Sussmayr cannot be considered the official version, rather it's the historic performance edition, but that does not speak about the musical qualities of the work itself. I too prefer Druce's version.
Duncan Druce ‘completion’ of bars 9-39 of the Lacrymosa is substandard Synthetic Mozart & does not come even close to holding a candle to what we see in Suessmayr’s ‘completion’ (Lacrymosa Codex 17.561b. in bars 9-22) but at least Druce was brave enough to sketch out a plausible 3/8 metre Amen Double Fugue in d-minor to end the Lacrymosa bas’d in Mozart’s own 16-bar skizze - as a fulfill’d notion of what Mozart intended for an Amen Double Fugue at this point in the score as it appears in the Berlin Sketch re-Discover’d in 1960...it starts out well enough but lacks the elan we see in Mozart’s other elaborate fugues (cf. the ‘cum Sancto Spiritu’ Double Fugue in the c-minor Mass K. 427 (1782/3)... Druce’s completion of the opening 16-bars of the Osanna in D (following his rather ponderous ‘Sanctus’ ) fares slightly better in capturing the potential Motivic development in Mozart’s opening motif statement... It is indeed a crying shame that Mr. Suessmayr did not preserve all OTHER skizze that Mozart had prepar’d for the eventual setting in writing of this magnificent work - which widow Constanza had (she claim’d in a letter to Abbe Maximilian Stadler) duly handed over to him... Of the completion itself we can assume bars 9-22 of the Lacrymosa is essentially Mozart’s 4-vocal parts & figur’d bassline; ditto for the opening 6 bars of the Sanctus, the 1st 16-bars of the Osanna in D & a good chunk of the Benedictus (whose opening bars were a quotation of part of one of Mozart’s melodic exercises in composition given to Babbette Ployer in 1784) Moreover most of the Agnus Dei in Suessmayr’s ‘completion’ (including the sublime setting of ‘sempiternam’ ) etc. is clearly from Mozart in the main (the opening D c# D e F motif is present in the basso part of the voices as it also exists in the Dies Irae opening chorus... Interestingly, perhaps is the fact that the Agnus Dei’s opening bars in Suessmayr’s ‘completion’ are a transpos’d version into d-minor of the very same notes in c-minor that we find in the Qui Tollis of the Mass in C-major, K. 66 from 1769/1770... Thus we can see that Mr. Suessmayr had exaggerated his contribution in his 8 Feb 1800 letter to the Leipzig publishers Breitkopf & Haertl when he claim’d ‘the Sanctus, Benedictus & Agnus Dei were all newly compos’d by me alone’ (ganz neu verfertigt) which could (in a pinch) be translated as ‘quite newly re-arrang’d by myself’ - hmmm.... The return to B-flat major towards the end after ‘sempiternam’ (which Suessmayr clumsily sets as ‘fortissimo’ when clearly Mozart would have written ‘p: sotto voce’) was ‘judiciously stolen’ from a part of the Introitus (solo Canto: Te decet hymnus in Tzion) for the words ‘cum Sanctis Tuis in aeternam’ -in fact (at least according to the Widow Constanza !) this borrowing from the opening was apparently Mozart’s own suggestion bas’d on the habits of church composers to remember the dictum (‘as it was in the beginning is now & ever shall be’) but had Mozart liv’d to put the finishing touches on the score he would have set quite a different Fugue to follow this ‘intended reprise’ in an elaborate Double Fugue in d-minor more along the lines of his earlier Salzburg d-minor chorus Laudate Pueri K. 339 (from ‘Vesperae Solemnes de Confessore from June/July 1780) which makes use of the inversio of the opening motif from the Requiem’s Kyrie Double Fugue ...something Duncan Druce fail’d to take advantage of...mores’ the pity...
When I began my fascination with the Requiem sketch and its completions, this is one of the first i heard. The new Lacrimosa, and a whole new movement, the Amen, both confused and impressed me. After many years, and now being deeply intimate with the finer details of the Requiem, my conclusion on this completion is that Druce composes homophonic Mozart very convincingly. Indeed, the new Benedictus and Lacrimosa (taking the fact they are wholly re-composed) are done with great musicality and creativity. In fact, this Benedictus is without a doubt my favorite - the theme and modulations by Sussmayr are kept intact, but the melodic development is greatly improved. Another interesting change is the ending of the Agnus Dei, as Druce replaces the haunting "sempiternam" in F major, to a more traditional ending in the main key of D minor. I like it depending on my mood; but Sussmayr's original ending remains as the most spirtual and trascending. So, while Druce excels in homophonic Mozart, the big weakness of the completion lies when he goes full contrapuntal: the two big fugues Amen and Hosanna. In those, it seems that Druce abandons Mozart's style. Those have romantic qualities, syncompations, use too much Trumpet/Timpani and trombones that Mozart himself uses only in few spots of the sketch. Particularly, the Amen fugue ends boldly and the brasses play in a dominant role, which never happens in any of Mozart's compositions. All in all, Druce's creative efforts make for one of the most original arrangements of any classical piece. RIP Duncan Druce, a great scholar and musician!
