Head of the university's Department of Music since April 2008, he seems young (40, actually) to be the head of one of the top music departments in the country, now housed in a revamped part of the old Jessop Hospital.

"It is possible to go quite quickly through the academic system these days," he says with the gushing enthusiasm that is part of his personality.

He has wide-ranging research interests but is "predominantly a scholar of 18th century music, above all Mozart", who figures prominently in seven books he has authored or edited since 2001.

He is the only British member, elected to life membership in 2005, of the Salzburg-based Akademie für Mozart-Forschung of the Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum (International Mozarteum Foundation).

At present he is engaged on writing a book on the Mozart Requiem, a work with origins shrouded in mystery, including the major contribution of Franz Xaver Süssmayr (1766-1803) to it.

Few will need telling that Süssmayr completed the work after Mozart's death, a completion that has become increasingly vilified by academics.

Simon Keefe is not one of them.

"Süssmayr has never received anything resembling the recognition that he should have done. He's accused of meddling with Mozart, rather than enhancing what Mozart had left," he claims.

Mozart didn't leave an awful lot: only the opening Requiem aeternam was entirely his. What followed was complete in substance in draft score, in other words not orchestrated, up to the Sanctus which was not there, and nor was anything after.

A famous account of Mozart's death written by his sister-in-law describes him discussing the completion of the Requiem with Süssmayr on his deathbed.

There is no doubt Mozart and Süssmayr were close but as master and pupil? The belief that Süssmayr was her husband's pupil is now thought to have been a ruse by Constanze Mozart to legitimise the completion.

She tried to get others to complete the work before handing it to Süssmayr who had previously annoyed her, allegedly after she saw him taking papers from Mozart's desk after his death.

The missing Requiem parts, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei, perhaps, generally reckoned to be of a quality beyond Süssmayr's means.

Trying this hypothesis out on Prof Keefe is not easy. He has launched into a tirade on modern-day Requiem completers, summarised as follows.

"Süssmayr completed it in extremely quick time. Mozart died on December 5 1791 and by the end of February 1792 he had produced the complete version.

"Every critic you talk to, including me, would rather Mozart had lived to complete the Requiem.

The fact that he didn't is historical reality and the fact that Süssmayr did is also historical reality.

"His purportedly poor work is criticised for letting the side down but I don't think he did to anything like the extent he is accused of, particularly by modern-day Requiem completers who sense deficiencies they want to correct.

"The whole idea of correcting deficiencies is a modernist construct, people sitting down and saying we can improve this. The idea that they can sit down after 200 years and do a better job than Süssmayr is nonsense.

"There is a whole set of knowledge about music, both before and since, the chance to evaluate Mozart's work in its entirety in a way that Süssmayr was not able to do.

"They weren't the person sitting there talking to Mozart about how to complete the Requiem.

"Taking Süssmayr's work out of the Requiem, which modern-day completers honestly believe they can do, is not an option. They are not giving credit to the aesthetic dimension of Süssmayr's work.

"They're not accepting that he could possibly have had a positive impact on the beauty of the work, as it were."

He digresses. The work was published 1801 and until 1825 no-one was aware of the scope of Süssmayr's involvement.

Commentary was extremely positive, praise for orchestration, even the Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei. All Süssmayr's work with a question mark over the movements.

"I would never, ever suggest Süssmayr is anything resembling the equal of Mozart, what I'm saying is give credit where credit is due.

"My fundamental beef is with those people who are all to willing to obliterate Süssmayr's involvement because they feel it's technically deficient, and technically deficient by standards that are set up in the late 20th century, not those set up in the late 18th century.

"If the collective belief for 200 years was that it was deficient as a complete document, then I find it difficult to believe that another version was not completed until 1970."

So there you are. Just don't utter the name Richard Maunder within hearing range of Simon Keefe.

BUY ONLINE: The Sheffield Telegraph and Property Guide are now out every Thursday. To sign up on line click here.



MORE:
Local News
Local Sport
Arts Guide
Community News
Listings Guide
Restaurant Guide
Letters