The Debated Authenticity of Franz Joseph Haydn’s Concertos for Horn: An Historical and Theoretical Approach to Attribution A document submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in the Performance Studies Division of the College-Conservatory of Music 2010 by Anna Marie Leverenz B.M., Southern Illinois University, 2005 M.M. Illinois State University, 2007 Committee Chair: Professor Randy Gardner Abstract Of the three horn concertos attributed to Franz Joseph Haydn only one, the concerto Hob. VIId: 3, can be proven as an authentic composition. The concertos published as Hob. VIId: 2 and Hob. VIId: 4 are thought by musicologists to be spurious attributions. Current scholarship suggests that the concerto Hob. VIId: 2 would be better attributed to Antonio Rosetti, and that the concerto Hob. VIId: 4 may be a work of Michael Haydn. This document considers these possible misattributions and compares the concertos to known works of Joseph Haydn, Michael Haydn, and Antonio Rosetti. A survey of the historical background of these composers and their individual compositional styles is examined and compared with the circumstances of the concertos in question in order to understand the causes of, and correct, the misattributions. ii © 2011 Anna Marie Leverenz All rights reserved iii Preface In the spring of 2009, I enrolled in Dr. Mary Sue Morrow‟s eighteenth-century advanced topics course on Joseph Haydn‟s symphonies. In this class we studied all of Haydn‟s symphonies, either as a group or individually, culminating in a final project with a focus of our choice. I chose to study the four-horn symphonies of Haydn and the performers for which they were written. This research paper inspired my lecture-recital, “History and Practical Performance Aspects of Franz Joseph Haydn's Chamber Music Composed for Hornists Carl Franz and Thaddäus Steinmüller Between 1763 and 1776.” The extensive research that I had completed regarding Haydn and his horn soloists inspired further study of his works, ultimately resulting in this document. It is my hope that this document not only clarifies the potential misattributions about which it is concerned, but also presents the information in an enthusiastic yet concise manner. iv Acknowledgements I offer my sincerest thanks to my committee, Professor Randy Gardner, Dr. Jonathan Kregor, and Dr. Mary Sue Morrow, for their guidance throughout the duration of this project. Thanks also to Dr. Alan Siebert, who served as interim committee chair during Professor Gardner‟s sabbatical. I must also acknowledge Dr. Sterling Murray‟s contribution, and thank him for directing me towards two invaluable documents for my research. Special thanks go to my team of proofreaders; Rachel Hands, Rachel Hockenberry, and Carissa Mattison, and to Dr. Scott Hines for engraving my musical examples. Thanks to my parents and grandparents, who were my first music teachers; I continue learning from your example. My love and deepest thanks go to my husband, Chris, for his continuous love and support while I pursue my musical and educational goals. Thanks also to the command team at the US Army School of Music, CPT Paroby, SFC Motuapuaka, SFC Whitelaw, and SSG Valenzuela, for facilitating the completion of my doctoral exams, thus assisting the completion of my doctoral degree. v Contents Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………….vi List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………….vii Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………1 Theoretical Considerations ……………………………………………………5 1. Historical Background ……………………………………………………………12 Franz Joseph Haydn ……………………………………………………………12 Johann Michael Haydn ……………………………………………………31 Antonio Rosetti ……………………………………………………………36 2. The “Zittau Concerto” ……………………………………………………………52 The “Zittau Concerto” in Catalogs and Records ……………………………54 Stylistic Traits of the “Zittau Concerto ……………………………………56 The Potential Performers of the “Zittau Concerto” ……………………………60 Summarizing the Evidence ……………………………………………………61 3. The “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………………………………62 The Misattribution of the “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………63 Correcting the Attribution through Analysis ……………………………………68 Summarizing the Evidence ……………………………………………………77 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………78 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………81 Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………85 Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………………100 vi List of Figures Figures 1. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. I: 72 ……………………………………………17 2. Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassation in D, Hob. deest. ……………………………18 3. Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassation in D, Hob. deest. ……………………………18 4. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. I: 31 ……………………………………………18 5. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. I: 51 ……………………………………………20 6. