Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792)
 

Gary Smith and Dennis Pajot

                          Here is a brief text about one of Mozart's contemporaries, and one that I believe that most Mozarteans would find it interesting to explore. The text has been written up on the basis of various secondary sources, and if it contains errors or misunderstandings these are undoubtedly mine, so please feel free to point out such shortcomings, and to add what you might know about Kraus.

Joseph Martin Kraus was born on June 20, 1756 in Miltenberg am Main in central Germany. His father was "Stadtschreiber" and held other positions in local administration as well; his maternal grandfather was an architect, and so Kraus' origins were not exactly humble. As a 12-year-old boy, Kraus went to Mannheim, one of the musical centers of that time, and was enrolled in the ‘Gymnasium' and ‘Musikseminar' of the Jesuits. In Mannheim, Kraus came into contact with some of the masters of the famous orchestra such as Cannabich and studied with some of them. In 1773-77, Kraus studied law and philosophy at different German universities. In Göttingen he made contact with a Swedish student, Carl Stridsberg, who encouraged Kraus to relocate to Stockholm, Sweden, where Kraus arrived in 1778.

The Swedish king, Gustav III (1771-1792), was at that time in the process of providing his capital, Stockholm, with an up-to-date cultural environment; his ambitions ran high and famous composers such as Salieri were invited to Stockholm (though Salieri himself did not accept the invitation). In 1779 Kraus was appointed a member of the king's Musical Academy and was made 2. Court Composer. The king was serious and so funded an educational travel for Kraus, which lasted from 1782 to 1788 and took him to Rome, Naples, Paris, London, and Vienna (1783) etc. In Vienna, it is trustworthily reported that he made contacts with among others Haydn (but most probably not Mozart). The generous Haydn is quoted for the following remark about Kraus: " I own a symphony by him, which I preserve to the memory of one of the greatest geniuses I have met". Back in Stockholm in 1788, Kraus was appointed 1. Court Composer. In March 1792, king Gustav III was assassinated, and Kraus composed funeral music, e.g. the Symphonie funèbre in c minor (VB 148) for the State funeral proceedings. Kraus himself outlived the king only for a few months, and died on December 15, 1792, from tuberculosis.

Kraus was a man of many talents and interests. In addition to music, he composed a tragedy (Tolon, 1776), a collection of poems (Versuch von Schäfergedichten, 1773), a musical pamphlet (Etwas von und über Musik fürs Jahr, 1777, "which is one of the few actual theoretical works devoted to the adaptation of ‘Sturm und Drang' literary philosophy to music"), and even started a Musical Dictionary. But his fame, of course, rests on his musical out-put.

A catalogue of his works runs to 208 entries (a list of his works may be found at: wysiwyg://99/http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1139/works.html, in a site devoted to Kraus by a Swedish enthusiast) and includes e.g.: 17 sacred works among which two oratorios; 19 dramatic works including 4 operas and 3 Singspiele; 4 pieces of ballet music; 7 secular cantatas; 20 concert arias/duets; songs (to texts in 6 different languages). Instrumental compositions: 21 symphonies (almost all without a menuetto) and 5 concertos. Chamber music: a duo for violin and viola (cf. K.423, K.424); 4 violin sonatas; 6 piano trios; 16 string quartets; a flute quintet; 3 piano sonatas.

Some of these works are, unfortunately, lost, but a good deal of the extant corpus has been recorded (cf.: wysiwyg://40/http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1139/records.html) and if you come across a Kraus recording I recommend that you try it out. I think it will not disappoint you. My personal favorite so far is the piano trio in D Major, which may be found on: J M Kraus, Kammarmusik, Musica Sveciae MSCD 415, along with a fine violin sonata and the flute quintet. NAXOS is in the process of recording the complete symphonies (Swedish Chamber Orchestra); These symphonies, it is constantly reiterated, "sometimes suggest an early Romantic feeling"; they are, indeed, reminiscent of C.P.E. Bach or of the Haydn of symphonies 44, 45, & 49 and mention is made of "many forward-looking stylistic devices that anticipate music of the next century". Worth singling out is the C Major symphony VB 138 with a solo violin "whose virtuoso part is less than a concerto but greater than a normal obbligato part", and the c minor symphony VB 142, perhaps Kraus' most widely acclaimed symphony; it may be found on: ORFEO, C 254 921 A, along with the violin concerto and the symphonie funèbre.

