Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

You are right Peter, that the most obvious and clear solution is that the inventory was being made right up to the time when the Bonn music archive was taken away in 1794.

And, to some extent this is already proved to be true. For, as already mentioned, Luchesi kept up to date a catalogue until 1791/2 at least, in which works are credited alphabetically to Haydn and Mozart - that catalogue being C.53/1 at Modena.

You've suggested, in fact, that all problems disappear by such an explanation - that 'A.R.' is Reicha who, from 1785 onwards is the copyist at Bonn whose initials are found at manuscripts in Modena.

But (and here comes the 'but') if this is correct, how do we explain that in 1784 (the year before Reicha's arrival) 8 Symphonies are credited by name to 'Haydn' and a further 11 Symphonies to 'Heyde' - this plus, of course 'The Seven Last Words of our Redeemer' ? This gives us 20 symphonies being credited to Haydn in 1784.

But these Hadyn symphonies at Modena (which came from Bonn) are not only written on paper known to have been used in Bonn but also (in many cases)have the initials 'A.R.' written on them.

How is it possible that the inventory of 1784 in Bonn credits Haydn with these works if the initials appearing on them if those copies could not have been created until 1785 onwards ? And how does one explain the existence in 1784 of the '7 Last Words of our Redeemer' if, in fact, Hadyn did not compose this work until 2-3 years after the 1784 Inventory ?

I will always be guided by the logic and simplicity of your solution but this itself makes us ask which manuscripts were actually inventoried in 1784 and how they could have been credited to Haydn in that year ? If Reicha makes copies it follows that he had originals (or other copies) at his hand.

But that is to create 2 music archives and not one. Is that your view ?

Robert

I can't be certain what happened in Bonn between 1784 and 1794 with the cataloguing of works. This whole area is of vital importance in this debate, and I believe you yourself have not actually seen any of the evidence (e.g. the Modena inventory). Is it not possible that works were back dated in the inventory by the copyist who was completlely unaware of the true date of composition? Is it not possible that in the haste of departure in 1794 much was muddled and mixed up? It would also be of great interest to know the works credited to Mozart and Haydn that were performed at Bonn along with dates.

How do we explain Beethoven's silence not only on Luchesi as a composer but as a teacher? If Luchesi was such a great composer and teacher Beethoven surely would have mentioned this? Instead he refers to Neefe as the man to whom he owed everything. If he was such an important figure in the early life of Beethoven, why does the Fischer manuscript make no mention of Luchesi? Why does Neefe himself not refer to him in relation to Beethoven?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-25-2005).]

[robert newman]

I don't see much evidence that the Bonn music archive was poorly managed or labelled (with the exception, of course, of Neefe mysteriously crediting large numbers of works to nobody at all in the Inventory of 1784).

Why would Neefe (whom I do assume was a basically honest individual) did what he did in not giving credit to any named composer in many works at Bonn - which is surely the opposite of what a music inventory is meant to do ? He here lumps together many works in to groups of 'by various authors' and so on. And yet during the same Inventory he (apparently) credits Haydn with many works, even in 1784. He must have had reason to credit Haydn when he actually did so. But he must also have had in front of him many works which lacked a signature or name. Why would he then not have credited them in the normal way to Kapellmeister Luchesi ?

No, I have not been to Modena yet. But Giorgio Taboga has spent years there and is very well known to the Archivist. I do have with me as I write many photocopies of musical manuscripts from Modena, also details of the Inventory of 1784 and a whole series of notes and comments made by Taboga and other researchers on the last years of Bonn chapel - so I feel sure what we have discussed so far is able to be verified and has not strayed too far in to areas of speculation. In spite of complexity I think you have rightly focused on the question of copyists being the key to unlocking this mystery or at least to them being the next hurdle that must be overcome.

I believe someone on this thread mentioned Groves Music dictionary credits 9 symphonies to Luchesi (though I have not read this myself and would like to know where this can be found). If so, I wonder how this figure was arrived at by Groves ? For there are today at Modena 9 symphonies (as mentioned)from Bonn which are today credited only to Mozart.

The possibility exists that Max Franz gave strict instruction to Neefe in 1784 that all works being inventoried at the time on which there may have been problems were not to be credited to any specific composer. But, if this is true, why would Luchesi have done the very opposite in the catalogue C.53/1 which he begins after his return and which he kept up to date in the years that followed ? For, in that catalogue (C.53/1) he specifically credits Haydn and Mozart with specific works and has listed composers alphabetically.

