The issue that I have with all of these completions is that none of them seem to realize the full potential of the theme. It works as a tonic-tonic stretto two bars apart AND as a tonic-dominant stretto one bar apart. Most completions have realized the first stretto option but fail to consider the latter. I'm 100% sure Mozart would've also included the sectond type of stretto in his completion. In that sense, this theme is very similar to the Cum Sancto Spiritu fugue in the C minor mass.
You may notice that the principal subject of this fugue is, in fact, the strict inversion of the Requiem Aeternam motif. Remember the bassoon at Introitus: « D - C# - D - E - F » (perhaps taken by Mozart from Handel’s Funeral Anthem for Queen Caroline??) And the subject of Amen fugue: « D - Eb - D - C - B ». Do you get it?
Richard Maunder's interpretation is more clauser to Mozart's original sketch and so brilliant.. It is also very nice to hear all of them together..Thanks a lot..
I totally agree. It's the most fluid in Mozart's typical style. I feel like the other versions take too many liberties. The Maunder's version feels more pure, somehow.
Yeah, you can say that again. I actually don't particularly like listening to the original sketch too often because it just breaks my heart every time :(
This may explain why I prefere the Maunder's completion for my part. Besides it does not last too long, I find the others linger: It is only an ''Amen'' after all.
+Sylvain Bergeron Totally agree. Maunder's version keeps it simple yet gallant and has some beautiful use of simple melodic lines going on in there I tend to relate in with Mozart, and that feel like a continuation of the draft. It's impossible to really know what Mozart would have done with it, but Maunder's version is my favorite as well.
@@sylvainjazz Gassmann's requiem, which was one of Mozart's models, has an Amen fugue with a similar theme that is ~3 minutes long, so it's not necessarily the case that Mozart was planning a very brief one.
0:17 the string doubling the voice, and the emotional fluidity of it, it also sounds very haunting. Mozart is far too subtle for any of these composers to match. Mozart composes in an ocean while the others compose on a desk in their study.
For me Richard Maunders's sketch is the best.Hogwood used this version in his Requiem.It touches my heart,deeply.It proves Mozart's genius and greatness.He,like Bach,Beethoven,Brahms, Monteverdi,Shubert,Mendellhson,Bartok,Prokofiev,Chopin,Rave,Debussy and so on will live forever until the end of the world.
My personal favorite interpretation is Druce's, although I believe that Maunder's interpretation stays truest to the themes presented in the original sketch. I do not particularly enjoy Tamas'S or Cohr's interpretations; they add too much extra material.
Thanks for this! The Levin has always been a favorite. Levin's compactness and technical quality is something I personally aspired to: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O5iNHSuEbB4.html . I've always felt that Levin's had its own issues, however. The independent instrumental voices, apart from the SATB, isn't a feature I'm aware of in Mozart's other mature liturgical works for chorus (I hope I'm wrong about this, as I do enjoy the Levin edition! Maunder made the same observation about Levin's edition.). Mozart does have allow some freedom for the orchestra to perform some motifs in these stile antico fugues, but nothing amounting to a 5th independent voice; it's more characteristic of Bach, I think. Levin's is still by far the most convincing to my ears. It's also the most proportional to the other movements in the Sequenz.
When I was in the Hunter College Choir years ago, we performed Mozart's Requiem, with the Levin version. I loved his version as opposed to the Sussmayer version. It was such an awesome, incredible experience and I loved every minute of it.
The more I listen I notice that Levin's version, while it has solid fugal writing, falls apart within the context of the Requiem. I also disagree with his vision of a short number for the Amen. By the time Mozart worked on the Requiem he was already very intimate with the works of the Baroque masters and their architectural approach to composition, and one very important element in this mindset is the symmetry of movements and forms. Analyzing the piece as a whole, it is clear that Mozart indended to achieve this symmetry by ending each major section with an elaborate fugue. Even if we were to excluve the Sussmayr additions (including the dubious Hosanna fugue), the Kyrie Eleison double fugue, with such dense counterpoint and relentless pace, can only work in a framework where it "carries the weight" and concludes the previous section (the slower and contemplative Introitus). Under this premise, the Sequentia (which is the longest section of the Requiem) has to be concluded with an extended Amen fugue, one that modulates and has a dramatic ending, in stark contrast with Levin's version which actually seems inspired by the early Mass settings by teenage Mozart. Needless to say, it is a completely different style, simply compare the early Missa Brevis compositions with the C minor Mass or the Missa Solemnis in C Major K337. To my ears, Duncan Druce and Panczel Tamas had higher success in completing the fugue, Tamas in particular, who uses the Dies Irae fragment to great and clever effect; both tying the Sequentia together, and concluding it memorably. Despite Levin does not improve on the structure of the Requiem with the Amen fugue, I still enjoy his version a lot, and I'm very fond of his convincing amendments to the historic Sussmayr version. At the end of the day, I'm grateful for these efforts as they can only exacerbate the musical genius of Mozart and the timelessness of his ideas.
