
its powerful appeal. It owes much to the composer’s understanding and
manipulationofcharacterinhismaturetheatremusic.ItalsoreflectsMozart’s
stateofmindashecomposedtheRequiem,whichifnotfeveredbythoughtsof
his own imminent death (at least not until his very final days), was certainly
spurredonbyanambitiontore‐establishhimselfasachurchcomposerworthy
ofhisnominationasKapellmeisterofStStephen’sCathedral.
The Requiem Mass takes the traditional liturgical form of Introit (Requiem
aeternam) followed immediately by Kyrie eleison. After the readings, the
Sequenzwassung,atextofeighteenverses,hereinMozart’ssettingsplitupinto
six discrete movements (Dies irae, Tuba mirum, Rex tremendae, Recordare,
Confutatis,Lacrimosa).TheOffertoriumfollowed(DomineJesuChriste,withits
central section Hostias et preces). After the Sursum corda and Preface, the
movements Sanctus + Hosanna, Benedictus + Hosanna and Agnus Dei were
performed without intervening liturgy. The Communio (lux aeterna and Cum
sanctistuis)concludedtherite.
©EDWARDHIGGINBOTTOM,2011
Sources
D.Druce(ed.),Mozart,Requiem,Novello,London,1993
R.D.Levin(ed.),Mozart,Requiem,Carus‐Verlag,Stuttgart,1996
H.C.R.Landon,Mozart’sLastYear,ThamesandHudson,GDR,1988
H.C.R.Landon(ed.),TheMozartCompanion,Schirmer,NewYork,1990
C.Wolff,‘TheCompositionandCompletionofMozart’sRequiem,1791‐1792’,inC.Eisen(ed.),
MozartStudies,Oxford,1991,pp.61‐81