Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) Flute Concerto [No. 2] in D major K. 314 (285d)
Urtext edited by Henrik Wiese [fl,orch] duration: 20'
solo: fl – 0.2.0.0. – 126.96.36.199. – str
Here you will find cadenzas to this work: Andersen, 3 Cadenzas for Mozart's Flute Concerto No. 2 in D major K. 314 (285d)
Please select the desired products and click "Add to Cart"
Mozart's Flute Concerto K. 314 (285d) was most likely derived from the Oboe Concerto K. 314 (271k). The decisive impulse for the arrangement was presumably provided by a commission from the Dutch flutist Ferdinand Dejean in 1778. Any new edition inevitably has to take a very cautious approach, as the source transmission is thin: only copies dating from the 1790s have survived for both versions, and these copies clearly differ from one another. Moreover, it is nowhere confirmed that Mozart actually prepared the flute version himself. Henrik Wiese has worked intensively with Mozart's flute compositions as an interpreter and musicologist, and now presents following his new edition of the Concerto K. 313 the second solo concerto in an Urtext edition. He has once again supplied his own cadenzas.
"Gut ein Dutzend Ausgaben dieses Konzerts dürfen derzeit erhältlich sein, doch diese hier ist etwas besonderes." (Ursula Pesek, Das Orchester)
1. The Origin of the Work
The Concerto K. 314 has been transmitted in two versions, as an oboe concerto in C major and a flute concerto in D major. The oboe version is mentioned repeatedly in the Mozart family correspondence. This first-hand information provides important facts – more than for any other wind concerto by Mozart – about the origin of the work, historical performances, and the sources of the oboe concerto.
1.1. The Oboe Concerto
The oboe concerto is first mentioned in a letter of Leopold Mozart. On 15 October 1777 he writes to his son, who is on his way to Mannheim: “Your main object, however, should now be to have something ready for Prince Taxis. – – and, if you had a copy of your oboe concerto, [the oboist] Perwein might enable you to make an honest penny in Wallerstein.” Mozart later actually did meet Johann Marcus Berwein, the oboist of the Wallerstein Hofkapelle from 1777 to 1781. The meeting most probably took place in Hohenaltheim (near Wallerstein) on 27 October 1777. There is no further information about this. The Mozarts ascertainably maintained contact with Berwein until 1783.
Once he had arrived in Mannheim, Mozart wrote to his father on 4 November 1777 about his visit with Christian Cannabich (1731–1798): “It so happened that some members of the orchestra were there, young Danner, a horn-player called Lang, and the Hautboist whose name I have forgotten, but who plays very well and has a delightfully pure tone. 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.” In Mannheim Mozart apparently lost no time in establishing contacts with musicians from the celebrated Mannheim Hofkapelle. Among them were the oboist Friedrich Ramm (1745–1813), whose name Mozart had initially forgotten and about whom he reported to his father on 14 February 1778: “Yesterday there was a concert at Cannabich’s. [...] then Herr Ramm (by way of a change) played for the fifth time my oboe concerto written for Ferlendi, which is making a great sensation here. It is now Ramm’s cheval de bataille [warhorse].” Ferlendi no doubt refers to the oboist Giuseppe Ferlendis (1755– 1802), who was a member of the Salzburg Hofkapelle from 1 April 1777 to the end of July 1778.
This information allows us to infer that Mozart wrote an oboe concerto for Giuseppe Ferlendis in Salzburg, presumably in the spring or summer of 1777. It had not been written out in parts by the time of Mozart’s departure from Salzburg and, consequently, had most likely not yet been performed. In Mannheim Mozart rededicated the oboe concerto to Ramm.
It was only five years later that Mozart mentioned the oboe concerto again. Writing to his father in Salzburg from Vienna on 15 February 1783, he asked him: “Please send me at once the little book which contains the oboe concerto I wrote for Ramm, or rather for Ferlendis. Prince Esterházy’s oboist is giving me three ducats for it and has offered me six, if I will compose a new concerto for him. But if you [L. M.] have already gone to Munich [for the carnival], well then, by Heaven, there is nothing to be done; or the only person to whom in that case we could apply, I mean, Ramm himself, is not there either.” On 29 March 1783 he acknowledged reception to his father: “I have received the parcel of Musique and thank you for it.” There seem to have been three sources for the oboe concerto during Mozart’s lifetime: (1) The “little book” in Mozart’s personal belongings which was no doubt the autograph score (in small oblong format). (2) The Mannheim performance material belonging to Ramm. (3) The performing parts which were to have been copied for “Prince Esterházy’s oboist.” Unfortunately, none of these sources has survived.
