WoO 162 Ta ta ta lieber Mälzel – Canon
The musical examples on this page are by Graziano Denini.
WoO 162 “Ta ta ta lieber Mälzel” – Canon, c. 1815; published in Leipzig in 1844, in the second fascicle of the Musik-kritisches Repertorium aller neuen Erscheinungen im Gebiete der Tonkunst (Repertory of New Publications in the Realm of Music), edited by H. Hirschbach, Leipzig, February 1844. GA no. 265/2 (series 23, p. 117/f); Bruers 205; KH (WoO) 162; Nottebohm pp. 161/2; Thayer 168.
The autograph manuscript is lost. According to Schindler’s account, Beethoven improvised this canon—whose theme is related to that of the Allegretto scherzando of the Eighth Symphony—in the spring of 1812 during a farewell banquet held in Mälzel’s honour. Nottebohm, however, observes that the text repeatedly uses the word “metronomo” (Grosser Metronomo, Banner der Zeit), the name that was given to the time-measuring device—previously called the musikalischer Chronometer—only from 1815 onwards. It is therefore, Nottebohm adds, perfectly possible that the canon was composed in 1812; but the words as we know them today cannot be earlier than 1815.
The authenticity of this work is now being questioned—since it was transmitted solely through Schindler—also by Herre and Beck (see BBB, p. 383). This canon was included in the Biamonti Catalogue under number 646. Rudolf Klein writes:
“Der wohl bekannteste Kanon Beethovens ist nur durch den Druck überliefert. Er war für den Mechaniker Johann Nepomuk Mälzel, den Erfinder des Metronoms und säteren Anreger der Symphonie “Wellington’s Sieg oder die Schlacht bei Vittoria”, die ersprünglich für sein Automatenwerk Panharmonikon geschrieben wurde, bestimmt und ahmt den regelmäßigen Schlag des Taktmessers nach. Er soll bei einem Abschiedsmahl für den Mechaniker im Frühjahr 1812 improvisiert worden sein; bekannt wurde die Melodie der ersten Verszeile durch den Umstand, daß Beethoven sie für das Allegretto scherzando der 8. Symphonie op. 93 verwendete, deren Ausarbeitung in den Sommer desselben Jahres fiel. Die Streitfrage, welche Komposition der andern vorherging, ist wohl auf Grund der Analogie zugunsten des Kanons zu entscheiden. Aus einem der Konversationshefte Beethovens, mit deren Hilfe der Ertaubte seine Unterhaltungen führte, erfahren wir, dass der Kanon “Ende Dezember 1817” wieder einmal gesungen wurde, und zwar “im Kamehl”, also im “Schwarzen Kamel”, das sich in der Bognergasse befand (heute No. 5). Mälzel, der nach Beilegung seines Prozesses mit Beethoven wieder mit dem Meister verkehren durfte, befand sich unter den Ausführenden. Die Niederschrift, die als Grundlage der Abdrucke verwendet wurde, dürfte erst 1820 erfolgt sein; wahrscheilich wurde erst bei dieser Gelegenheit das früher nicht gebräuchliche Wort “Metronom” in den Text eingefügt.”
Julia Ronge, however, informs us that:
“The canon did not come from Beethoven’s pen at all; it is probably an apocryphon by Anton Schindler and was not written before 1843. The canon is therefore one of the many inventions of Anton Schindler, who subsequently attributed it to the composer. Schindler served as Beethoven’s unpaid secretary and nurse during the final months of the composer’s life, and appointed himself guardian of Beethoven’s legacy with regard to the interpretation of the works. One of Schindler’s central concerns was the question of metronome markings, since, in his view, an incorrect tempo in performance could distort the original character of a composition (or what Schindler believed that original character to be). In this context, however, Beethoven’s metronome indications caused confusion, as they were not always practicable or ran counter to Schindler’s own sense of tempo. Schindler himself complained in particular about the excessively fast tempi adopted by his contemporaries, especially Felix Mendelssohn. To support his advocacy for slower tempi, Schindler published the so-called Mälzelkanon in Hirschbach’s ‘Repertorio musicale’ in February 1844. The theme of the canon derives from the second movement of Beethoven’s Eighth Symphony; through the text, the reference to Mälzel’s metronome becomes explicit. Schindler supplied both the origin and the supposed occasion for the canon—but reported them differently in various publications and with differing dates, which already caused irritation among his contemporaries. To demonstrate the canon’s authenticity, Schindler inserted false entries into Beethoven’s conversation books and added “references” that supported his version of its genesis. In modern musicology, the canon is indisputably an invention of Anton Schindler and is no longer regarded as a work by Beethoven.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R. Klein: Sämtliche Kanons, Doblinger Verlag, Vienna
J. Ronge: Commentary on the piece on the Beethovenhaus website