Sources:

Clive, Peter Mozart and His Circle: A Biographical Dictionary Yale University Press, New Haven 1993
Article in Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
Liner notes to the various CDs noted above.


Addendum

Mozart and Kraus: Collaborators?

In its continuing series “The 18th Century Symphony,” Naxos recently released Volume 4 of music of the Swedish composer Joseph Martin Kraus. The listing number is 8.555305. In and of itself, this is a very good addition to your Classical collection, but there is a highly interesting work on this disc that deserves a closer look. Which is what this posting is about.

That work would be VB154, the “Riksdagsmarsch.” It’s a very good, triumph-tinged march; how can it not be, as it’s originally by Mozart! Kraus reworked the piece and added another movement (VB146, also included on this CD) to make a two-movement symphony. The liner notes give the background as:

“The Riksdagmusiken…consists of an extended Sinfonia…and a March…composed as part of the incidental music for the convening of the Swedish parliament in March 1789. Gustav III had embarked on a controversial war with Denmark and Russia a year earlier, and despite some early victories, the conflict had stagnated. The King was in dire need of further finances to continue the war but was keenly aware that opposition to his plans had developed among the restive landed nobility and clergy. In order to further his aims, he intended to secure parliamentary approval of the Act of Union and Security that would give him broad powers over the administration of the government, the exchequer, official appointments and legislative initiative. “[Sounds similar to what President Bush has worked for this past year. Too bad he didn’t have a Mozart to commission for the proper music to advance his programs with!] “The war was popular with the Swedish public, whose support he sought to rally by a display of power and spectacle. Kraus was commissioned to compose music for the opening ceremonies in St Nicolai Church on 9th March 1789, consisting of a grand procession followed by an extensive church symphony. The Riksdagsmarsch is a revision of a march composed in 1781 by Mozart, his [Kraus] near neighbor in Vienna in 1783, for his opera Idomeneo. In the opera, King Idomeneo returns triumphantly to Crete after a long and ultimately victorious war with Troy, to the jubilation of his people. Gustav’s own propaganda about his military victories over Russia, his support from the local population, and the patriotic paternalistic sentiment fit the march well.”

“Kraus’s reworking strengthens the powers of the piece, with a more powerful emphasis upon the French dotted rhythms and the extended fanfare-style coda. In his revision, Kraus has not only altered substantial portions of the work, but has extended it by over 20 bars and provided for a larger orchestra through the addition of an extra pair of horns.”

These notes provide the “what” background here, but the more obvious intriguing points are “how” and “why?” These are the facts that one must remember with regards to this march:

1) There is no proof that Mozart and Kraus ever met.
2) Idomeneo was not published until 1792; three years after this enhanced march appeared.

In the systematic thematic catalogue of Kraus’s works. edited by Bertil Van Boer, these points are taken up on pages 215-216. He puts forth two possibilities on how Kraus obtained this march. First, he acquired it from Mozart himself, since he lived literally around the corner from him on the Kohlmarkt in 1783, when Kraus was on his study tour in Europe. He was in Vienna for several months, so the opportunity had to present itself for a meeting. We have no correspondence from either man to show that they met, but we do know that Kraus certainly knew and appreciated Mozart’s work. His tour was designed with the intention that he could study the current state of music in Europe and meet the parties responsible for it. Certainly we know he met Gluck and Haydn, for example.

Another suggestion on how this section of Idomeneo reached Sweden by 1789 is that Gustav III and his traveling retinue made an official state visit to Munich in 1783, and somehow he or one of his staff were allowed to examine a copy of the opera there. Obviously taken by the work, they had a copy made and took it back to Sweden, where Kraus later had an opportunity to review it. Or, perhaps they sent it to Vienna at that point so that he could review it immediately. There is no documentary evidence for any search of the Munich archives by his entourage however. Being a non-repertoire work, one would have to believe that they either stumbled over it quite by accident or that someone pulled it out of the archives to show them as opposed to hundreds of other works to be found in there. I think it’s highly unlikely that Idomeneo ended up in Sweden via this path, but of course it’s not impossible. No copy of Idomemeo survives in Stockholm from this time however, and if Gustav and his people WERE impressed by this opera, why just forward a single march, which is all we can be sure of that made it there?