The logical explanation is that Luchesi returned from Italy days after the Inventory had been completed, discussed the subject of the music archive personally with Max Franz, and, from that time onwards came to an arrangement that he (Luchesi) would publicly credit these still 'anonymous' works to Mozart and Haydn 5 years after they had actually be composed by him - even though they were works by neither Haydn nor Mozart. So, prior to Luchesi's return, Neefe was instructed by the same new Elector, Max Franz not to credit these works to anyone. And thus the Inventory of 1784 gives no names to particular pieces which, later, Luchesi himself credits to Haydn and Mozart - and not himself.

You may say this solution has far less support than your much simpler one of Neefe working from 1785 onwards. But with what was Neefe working if he made these copies after 1784 ?

1. We will soon prove one way or the other whether these initials are those of Reicha

2. If they include those of Reicha then, at Bonn, there must clearly have been manuscripts with which Reicha was able to make such copies. In effect, this suggestion of manufacturing 2 quite different musical versions of certain works - one of which is today partly in Modena dating from between 1785 and 1794 on which Reicha often worked and the other being the earlier version of those same works which Reicha was able to make such copies from.

Again, we have at Modena from Bonn the Mass known as 'Paukenmesse', (reference Mus-F-1576) this routinely assumed in textbooks to have been written by Haydn in 1796, fully 2 years after the Bonn chapel closed. Careful examination of this manuscript at Modena (which is now minus its cover)shows the original attribution of its composer on its front page has been erased so deeply that two holes have been made in the paper. It's yet another irregularity. There is at Modena also a version of the 'Nelsonmesse' (this supposedly composed by Haydn in 1798) and the 'Schoepfgungmesse (this supposedly written by Haydn as late as 1801) - both calling for 'clarinos' ('Bach trumpets') (which were certainly available at Bonn) but never once used or written for by Haydn. The paper of these two masses dates from before 1794 and is also of a kind that was regularly used in the Bonn area.

It is quite well established (according to Taboga and others) that the 'Paukenmesse' was conducted by Luchesi in Bonn - years before it was supposedly written by Haydn.

And Haydn, by 1797, was already suffering from cerebrosclerosis - hardly able to sign his name and surely in no condition to compose the 'Harmonienmesse' and others supposedly in 1802. (Professor Santo Bidoli has made a detailed study of Haydn's handwriting and agrees that, in fact, by 1800 Haydn was scarcely able to sign his own name). These things just continue to pile up and they must be added to the huge problems that already exist with the symphonies and earlier masses.

3 of the 5 works which Haydn sent to Max Franz as proof of the young Beethoven's progress in Vienna were, in fact, already written in Bonn before he left. The fact that Haydn actually taught nothing to Beethoven is, in my view, a plain fact.

It is a curious fact that Prince Auersperger's Kapellmeister, Johann Schenk (for a while a teacher to Beethoven in Vienna) was one of those men who, throughout his life accused Haydn of being a musical fake without specifiying the reasons behind his opinion.

Well, I realise I can't indefinitely log all these loose discrepancies (of which these are only a few) but here are a few more related to Haydn. (They will at least show there are grounds to question).

The management of Haydn's official ouput up until around 1779 was totally detached from his own person, to the point that, in fact, Haydn did not know in 1776 he was already the owner of some 60 symphonies and many quartets that he himself does not even refer to in his own artist's 'curriculum'. (See 'Das geleherte Oesterrich' of 1778, Volume 2, for example). Thus, by around 1795 when Niklaus 2nd Esterhazy decided to plan an official catalogue of all Haydn's works that all the scores and many performance parts of the symphonies Berhard von Kees had been entering in to his 'Catalogue of Symphonies by J Haydn' were lacking. At this very time Haydn, who had just returned from his hugely successful tour to London (August 1795) and had now been created 'Kapellmeister' was now under pressure at Esterhazy to recopy in his own handwriting the huge number of these 'Haydn' scores so as to 'confirm' that Haydn was the true author of these very works. To achieve this, he privately made available to Haydn a mountain of paper produced locally (at Lockenhaus). But the Prince, now convinced he had found a remedy for any possible problems of paternity and sure that this method would publicly prove to posterity that Haydn had written all these works had, in fact, only compounded the problem.