Indeed, Mozart’s oboe concerto was long considered as lost. It was not until 1920 that a historical set of parts of the oboe concerto (Ob-S-s) was rediscovered by Bernhard Paumgartner in the archives of the Salzburg Mozarteum. It is the only historical source for the oboe concerto today. This part material, however, is not identical to the performance materials made during Mozart’s lifetime but, judging from the watermark, was presumably made only after Mozart’s death. It appears to have been written in Johann Traeg’s copyist’s workshop in Vienna. In 1971 a nine-measure autograph sketch in C major also came to light in a private collection. This sketch confirms both the authenticity as well as the precedence of the oboe version.
1.2. The Flute Concerto
The flute version has been known to scholars longer than the oboe version. It is mentioned in a handwritten catalogue of Mozart’s works (Vienna, 1837) compiled by Aloys Fuchs (1799–1853) and appears for the first time in print as part of the Alte Mozart-Ausgabe (1881). Ludwig Ritter von Köchel believed that the Flute Concertos K. 313 and 314 must have been the ones that Mozart said he had “made completed” in Mannheim, which would be the works commissioned by the Dutch flute enthusiast Ferdinand Dejean (1731–1797). However, Paumgartner’s discovery complicates the situation. In the third impression of the Köchel Catalogue (1937), Alfred Einstein advanced the opinion (which still prevails to this day) that Mozart had, without any further ado and pressed for time, reworked the oboe concerto into a flute concerto for Dejean. Thus when at a later date Mozart speaks only of the “flute Concerto for Mr: de jean” he would then be referring to the original Flute Concerto in G major K. 313 and not to the arrangement of K. 314. Lending weight to Einstein’s hypothesis is the correction “gemacht fertig gemacht” (“made completed”), which is generally ignored. While “made” comprises the creative process as a whole, “completed” refers foremost to its closing phase and completion. The term “completed” is thus more precise with regard to an arrangement.
There are several inconsistencies, however, in the information pertaining to Dejean’s commission. For 200 gulden, Mozart was to “compose for him three short, simple concertos and a couple of quartets for the flute.” For the (allegedly) delivered “two concertos and three quartets,” Mozart expected half of the honorarium, but obtained even less, namely 96 gulden.
It is difficult to identify these works. Of the two transmitted Flute Concertos (K. 313 and 314), the Andante in C major (K. 315) and the four Flute Quartets (K. 285, 285a, 285b, 298), only the Quartet K. 285, whose autograph is dated, can be unequivocally associated with Dejean’s commission. The Andante K. 315, which has come down to us in autograph form, can be ascribed to the year 1778 on the basis of its type of paper and handwriting. It may thus have something to do with Dejean’s commission. This cannot be said of the Flute Quartets K. 285b and 298, however; owing to the authentication of the autograph documents, they were written in Vienna at a later date. What remains are the two Flute Concertos K. 313 and 314 and the Flute Quartet K. 285a, whose connection with the Mannheim contract is plausible, though not compelling. One generally overlooks the fact that the performance of a flute concerto by Mozart ascertainably took place in Salzburg in July 1777. Judging from certain features in its orchestration, this Salzburg flute concerto is probably identical to the Flute Concerto in G major K. 313. Similarly to the oboe concerto, Mozart perhaps rededicated the G major Flute Concerto to Dejean in Mannheim. The bottom line is that one Mannheim flute quartet is missing, and the two Viennese flute quartets are nowhere mentioned in Mozart’s correspondence. Instead, we have a non-commissioned Andante in C major K. 315. Mozart also nowhere mentions this work, even though he had every reason to prove his productivity in Mannheim to his demanding father.
There is no authenticated information concerning the origin of the flute version of K. 314. No autograph has been transmitted. The earliest source, a Viennese copy of the parts, was probably written after Mozart’s death, but still in the early 1790s. The flute version differs from the oboe version in many places. If we exclude the differences between the two solo parts on account of the problematic transmission of the oboe part, and if we take into consideration solely the differences between the orchestral parts of the two versions, then we can see that, unfortunately, Mozart’s hand is not unequivocally identifiable anywhere in the arrangement. All the emendations could have been made by someone else as well. The authenticity of the flute version thus remains ambiguous. In his correspondence concerning the flute commission, Mozart complained that he was pressed for time. It is possible that the time-consuming transcription was not “completed” by Mozart himself, but entrusted to someone else. In the latter case, the flute version would have been indirectly authorized by Mozart through the sale to Dejean. But if the arrangement has nothing to do with Dejean’s commission, the authorization is dubious.