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. X: 2 ……………………………………………20 7. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………27 8. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………27 9. Natural Harmonic Series ……………………………………………………28 10. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………28 11. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………29 12. Johann Michael Haydn, MH 134 ……………………………………………35 13. Johann Michael Haydn, MH 134 ……………………………………………36 14. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………46 15. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………46 16. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………47 17. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………48 18. Antonio Rosetti, C 52 ……………………………………………………………49 19. Haydn Verzeichnis Incipit ……………………………………………………65 20. “Wallerstein Concerto” Incipit ……………………………………………65 21. It 59 Watermark ……………………………………………………………67 vii 22. “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………………………………73 23. “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………………………………77 24. Antonio Rosetti, C60 ……………………………………………………………77 viii Introduction The misattribution of compositions and the proper assignment of these inauthentic works is an occasional problem faced by performers and scholars of music composed before the 19th century. The causes of a spurious attribution are numerous and trace back to any number of sources, including previous editors and musicologists, publishers, and even the composers themselves. The conventional practices of the eighteenth century resulted in frequent similarities among composers: A limited number of forms, the preference of certain keys, and the limitations of instruments early in their developments resulted in a repertoire which, to the modern listener, might sound homogeneous. It is only through careful study and thoughtful listening that one can learn to distinguish the nuances of an individual composer‟s style. These distinctions are often confused by composers‟ mutual influence on one another regarding treatment of form, harmony, or orchestration, as well as the occasional borrowing – whether consciously or not – of a few measures of the others‟ works.1 These similarities are the source of many incorrect attributions and have resulted in decades of research to untangle the mislabeled works. Publishers can have an even more harmful effect on the proper assignment of compositions. The publishing industry is, like all other industries, motivated by profit. Before the instillation of international copyright laws, there was no legal concept of intellectual property; a composer‟s work was no longer his own after he released the manuscript to a publisher. Charles Cudworth notes that “Publishers were pirates, in the pre-copyright days, and they did not scruple to issue music under the wrong composersʼ names, if they thought it might prove more 1 Charles L. Cudworth, “Ye Olde Spuriosity Shoppe , or, Put it in the Anhang,” Notes, 12, No. 1 (December 1954): 28. 1 profitable.”2 Not all eighteenth-century publishers were this dishonest, and most modern publishers are very conscientious in their attributions, but a number of works continue to be published under the name of the wrong composer. Additional confusion has been caused by careless librarians and earlier scholars. In eighteenth-century music libraries, the composer of a work was commonly only written on the jacket which contained the parts; the parts themselves bore no inscriptions. A misattribution can be formed by the simple misplacement of a set of parts into the incorrect jacket and can remain unnoticed for centuries.3 The only way to correct these assignments is through analysis. However, the means of determining the correct composer can be ambiguous and even under the best circumstances are only speculative without the presence of an autograph manuscript. It is here that musicologists, in their attempts to correct, create misattributions themselves.4 Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) is considered one of the masters of eighteenth-century composition. During his lifetime, he experienced renown uncommon for composers of the age, most of whom spent their careers in obscurity. The success of his published works and their dissemination in both print and manuscript resulted in an international reputation and a resounding influence on his contemporary composers. Many composers were accused of imitating Haydn; most composers did imitate him to some extent. His ingenuity in exploiting the conventions of sonata form, the inventiveness of his thematic ideas, and his mastery of orchestration made Haydn one of the most influential and sought-after composers of the eighteenth century. 2 Cudworth, 35. 3 Bruce C. MacIntyre, “Haydn‟s Doubtful and Spurious Masses: An Attribution Update,” Haydn Studien 5 No. 1 (1982): 42-43. 4 Cudworth, 38. 2 Because Haydn‟s music was so desirable,