On 12 Jan 2007 at 16:47, dc wrote: > The long list of doubtful and spurious works (and this is > not counting the many more numerous works "sold" as Mozart in their > own time) in the 6th edition of the Köchel catalogue (see H.C.R. > Landon, Mozart Compendium, p.352 sq.) simply shows that a claim such > as this completely ludicrous: "whenever he played it for anyone and > asked them to identify it, they hazarded that it might be something > from a late opera but had no question but that it was by Mozart".
I think it's much easier to say something is *not* by Mozart than to say that it is. The perfect example of completely spurious works getting into the canon are the four Italian symphonies (K81, 84, 95 & 97). I can't see how anyone hearing them could say they are by Mozart. But they were accepted on very dubious documentary grounds for a very long time, despite no documented connection to Mozart himself. Stylistic analysis can only say what *can* be, not what *must* -- only documentary evidence can provide proof. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