Given these two choices, one is led to believe that Kraus must have met Mozart and obtained (at least) the march. Several points should be made in that regards. Kraus was on this tour precisely to extend his knowledge of music to the benefit of the Swedish court. He would undoubtedly (as Mozart did on his tours) arrange to meet the major musical personalities of whatever city he stayed in. Further, he met Haydn in Vienna, and one can’t help but believe that the name Mozart would have come up in any discussions Kraus had with him. Finally, one suspects that Kraus would have made the rounds of the fashionable salon parties in Vienna, and certainly Mozart’s name would have come up there as well.

Another major important point to consider: Mozart thought very highly of Idomeneo and made some efforts to generate interest in Vienna for it so that a performance could be arranged. However, Joseph II was not warm to opera seria and the best Mozart could achieve was a concert version, staged in 1786 in Prince Johann Adam Auersperg’s private theater, with some changes and additions made. As mentioned before, it was not until after Mozart’s death that Constanze brought Idomemeo out for publication. Given Mozart’s high regard for this work, I think there is a likely scenario regarding Kraus. Remember, he was deputy Kapellmeister in Stockholm, having a responsibility for selecting music for performance there. Did Mozart, once he met him, press Idomeneo on Kraus for performing in Stockholm? Certainly Mozart had no other opera he considered as good as that in the 1783 timeframe we are concerned with.

There are problems with this approach, however. One would suspect that Mozart would have mentioned such a path to Leopold. We have no letter that even mentions Kraus, let alone one offering works to him. That could mean that such a letter is lost, but we also have no copy of Idomeneo or any part of it in Stockholm previous to 1792, which shows that Kraus either never got one to send, or that it has become lost as well. Another approach might be that Mozart offered Kraus just the march as a sample/souvenir in order to spur interest in a performance. Obviously Kraus had to have that at least in order to modify it for his own use. But, wouldn’t you suspect that Mozart would supply Kraus with say the overture, or a selection of the arias/ensemble pieces to try and generate interest? Why a march? Perhaps it’s really a case where Kraus had an opportunity to read through this opera, was attracted to the march in particular, and obtained a copy of it for his use. It may be no more complicated a story than that.

A variant here might be that Haydn had a copy of portions (or all) of Idomeneo, and Kraus obtained that march from him. Certainly the Esterhazy establishment performed opera serias; could Mozart have been trying to interest Haydn in performing the work and supplied him with a copy, which Kraus saw? This is a rather extreme reach, but Haydn would be a path leading to Mozart, and we do know for sure that Haydn and Kraus met. We do not, however, have a known copy of Idomeneo at the Esterhazy theater.

There is one other potential path here we should review. Is it not possible that Mozart and Kraus had some correspondence between them once Kraus returned to Stockholm? Perhaps Mozart was still offering works for use at the Court there? The possibility presents itself that Kraus might have told of Gustav’s upcoming convening of Parliament and his need to supply music for his monarch. Did Mozart remind Kraus of this march? Or suggest it as an example and send it to him then? Consider the background mentioned in the liner notes and how the march seems to fit the occasion and background. Did Kraus, not noted for his operas, see this match-up, or did Mozart, who WAS noted for his musical stagecraft, see it instead and offer suggestions and/or a concrete example, or mention that march Kraus took back with him as a starting point?

The autograph of this march movement by Kraus is simply entitled “Marche/af/Kraus.” One of the first copies made (1804) has written on it: “This march, set and used for the procession in the St. Nicolai Church in Stockholm at the Parliament of 1789, is an arrangement of Mozart’s march in the first act of Idomeneo, but has been altered both thematically and developed in another manner by Kraus. It is also twenty bars longer than the march from which the subject was taken.” Was this note added as the result of a discovery made by someone as to the similarity of it to Mozart’s work, or is it rather the “official” explanation known in the Court musical circles as related by Kraus? The fact that Mozart gets no mention on the autograph seems to show that Kraus wasn’t going to advertise the starting point for that work, in any event. In the end, who can say?