According to one of the commenters above, Maunder apparently used the Organ Fantasia K. 608 as a model for his completion, which is I think completely at odds with what Mozart would have done in a piece that is strictly archaic in form and harmonic palette versus a fantasy that is expected to be harmonically adventurous. Pánczél used Pergolesi’s Amen in Stabat Mater as a model, I find both to be far-fetched, wandering and haphazard - and above all, contrapuntally lacking. How Maunder modulates back to the conclusion of the fugue is especially sticking out like a sore thumb. Out of all these completions, after listening to them several times and assessing them thoroughly, Levin is the one, who is most convincing to me. I’m sorry, but he’s the one who speaks Mozart’s church music language and doesn’t need to retrofit anything to a pre-existing blueprint in order to make it work like those two guys. Besides, both Maunder, Druce, and Pánczél use too much extra material (hence I used the term wandering); you don’t need to overextend with grandiose forms to legitimise yourself: Mozart was the master of simplicity and using relatively simple ideas to achieve considerable structural goals. Pánczél especially is a great offender in this regard, but I concede, it might sound pretty to our 21st-century ears. Besides, Maunder, Pánczél and Levin are both equal in length at 1:20 - 1:30, if Levin’s is not longer because it’s played significantly faster, so I don’t know what you’re talking about in your first paragraph. Besides, do you think a simple Amen word warrants such lengthy fugue as a whole Kyrie movement? The Quam olim fugue is also around 1,5 minutes, by the way, the Kyrie is around 2:20. Druce - again - overextends by writing a fugue that is closer to the Kyrie’s length. And for the life of me, even if I preferred Druce’s completion of the Amen, I can’t bear to listen to his shite Lacrimosa where he used Eybler’s 2 measure scribble that has nothing to do with Mozart and was discarded even by Eybler immediately, saying that he couldn’t do the piece justice.
@@Kris9kris Thank you for keeping up on the Requiem debate. I disagree with you on calling the Amen a "simple word". It's very important both in religious-rhetoric and musical structure grounds. Indeed, Amen is usually the midpoint of the sung Requiem mass, and it follows the "dona eis requiem" stanza of the Sequentia, unifying the Introit - Sequentia - Agnus Dei. Christoph Wolff explains this is probably the reason Mozart left the Lacrimosa incomplete and went to work on the Offertory. This gave him more time to reflect on key portions of the text and their musical associations. If Amen was of lesser importance, Mozart would've easily set it in one statement as a plagal cadence and no fugue like Sussmayr did (this is a more generic solution and typical of breve Requiem settings like Pasterwitz). Heck, Mozart's Amen sketch takes 24 bars on the exposition alone. Florian Gassmann's Requiem - a highly suggested model for Mozart - also had a lengthy Amen double fugue. All evidence points to Mozart following baroque tradition for his Requiem: all major sections are to be concluded by an extended fugue, sometimes more than conventionally accepted: in Mozart's own time, the Quam Olim was deemed too long especially after the Hostias. Mozart was clearly developing a new style of church music, a sort of simultaneous brevis/solemnis work. Regarding modern completions of the Amen sketch I think we all are on a dead point of debate because we'll never know what Mozart would have written. The sketch itself is so short structurally speaking that we're left only to speculation and personal preferences (what I'm confident about is that it wasn't going to be as short as Sussmayr's Osanna fugue. LOL) Sadly, we'll never get to hear Mozart's absolutely magnificent trio of fugues for Kyrie - Amen - Cum Sanctis Tuis.
@@VexaS1n I read your response with enjoyment as you make a fair case. Pánczél and Druce might work structurally, but it falls apart *for me* musically. At this point, Mozart was mainly - but not exclusively - trying to "imitate" Händel and to a lesser extent, JS Bach. I feel like the fugue should have a continuous flow (just like the Baroque masters did, with no jarring transitions) for it to successfully consolidate as a structural whole. And I'm not just extrapolating out of thin air: the Amen fugue has a classical Baroque template countersubject like what is featured at the end of Handel's Dixit Dominus or Scarlatti's K. 58 c-minor Fugue. Levin's might be a little short I admit (but as I've mentioned, that's the case in all the completions to this day except for Druce) but he's efficient in the aspects I find to be paramount. Anyway, I don't believe that Mozart would have recycled the first two movements either, Süssmayr just wasn't able to compose something that is on the scale of e.g. the Sicut erat of CPE Bach's Magnificat, so he made up a story to legitimize himself as he had done so many times. I also think that at this point, Mozart's contrapuntal prowess was much more evolved than galante composers like Gassmann, Gossec and Michael Haydn.
