PROM 72: Mozart, Symphony No 35, K 385 (Haffner), Mass in C minor K 427 (Completed by Robert D Levin). Rosemary Joshua and Lisa Milne (sopranos), Eric Cutler (tenor), Nathan Berg (bass), Choir of the Enlightenment, Orchestra of the Age of the Enlightenment, conductor Charles Mackerras. Royal Albert Hall, 08. 09.2006. (GD)

 

 

Both works performed tonight were written at a complex transitionary stage in Mozart’s life, between his last years in Salzburg and his move to Vienna. In fact the ‘Haffner’ symphony was the first Mozart produced in Vienna, and it has the marks of a new contrapuntal complexity in compositional technique which we hear magnificently developed in the C minor Mass. Mackerras and the orchestra relished the way Mozart develops the opening ‘coup d’archet’ of the symphony, extending its range to all manner of chromatic transformations.Mackerras gave the ‘andante’ the exact movement and flow, and ‘menuetto’ was articulated with immense rhythmic elan, almost pre-figuring a Schubert, or Beethoven ‘scherzo’. Mozart asks for the concluding ‘presto’ to be played ‘as fast as possible’, and Mackerras, always obedient to Mozart, gave us the full range of Mozart’s ‘presto’, as fast as possible certainly, but never sounding rushed or forced in any way.

We know from letters to his father that Mozart intended the C minor Mass as a dedication to his marriage to Constanze Weber in August 1782. However, although Mozart performed the work in Vienna and at the Abbey Church of St Peter’s in Salzburg (where we know that Constanze sang one or two of the  arias), he never actually completed it, his performances being made up from earlier works which was common practice at that time. We will probably never know exactly why Mozart never completed such an obviously important work. But we can speculate that it was partly to do with the amount of work and commissions he took on in Vienna, and partly the reforms being introduced by Emperor Joseph 11 to simplify and shorten church music:Mozart certainly had no intentions of running counter to the Emperor’s ideas.

Several attempts, from the early 20^th Century on, have been made to touch up, or complete the great work, notably by H.C.Robbins Landon in the early fifties. But Robbins Landon’s work did not extend beyond making modest re-orchestrations and filling in links between sections which Mozart left undone. The ‘completion’ by Robert D Levin, is much more ambitious, attempting to totally complete Mozart’s work. Levin has used material from a later cantata ‘Davidde Penitente’ (K469) where Mozart used the music from the C minor Mass adding several arias. The ‘Et spiritum sanctum (for tenor) and the re-composition of the ‘Angus dei’, are taken from the later cantata. Levin’s reconstruction is most copious in the ‘Credo’ with additional orchestration; the ‘Crucifixus’(double choir), ‘Et resurrexit’, ‘Et unam Sanctum’ are all composed (re-worked) from fragments Mozart left, either in connection with C minor Mass, or from earlier liturgical works where  Levin has found a similar compositional style. Levin has also re-composed the ‘Et  vitum venturi’ at the end of the ‘Credo’, and the concluding  ‘Dona nobis pacem’.

Now, in practice’ I have nothing against these kind of re-constructions. They are in line with the more open compositional practices of Mozart’s day. For me problems begin when the quality of Levin’s work (in the ‘Crucifixus’ and concluding fugue of the ‘Angus dei’) clashes with the unique choruses Mozart left us; the superb ‘Qui tollis,’ the resplendent ‘Cum sancto Spiritu’, the hauntingly austere opening ‘Kyrie’. Levin’s double- fugue re-working of the ‘Crucifixus’ is quite competent, sounding like the professional work of any number of minor eighteenth century composers. But it is not Mozart. This problem is highlighted when Levin uses the music from ‘Davidde Penitente’. Levin develops from a beautiful chromatic phrase of Mozart’s, for the ‘Angus dei,’ but then proceeds with a rather four-square chorus in fugue, with no real imagination. Of course I am not blaming Levin for not being Mozart (who could step into Mozart’s shoes, be Mozart?). But in one important and ominous sense the comparison with Mozart is inevitable when attempts, like Levin’s, are made to re-compose Mozart, no matter how good the intentions are.

Sir Charles Mackerras has always been pragmatic and experimental in these matters. He does not take the more traditional view that the work should be left as a great ‘torso’ (to use Einstein’s phrase) believing that Mozart fully intended, and left adequate material, to complete the great work. And at times Mackerras conducted with such energy and conviction that I almost came round to that view. The ‘Enlightenment’ chorus sung with great precision, subtlety and range throughout, as did the ‘Enlightenment’ orchestra who know Mackerras well. The soloists overall were most accomplished. Both sopranos started off a little nervously, Milne smudging some her coloratura in the very operatic ‘Laudamus te’, and the tenor and bass were adequate rather than inspired, especially noticeable in the ‘Quoniam’. Rosemary Joshua did, however, give us a most beautiful performance of the exquisite ‘Et incarnatus est’, which Mozart almost certainly wrote for Constanze and the birth (fittingly) of their first son…whether or not she actually sung this aria we are unsure. I must mention the superb soprano duet ‘Domine deus’ in which the two sopranos came into natural accord. This can be seen as a kind of summation of baroque vocal counterpoint from Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, and was due no doubt to Mozart’s sustained study of  earlier composers, particularly of Bach and Handel, from the library of his Vienna disciple Baron van Swieten.

Overall a most well thought out and compelling addition to this Mozart Anniversary year. Sir Charles, as we have come to expect, conducted, accompanied, with amazing insight and vigour for an eighty year old. It would be interesting to hear him conduct the ‘torso’ which Mozart left us. The Levin ‘completion’ was finally, for me, no more than interesting, and more in terms of presenting us with some possibilities from Mozart’s many fragmentary musical ides. But I am sure that some will find this kind of thing more convincing than I did. Even though it was not of the same quality of Mozart’s completion (had he done so), it was all done with tremendous devotion and commitment to the cause of Mozart.

 

 

Geoff Diggines