Mozart Fantasy In C Minor K.475

[french frank]

that doesn't mean Mozart intended the fantasia to be an introduction. He might have done, but I think we have to know more about his intentions. After all, all kinds of works were thrown together in publication without there being a link of that sort between them. As I said before, there could have been many reasons why the fantasia and sonata were published together, not least because it might have been an attractive offer - especially as C minor was not a particularly common key at that time.

But the fact that the fantasy was printed first even though it was a later composition? Why not the other way round? But if you want to be certain about his intentions, you'll probably have to ask him.

[waldo]

But the fact that the fantasy was printed first even though it was a later composition? Why not the other way round? But if you want to be certain about his intentions, you'll probably have to ask him.

No, I'm not after certainty! I just think it is going beyond the available evidence to say he intended one as an introduction or first movement of the other. That's not asking for certainty, at all. I just think we need something else, some other fact, to know what his likely or probable intentions were here. Simply saying "Well, he published them together and put the fantasy first" is not enough. It's just a guess. For me, anyway. There could be dozens of reasons why they were published together.

But maybe Roehre knows more than we do...........it was his/her? claim, after all.

[richardfinegold]

But the fact that the fantasy was printed first even though it was a later composition? Why not the other way round? But if you want to be certain about his intentions, you'll probably have to ask him.

It is an interesting question. I'm not a musicologist or a Mozart biographer so I will not pretend to have the answer. This thread has made me look at the first movement of K. 457 in a new light. Besides the key signature there are some similarities between it and the Fantasy, although after the introductions they veer off in different directions. The K 457 (I) superbly observes Sonata Form, while the Fantasy plays with confines of Sonata Form and breaks the rules.
This reminds me of the situation with the Grosse Fuge, where Beethoven's publisher decided it simply overwhelmed the preceeding content and had Beethoven devise a simpler finale and then published the GF as a freestanding work. It has become fashionable for current String quartets to reinsert the GF as the last movement of the Quartet that it was intended for. i don't think that anyone has tried to sbustitute the first movement of K.457 with K.475 on a similar premise, nor would I like to see that occur.

[french frank]

But maybe Roehre knows more than we do...........it was his/her? claim, after all.

Yes, maybe he does. Though it is claimed by others as well: my Haefliger liner notes say that 7 months after he composed the Sonata 'he added a Prelude in the form of the Fantasia ... then he had the two compositions published together'.

[waldo]

Yes, maybe he does. Though it is claimed by others as well: my Haefliger liner notes say that 7 months after he composed the Sonata 'he added a Prelude in the form of the Fantasia ... then he had the two compositions published together'.

Yes, I've read that kind of thing, too. I just wonder what the actual evidence is.........

.......one thing I just read (in the All Music Guide to Classical Music) is that they were both published under the collective designation Opus 11.

Now, whether that means we ought to think of them as a kind of unified work, a fantasy-sonata conglomerate, I don't know.........

[french frank]

Meanwhile, for a diversion: the discovery of the autograph manuscript in Philadelphia in 1990. As the MS had been lost since 1915, perhaps the work could have figured in Music of the Great War, here, on Radio 3 ...

[richardfinegold]

Meanwhile, for a diversion: the discovery of the autograph manuscript in Philadelphia in 1990. As the MS had been lost since 1915, perhaps the work could have figured in Music of the Great War, here, on Radio 3 ...

Wow. We should alert the authro of "Beethoven's Hair"... A sequel could be in the works!

[Roehre]

Interesting discussion.
1) Mozart recorded finishing the Sonate fur das Klavier allein (KV457) on October 14th 1784, The Phantasie für das Klavier allein (KV475) on May 20th 1785.
2) Both works were published together as one work (opus 11) in april (ads were published April 25 and 26) 1786.
In work groups [e.g. Mozarts violin sonatas opus 2 (i.e. KV296/378/379 [p.1781]) or -later- Beethoven's piano trios opus 1 [p.1794] ] works are numbered separately, with a new "first" page and title.
this is not the case with the Fantasia & sonata, these were published as one work.
3) since the re-emergence of the manuscript just in time to be published in the Mozart-year 1991, we know that Mozart not only corrected the publisher's proofs, but amended the musical text at some places too. These - not extensive- amendments cannot otherwise be explained than as a way to unite the fantasy and the sonata musically.

Hence: though possibly not conceived as one work -why otherwise recording them in his work catalogue separately- Mozart eventually intended the Fantasia and the Sonata to be one work. Of course a bit of fashion may have played a role in this too: a couple of other composers published this particular combination in those days too.

Mozart intended or actually replaced or added movements in other works as well: both the Adagio KV261 and the Rondos KV269 and 373 for violin and orchestra were meant to replace movements in the violin concertos, the latter more than 7 years after completing KV219. The symphonies KV297 and 338 have alternative movements, of which the menuet KV409 (for 338) was composed 3 years later. From this point of view the 7 months between KV457 and 475 are negligable.

[EdgeleyRob]

Interesting discussion.
1) Mozart recorded finishing the Sonate fur das Klavier allein (KV457) on October 14th 1784, The Phantasie für das Klavier allein (KV475) on May 20th 1785.
2) Both works were published together as one work (opus 11) in april (ads were published April 25 and 26) 1786.
In work groups [e.g. Mozarts violin sonatas opus 2 (i.e. KV296/378/379 [p.1781]) or -later- Beethoven's piano trios opus 1 [p.1794] ] works are numbered separately, with a new "first" page and title.
this is not the case with the Fantasia & sonata, these were published as one work.
3) since the re-emergence of the manuscript just in time to be published in the Mozart-year 1991, we know that Mozart not only corrected the publisher's proofs, but amended the musical text at some places too. These - not extensive- amendments cannot otherwise be explained than as a way to unite the fantasy and the sonata musically.

Hence: though possibly not conceived as one work -why otherwise recording them in his work catalogue separately- Mozart eventually intended the Fantasia and the Sonata to be one work. Of course a bit of fashion may have played a role in this too: a couple of other composers published this particular combination in those days too.

Mozart intended or actually replaced or added movements in other works as well: both the Adagio KV261 and the Rondos KV269 and 373 for violin and orchestra were meant to replace movements in the violin concertos, the latter more than 7 years after completing KV219. The symphonies KV297 and 338 have alternative movements, of which the menuet KV409 (for 338) was composed 3 years later. From this point of view the 7 months between KV457 and 475 are negligable.

Tremendous knowledge,brilliant.

[waldo]

3) since the re-emergence of the manuscript just in time to be published in the Mozart-year 1991, we know that Mozart not only corrected the publisher's proofs, but amended the musical text at some places too. These - not extensive- amendments cannot otherwise be explained than as a way to unite the fantasy and the sonata musically.

That's the really important bit of evidence - if it is indeed true that the amendments cannot be otherwise explained etc etc........."Cannot otherwise be explained" does sound a little strong for my liking, given that this kind of judgement is usually fraught with disagreement and uncertainty. But I could be wrong. It may be blindingly obvious to a musicologist that he has taken efforts to unite the two.

I would have to know much more about publishing conventions etc before I accepted the single opus number as evidence that they were considered to be a kind of single work. But again, it may be more significant than I assume it is right now.

Very interesting, though. It has certainly made me think differently about the two works (one work!), which I had always assumed were merely united by the fact that they shared the same key and character and were composed quite close together.