To finish, all we can really say is that the odds are very high that Kraus and Mozart crossed paths in order for that march to end up in his hands in Stockholm. The odds are very good that they met in Vienna in 1783, though nothing solid, except this march, points to it. It’s possible that letters passed between them, though nothing is preserved at either end to show this occurred. All we can truly say is that the adaptation of this march by Kraus shows a very perceptive consideration to account for it use. Which is something I would associate with Mozart.

Gary

dennis comments:

Only one or two comments to this. First, I don't believe Mozart and Kraus not meeting in Vienna in 1783 would have been that unlikely. Kraus spent his 8 months there acquainting himself with the leading composers and shakers in the musical life. He met Joseph Haydn, Johann Georg Albrechtsberger, Antonio Salieri and Christoph Willibald Gluck--who was Kraus's idol. Mozart, in 1783, certainly was not in the circle of influence Kraus was aiming at.

That Mozart was more apt at stage works than Kraus is obvious to us today, but I am not sure it was in 1783. Kraus had written a one-act opera in Sweden entitled Proserpin and wrote to his parents "The court was extraordinarily pleased with it, and the manner with which the king expressed his satisfaction exceeded all my expectations". He was then commissioned to write an opera for the opening of the new opera house in Stockholm--the opera not finished due to the leading soprano having to flee Sweden to avoid debtor's prison!!!! Kraus took at least the Overture to this opera (Aeneas i Carthago) with him to Vienna, as he showed it to Gluck, who stated, "the man has great style"!

I have the opera Proserpin on CD. Although it is by no means anywhere near Mozart (or Gluck even) it has moments at are very convincing. The overture (recorded separately once or twice) is very dramatic and shows Kraus could impress on audience.

If Kraus needed to steal (borrow, whatever) from Mozart, I think he could have done better than this March from Idomeneo. I have a feeling the March came to Kraus from a different source than Mozart himself.

However I really would like to thank you for bringing up and attempting to answer the many open questions regarding the Kraus/Mozart relationship.

dennis

Dear dennis,

True, they may not have met during that 8 months they were together in Vienna. However, it depends on how you want to view the possibilites/probabilities. Mozart had a "name" in musical circles then, even if it was held over a good deal from his youth. I would find the chances low that Kraus would NOT have heard that Wolfgang was in Vienna, and the chances high that they would have been introduced at some salon or another. That's just an opinion; we have no facts.

Naturally, it's again not impossible that Kraus acquired the march from paths other than from Mozart. But, if Constanze had not released Idomeneo until 1792, it seems unlikely that someone else would have had just this march and passed it along to him. Again, it's not impossible, just very unlikely. The work was not being used in Munich, the only location where it had seen light. Gustav III and his people could have gotten their hands on it and sent it along, but again, the odds seem slim. It's not impossible, for example, that Anton Raaff, still in Munich, pointed Idomeneo out to the King's party when they were there.

The point in all of this is obviously the assignment of probabilities to each case. What is more/less likely than something else? With what very little evidence we have, opinion ends up shaping our choices.

What we do have is that, for whatever reasons, Kraus used this march, and very effectively. Could he have found a more effective work to modify? Probably. Again, he probably didn't HAVE access to one (at least in his own mind) or he would have probably done so. The points on his operas are all well founded. A question might be though: How do they stand up against Idomeneo? After all, Kraus didn't modify a march of his own; he chose to "improve" another composer's work. I find that peculiar in that, for a very large, public, important government function involving the very highest levels of the Swedish government, the court composer Kraus chose to use (by modification) another composer's work, in lieu of his own, which in theory is what they were paying him to do. That is non-standard by far. One would like to think that this occurred because he realized that the work chosen would produce the best effect, and THAT was the most important choice here. Of course, he could have just run out of time (for whatever reason) and cut corners to get this symphony ready. Is this likely, or not?

Anyway, in the end, all we can do is speculate on the probabilities involved. It's a curious happenstance, which is what makes it so attractive for comments.
 

Return to Who's Who