Listening Journal No. 1 (con't.)

Known for many concerti for soloist and orchestra, it is curious that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart wrote a concerto for two instruments, particularly the two different instruments of flute and harp. Although his Concerto for Flute and Harp in C Major, K. 299 features two dissimilar instruments, it is (and was) not completely unheard of to write double concerti and to sometimes engage unusual combinations of soloists. Examples can be traced back to many of Vivaldi’s concerti and Bach’s Concerto for Violin and Oboe in C minor, BWV 1060 up to the present era with Hindemith’s Concerto for Trumpet and Bassoon and Ligeti’s Double Concerto for Flute and Oboe. Interestingly, apart from Bach’s Violin and Oboe Concerto, many double concerti are not considered within the “Canon of Western Musical History,” even though concertante works of the Baroque, that paired an even greater number of soloist forces against the orchestra, have carved a niche into the canon repertoire.
One idea as to the double concerto’s lack of inclusion into the Canon might stem from the notion that a concerto (as most people today understand it) is a time for one soloist to essentially show off their musical prowess; the idea of a “tag along” soloist, who shares the spotlight (or sometimes outshines), makes the double concerto an unacceptable alternative to solo concerti. Yet this one factor cannot completely explain why the double concerto as a genre is almost disregarded in favor of the typical solo concerto. For Mozart’s Concerto for Flute and Harp there may be plenty of reasons why it is not often considered to be contained within the standard Canon. The first is that Mozart wrote two other works for solo flute and orchestra that are often favored over the double concerto.
Structurally, the double concerto follows the established concerto format of the Classical era, although each movement, oddly enough, contains a cadenza. Its three movements are marked as Allegro, Andantino, and Allegro, and when the soloists are playing the orchestra is removed. Many factors could have led Mozart to score in this manner. Due to the harp’s limited projecting ability, it is extremely difficult to hear the harp over a tutti orchestra whereas the flute has no problem in this regard. Another possible, and slightly more musical, idea is that the harp is agile and can insinuate an underlying harmonic backdrop where the flute can rest a melodic line on top of it. This would negate the need for full orchestral texture supporting the soloists.
This piece is typical of the Classical era, with its Mozaztian melodies and carefully crafted balances. Yet, almost every composition of Mozart’s falls into this category. The sheer volume of output and the shared similarities between most of his pieces tends to allow for a disregard of compositions that are, in their own respect, just as able to be contained within the Canon.
Yet, despite its Mozartian melodies and careful consideration for balance and symmetry, the concerto remains mainly in obscurity when compared to his other works. Another plausible explanation for this could be the lack of able harpists and the avoidance by composers of the harp in their orchestral compositions. The harp was going through major changes in production throughout the Classical era and into the early Romantic period, and since it was not a common instrument, obscurity is more likely. Mozart’s compositions earned him great fame within his life-time with countless performances. If this double concerto, due do its need of an uncommon instrument, was not performed often, it is possible that Mozart’s generation lost it among the throng of Mozart’s output leading future generations to disregard it as well.
This concerto, if to be argued to be contained within the “Canon,” would probably be placed there for one aspect: its use of an unusual (in that time) combination instrumental soloists. Nothing is truly remarkable about the material of the piece that would place it instantly within the “Canon” along with the other standard Mozart compositions. And apart from the flashy harp arpeggios, the piece does not seem to have the same allure as his other concerti do.
This particular concerto has all the Mozartian qualities present in all his concerti. The balance between the phrases and the overall form of the movements share much in common with most of Mozart’s other concerti, yet this concerto lacks much of the allure and polished “perfection” that they have.
The flute line is rather uninteresting in comparison with the intricate harp arpeggios, and since the soloist tend to play when the orchestra is not, this unexciting flute line is all the more apparent. The flute tends to remain within a small range and is lacking the elaborate scalar passages that the flute is capable of playing.
The themes that Mozart incorporated into this concerto lack the “catchiness” of the typical melodies he used in his concerti. There is nothing really memorable or remarkable about this concerto, except for the combination of soloists.
This concerto was commissioned and written for a friend of Mozart’s. It was also one of the few pieces written in Mozart’s more mature style where he did not receive compensation for his work. This lack of payment could explain the lack of any memorable qualities in this concerto. Due to this quite un-Mozartian characteristic, this concerto has become more of an oddity than a standard within the Canon.