2. Sources and Edition
The above-mentioned copy of the flute concerto (Fl-W-s) makes a basically reliable impression. The number of errors is average and tolerable. The handwriting stands out for its clarity. The performance signs are generally clearly ascribable to the notes they belong to. However, the basis for this copy of the parts is not, for example, the autograph score but, again, a copy of the parts in which there must have been traces from earlier performances such as supplemented and corrected articulations (see the “Kritischer Bericht”). Accordingly, the music text must be judged with a certain skepticism, particularly with respect to the performance marks.
Our edition closely follows this copy of the parts. The sparing additions made by the editor are generally placed in brackets or printed as broken-line slurs. The slides in the second movement, which are placed in brackets, were not supplemented by the editor but taken from the source, even if their authenticity is doubtful (see the following Section 3). Moreover, slurs and/or ties in the solo part that are questionable in the source are placed in parentheses. The beaming is essentially borrowed from the source. The setting of accidentals was discreetly modernized. Accidentals that are clearly missing were tacitly added. Detailed information on the sources and readings can be found in the “Kritischer Bericht.”
3. Two Major Editorial Problems
Ornaments in Mvt. II: In the second movement there are several slides in Fl. princ. and Vl. I/II. However, only the slide in thirds (Vl. I/II) in m. 51 is authenticated by the oboe version. The other slides (mm. 2, 19, 21, 27, 29, 31, 35, 42, 57, 65–68, 73) are missing in the oboe version. The slide in Vl. I m. 2 proves to be a later addition in a superordinate source that is no longer extant today, for it is missing not only in the tutti of the solo part, but also in Vl. II, where, on the basis of the parallel passages mm. 51 (slide) and 87 (appoggiatura), one would have expected a parallel motion in thirds to the Vl. I. A linking of two chance errors in Fl. princ. and Vl. II is rather unlikely. Perhaps the other slides (save for m. 51) were also subsequently added. All of these dubious slides were placed in brackets in the present edition. Exceptionally, they do not indicate an addition made by the editor; indeed, due to their dubious authenticity, the editor recommends the omission of all bracketed slides, and particularly that in m. 2.
Mvt. II, m. 9: The dynamics in mm. 8 and 9 present certain problems. In the source, there is a p at the first note of m. 8 in Vl. I, a cresc. at the 4th note in m. 9 and an f at the 7th note. In the other (string) parts, the f from m. 7 is still valid in m. 8, and at the end of m. 9 we have a p. The dynamics of the Vl. I thus run counter to those of the other parts in mm. 8f.; on the other hand, they are very similar to the parallel passage at mm. 83f. Other editions standardize the dynamics in m. 8 and place a p (at the first note) in all parts, in agreement with m. 83. The contradictory dynamic marking at the end of m. 9 is left as it is in these editions; only in the NMA it is abated by a sudden p in m. 10 (Vl. I).
The parallel passage at mm. 83f. differs from mm. 8f. in the orchestration. Whereas in m. 83 the sudden change in dynamics (at the 2nd quarter-note value) is supported by the silence of the wind parts, the orchestration takes no consideration of a sudden dynamic change in m. 8. In spite of a similar musical substance, we are no doubt dealing with two differing dynamic concepts here.
If we take the orchestration as the basis for our decision, then it should be clear that what is correct is not the dynamic marking of Vl. I in mm. 8f. but that of Vl. II, Va., Vc. e Cb. Accordingly, the entire orchestra should most likely continue to play m. 8 in f (or in dim.). Unclear is where the p should be placed in Vl. I. In the present edition, we have placed it at the beginning of the 16th-note passage in m. 9, following the orchestration of the strings. Of course, one could also place the p at another, later point within the 16th-note passage. The dynamics here are also ambiguous in the oboe version.
We wish to extend our most cordial thanks to the libraries named in the “Kritischer Bericht” for putting the sources at our disposal.
Munich, Spring 2009
We offer a PDF of the complete text with all notes for download.