@@Kris9kris "Mozart was the master of simplicity and using relatively simple ideas to achieve considerable structural goals." This is straight up bs lmao,
First, appreciate Hollowchatter putting this together. THANK YOU. I love Mozart greatly and it's sad to consider works he never got to finish. Nevertheless, this is highly fascinating and controversial, especially when one has to choose a favorite from the hard work of others. After listening and taking some notes: I think Maunder's is the most succinct and balanced. The contour is very natural as he builds the tension to a definite peak. He doesn't go off on tangents and stays very true to the themes expressed in Mozart's short sketch. Overall it seemed the most satisfying for me. Levin's is very solid but seems to go on a little too long and in the process loses momentum. His ending leaves me wanting a little. Having said all that, his version is quite workable and stylistically stays in the spirit of the sketch. Druce has some great ideas but he couldn't restrain from "showing them off" a little too much. I found some harmonic ideas that are fancy but actually to me, pull you out of the Mozartian flow. He also was too elaborate moving towards the ending. There's about 3 endings in there and he should have stayed with one. Tamas is ok but he also threw unnecessary modulations that while showy, are not Mozartian. I'm guessing he was adding these to inject energy and interest, but I thought it wandered too much. Cohrs included musical bridges to move from idea to idea but they stuck me as somewhat out of character with the whole. There is also too much distraction from busy instrumental accompaniment in my opinion especially in the section preceding the ending. So, I have to favor Maunder followed by Levin. Having said all this, I wonder if Mozart was satisfied with his own sketch. Did he tell Sussmyer to ignore the sketch and use the Plagal Cadence? Or was Sussmyer overwhelmed and do that on his own. Sadly, we'll never know.
Because it is so very incomplete, the little we do have sounds fundamentally like t is missing something- which is why the beginnings of the other one do not sound so unnerving, they complete the score for the beginning
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dC1d143YP7E.html Here's Masāki Suzuki's completion of the Requiem. The most noteworthy addition is the Amen fugue after Lacrimosa.
I'm not sure I'm thrilled with any of them, but it's a Herculean task to attempt to write like Mozart, so what can we really say. I might choose one of the first three depending on the day. The first two seem a bit overwritten, Levin's has a few things which don't seem like Mozart and seem too academic. The last two, though, are just not great at all. The Tamas in particular does not hang together well, and although he was trying to use some of Mozart's own chord progressions from the Dies Irae as an attempt at unity, I am not convinced in the slightest by their use.
I must say also the way it is performed influences our feeling about the musicologigal realisation, like Maunder being sung more oldfashioned than Levin. Still Maunder convinces me more emotionally, though it's hard to seperate it. With Tamas I realize he does a blunt Dies Irae quotation, but he has the best elements of musical surprise with that and the instrumental interludes, imho. I think all the versions have sad aspects of not being Mozart, (kicking in an open door as we say). I also always felt Süssmayr did a pretty decent job for a mediocre composer. If you look at other middle of the road church music from that era, you immediately know why Mozarts music stands out so much.
It reminds me of the Bruckner 9th completions. The unadorned fragment of Mozart is more beautiful in every regard than anything his completers did with it.
I will have to do my own version because I don't like any of this completions, they are shabby for my taste, Mozart's complete "Amen" would have been 1000 times better than the others...
I won't deny that the idea of completing this fragment is frightening. Even if I don't agree with some of the completions technically speaking, the sole achievement of ending the fugue is something to be respected for.
Well, the Maunder is unquestionably the most Mozartian of them, followed I guess by the Cohrs (although he does some things no 18th-c Viennese would have). The Druce is completely wrong- it sounds more like Brahms pastiche than Mozart.
if you mean the order of voices in the exposition - alto > tenor > bass this is how Mozart laid the sketch. It only makes sense to finish the exposition with Soprano as a tonal answer, hence why it sounds similar to Pergolesi... that and the key of d minor are the only similarities. those are vastly different pieces of music.
Looks like the Amen of the "Stabat Mater" of Pergolesi. There's a spiritualist book here in Brasil (Música de Deus, by Vasco Vasconcellos) that tells a story of a guy who dreamed with Mozart and in this dream Mozart revealed that Pergolesi was the influencer of the Requiem (spiritually talking), a kind of medium Mozart was... I don't have decided yet if this is possible, if a thing like this was possible all the efforts in musical knowledge is just like garbage, so the ideas come from above (and this sounds absurd to me). It's more like Pergolesi was the source of energy and ideas and Mozart transcribed it. Or it's just a book full of madness.