While somewhat philosophically opposed to purging the material more or less "authorized," I do find the Druce completion to be more satisfying than other spurious completions (Levin, Maunder, Andrews). Particularly his treatment of the Amen fugue at the end of the Sequence. He most effectively retains Mozart's theatrical sense of drama and contrapuntal discipline. FWIW, though, I do find Beyer's work (Edition Kunzelmann) to the the most compelling and convincing of the modern 'completions.' Performance -wise, I tend to find these tempi tone on the brisk side, but they are well handled and to voicing is quite clear, and intonation spot-on. There is no denying the dramatic build present in each movement or the deliberate and careful shaping of the phrase, along with energetic playing and singing one expects from a fine group such as the LCP and Schütz Choir.
According to our MD it's in the standard New Novello Choral Edition ISBN 0-85360-416-9. I have had it for 23 years without realising. The Druce completion starts at page 90. The movements with unchanged vocal lines provide only the accompaniment. Others are complete, e.g. the Lacrimosa and added Amen run from pages 109 to 118. At least that's what we are working from. Generally available. If you are looking for an orchestral score I can't help, sorry.
Lovely - but I became a little lost during the ‘Osanna’ sections, where there are significant notational differences between the performance and my copy of the Druce completion.
To me the Lacrimosa is too far a departure from the original version I grew up with. Even if Sussmayr may have wrote a lot of it I don't see that as a reason to turn it totally inside out. I prefer Levin's approach which adheres to the performance tradition of the piece (Sussmayr parts included). Levin only changes the things that were problematic rather than trying to erase Sussmayr. Druce's Amen fugue is good though.
On YT there is a prof. Hogwood's lecture on unfinished pieces which focuses on the Requiem and he makes a valid point that the Sussmayr's completion is not very ceremonial, more like a waltz or divertimento rather than a part of a mass. Druce's and Maunder's completions are quoted as more elegant solutions to Lacrimosa. Also, there is no doubt that Amen was intended by Mozart to be a fugue, not just the final cadence of Lacrimosa. After my examination of Mozart's scores I think Lacrimosa should be longer than Sussmayr made it with soloists singing a quartet in the middle part and more elaborate woodwind passages.
I love Sussmayr's, but I mean if you're going to go to the effort of composing your own completion it wouldn't really make sense to leave someone else's completion in place.
personally, i think there was more to the Lacrymosa that Mozart wrote and that Sussmayr had access to such as the "scraps of paper" Constanze gave him from Mozart's writing desk, which he most likely later destroyed. i believe it IS possible that the Lacrymosa was sketched out much further then the 8 bars in the existing autograph, probably just the chorus and basso continuo with hints of orchestration which is throughout the entire score. who knows? i also think that Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei are based on Mozart sketches, especially the Agnus Dei - it opens with the main motif throughout the requiem of D, C#, D, E, F. sussmayer later stated that the repeat of the kyrie fugue using cum sanctis tuis was expressly stated to him by Mozart as his intention to finish the work
Sussmayr's Lacrimosa sounds like a "waltz" ??? Instead, I feel that Druce's Lacrimosa is much less sorrowful than Sus', and also his Benedictus sounds more like a segment from an Opera!
Something these composers who complete Mozart’s Requiem seem to forget is that Mozart was writing for the Roman Catholic Mass, not the opera. I find this completion highly unsatisfactory, especially Druce’s completion of the Lacrymosa-Amen. It’s far too long, and in my opinion inappropriate for a liturgical setting. Although the Benedictus sounds nice, it, too, suffers from this same defect. Notwithstanding, Druce has his moments, and any composer who sets out to complete the Requiem certainly can learn some things from Druce’s work.
I guess you never actually really listened to any of Mozart's sacred music very attentaviley. The man was more or less a failure as a composer of sacred music. He was just more a man of the theater and his Salzburg Masses show that. There is a reason why he abandoned the C-minor Mass. He was not that interested in writing music that expressed piousness or faith. As such the completion has exactly the kind of "deficiency" as a liturgical work as Mozarts own liturgical works always had.
Anyone familiar with Mozart's correspondence with his father Leopold will know that, in fact, *both* men greatly preferred an 'operatic' style for their church music. Unfortunately, this preference did not go over well with their employer, Prince-Archbishop Colloredo, who preferred a simpler (and shorter) style. This fact is well known in musicological circles. ...
"Mozart was writing for the catholic mass not opera" this is a funny statement because Mozart wrote the C Minor mass- which in its length and incredible musical motions it's more reminiscent of a opera seria rather than the music for Sunday service. And you don't have to look anywhere else but the Requiem itself- the Tuba Mirum takes its cues from Opera albeit Mozart toned it down a little; other moments like "Ingemisco Tanquam" and "Confutatis"also sound lifted from the Opera. Druce in my opinion has a "correct" sense of how Mozart approached his church musuic
I don’t think this is true. For instance, Mozart instruct to attacca the kyrie, whereas in the mass there is an spoken opening and prayer between the introit and kyrie.
Druce's completion might be okay, except he makes too many changes and it appears rushed in places. The Lacrimosa has lost its sadness, the Confutatis its wrath, the Kyrie the sadness.. The Amen Fugue seems oddly placed. The piece comes across as less emotional than a good Suessmayr, but I wonder if this is down to a rushed conductor or a poor rendering overall.
What is truly needed to provide some satisfaction in completing the Requiem? Starting from the axiom that none of us is Mozart- the key is in having good taste with the additions. Druce is certainly one of the editions with the most changes and creative development. There are others that tried the same, such as the one by Pierre Dutron, but it is less convincing as that.
![W.A. Mozart - Requiem K.626, Duncan Druce completion [Norrington, London Classical Players]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