There's no doubt the Pergolesi's Stabat Mater was the inspiration for the Amen fugue. Michael Haydn's Requiem provided the basic structure for Mozart's mass and even content such as the Quom Olim Abrahae fugue. Mozart also quoted other composers. The Kyrie Eleison uses a standard musical element which was most notably used in Handel's Messiah in the fugue "And with his stripes." Of course there's Bach's contrapuntal techniques scattered here and there as well as intensely dramatic scenes which were, perhaps, inspired by operas attended by Mozart. So, as with any music, there are many different sources of inspiration. As for the Amen fugue, none of the completions are satisfactory, but not because they aren't Mozart but because they are deficient as compositions. Of a disappointing bunch, I personally enjoyed Maunder's the most by a good margin, it was easily the most musical, to put it simply. With a few changes it could be really good. Perhaps the most disappointing is Levin's if only because he has such visible appreciation for Mozart's music and understanding of the context and methods and as a result one naturaly expects it to be amazing. It certainly wasn't bad but it was far from amazing as by the fifth or sixth entry of the subject the flow and balance had already been lost. Some things, like artistry, can't be taught. In contrast, Mozart's Kyrie Eleison double fugue is a marvel of music. I applaud these folks for trying and, if I had the talent, I hope I would be brave enough to try as well.
Even though I love every contribution 100% I cannot shake off the feeling that Mozart himself was not satisfied with this work and bailed out on it. Why would I say that? The beginning is not as melodic as any other part of the Requiem at least not to my ear.. The first six notes sound like a beginning sketch and he wasn't satisfied with where it was going and set it aside to revisit it at a later date. I've had Richard Maudners book for over 10 years and love it. Hypothetically if you had a copy of the Requiem and every part was unfinished up to the same amount as the Amen Fugue you will see that The Amen Fugue is lacking any melodic cadence Mozart always has in every piece. The Amen fugue sounds to liturgical. I could be wrong though but this is fun.
You may notice that the principal subject of this fugue is, in fact, the strict inversion of the Requiem Aeternam motif. Remember the bassoon at Introitus: « D - C# - D - E - F » (perhaps taken by Mozart from Handel’s Funeral Anthem for Queen Caroline??) And the subject of Amen fugue: « D - Eb - D - C - B ». Do you get it?
We should start by the fact that this fugue is only assumed to be part of the Requiem. If the answer is yes, he may have used it as the finale to the Sequentia part of the work. Considering the material present in this sketch, then he wanted it to be complex in counterpoint . Wolfgang often made sketches when he couldn't work the piece on his head alone and needed to pen it down to get a clearer idea.
Panczel mi piace molto. Benjamin per niente. I restanti sono sullo stesso piano. Quale immensa perdita per l'UMANITÀ la morte di quest'uomo!!!!!!, dovremmo ancora piangerlo tutti, e invece di va avanti a rave party.....mio Dio!....
I’m pretty sure musicians and non-musicians consider Mozart to be greater than Bach, not to mention his tremendous influence and general knowledge in public today.
Burn lol. I disagree but because it is so unfinished it would feel weird putting it in the requiem. Though some of it's interpretations are better then some of the other movements in the Requiem (The ones Mozart didn't write of course)
Which movements do you mean? The Sanctus, The Benedictus, The Agnus? Personally i think that Vs. 2 and 3 are ok. But to put the fragment into the requiem those "composers" changed süßmayrs work. Nobody knows on which "Trümmer und Zettel" as Constanze Mozart said, Süßmayr worked. The leaf with the Fugue shows that there ve been some sketches of Mozart himself. Nobody knows if Süßmayr knew the fugue or - if he knew it - why he didn't use it. He has had only a few weeks to complete the Requiem before delivery to Count Walsegg. Yes - There are some mistakes in his work (parallels in some voices). But: he has done a good work. there are thematic relationships between the three movements he composed and those movements Mozart made and he was a scolar of him. so: i think there is no reason to complete the Requiem nowadays. Süßmayrs work (mistakes excluded) is much closer on the original period and culture than those musicians of today are. Nobody can say and will ever say clearely and true: There ends Mozart and there begins Süßmayr - beyond the autograph Mozart left. There is also no reason to say Eybler arranged it closer to Mozart. He was no scolar, only a friend of him. But it is very plausible that Süßmayr discussed questions of instrumentation with Mozart...
Sussmayr's version of the fugue is... none... lmao. He simply put Amen to a plagal cadence at the end of the Lacrimosa. Respected scholars have argumented that Sussmayr knew about the Amen fugue sketch but he didn't use it because the counterpoint was too complex for him.
I feel lucky that he did not undertake the task: imagine if Süßmayr had composed at the end of the Dies Irae a fugue like he did in the Osanna... On the other hand his completion of the Lacrymosa is convincing and his idea of a straight plagal amen is a sign of realism.
Highly unlikely. According to the structure Mozart had in mind for the work, "ending the Sequentia with a fugue was almost a compelling necessity" (citing Christoph Wolff.)