For, this local paper at Lockenhaus (which has distinctive watermarks of a 'running deer with the letters JGS and JGW) was in fact first produced by the paper mill only from that very year, 1795 - some 25 to 30 years later than the works which Haydn was now forging. Who could have supposed that one day watermarks would feature in such matters ?
And thus, several scores on this very paper show mistakes of a sort that indicate that the old Haydn was unable, even in 1795, to produce even acceptable fakes. (For example, the various Masses on which he now worked to produce scores in his own hand are literally full of mistakes).

This fact contradicts Robbins Landon and Jan Peter Larsen's earlier view of a Lockenhaus paper mill supposedly operating between 1762 and 1774 on which paper Haydn supposedly wrote all his symphonies from Hob 20 to Hob 55. And, of course this in turn means that the 'definitive' proof of Haydn having written Hob.50 (signed by Hadyn, now at Cracow)only proves that in the last years of the 18th century the elderly Haydn attempted to forge a version of this too on that same paper from Lockenhaus. Thus, Haydn was not the true composer of the symphony Hob.50 despite the fact that there exists an autographed, and handwritten score of his very own.

In full confirmation of this we also have at Berlin a score of the symphony known as Hob 52 which bears 'Bonn N.8' - a clear proof that this and many other scores were actually from Bonn.

And so on.

(If this thread was to continue it would no doubt consist of more and more evidence of irregularity in the productions of Haydn and Mozart although speaking solely of these is certainly not the main objective. My aim here is to show that in my view (and those of Taboga) there are ample grounds to say that Beethoven emerges at Bonn in a climate where Haydn and Mozart have been promoted/portrayed as indigenous examples of Austrian genius. And that, no doubt, is also how the establishment wished to have the young emerging Beethoven to be portrayed.

It is true and disturbing that Luchesi is barely refered to. But each person must judge whether this was because he, Luchesi, was a man of no musical significance, or because of a movement that existed (fuelled by Max Franz and other rulers of the time) to promote the 'Wiener Klassik' in its own right.

Regards

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:



It is true and disturbing that Luchesi is barely refered to. But each person must judge whether this was because he, Luchesi, was a man of no musical significance, or because of a movement that existed (fuelled by Max Franz and other rulers of the time) to promote the 'Wiener Klassik' in its own right.

Regards

Robert

I have no doubt as stated before that we will find works in the Hoboken and kochel catalogues that will have to be removed, this has been happening anyway. Scholars have been keen to identify misattributions, so I don't know why you consider they suddenly close ranks when it comes to Luchesi?

When we consider the number of people that would have been involved in such a conspiracy of silence the whole thing does seem incredulous. People such as Neefe who you yourself desribe as an honest man, Beethoven who was not noted for holding his tongue, Reicha who in Paris had nothing to fear or lose, and not least Luchesi who after 1794 was free to do as he liked and had everything to gain by revealing all.

At any rate we can go no further now until we have more answers than questions!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

I agree.

Luchesi worked for a remarkable 23 years as a Kapellmeister at Bonn. He met the young Mozart - even gave him a copy of a piano concerto which the young Mozart used as his very own. He was a hugely talented composer and musician who was awarded (invited) to become Kapellmeister after making a very good name for himself in Italy. His schooling in music cannot be faulted and was the equal of any composer in Europe. He is documented to have arrived in Bonn in 1771 with a series of his own concertos, symphonies, church music and various chamber and stage works. He is documented to have published symphonies and chamber music at Bonn 2 years later. He is recored as having sent some 7 symphonies to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis. All of these (amazingly) lost. In short, he was a major figure at one of the great chapels of the 18th century and was, beyond reasonable doubt, in charge of the teaching of the young Beethoven. And yet (as has been noted several times here) one looks almost in vain in German textbooks for mention of this same person or his achievements. To me, that's a clear conspiracy of silence.

Why ? Well, documented rivalry between Italian and German opera, that between Italian (imported) musicians and those from German speaking lands. Isn't this factor clearly documented - as clearly as the enthusiasm that Max Franz had in supporting the Haydn/Mozart phenomenon ?

I agree that this thread has only considered an outline - but I think there are so many irregularities with Haydn and Mozart that point in the same direction that I am not suprised the real truth has been much suppressed simply by omitting Luchesi from the 'official' history of the Viennese classical period. In this coming year I sincerely believe much further evidence will be found to support this argument.

Many thanks for your fair-mindedness and best regards

Robert Newman

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Many thanks for your fair-mindedness and best regards

Robert Newman

Thank you Robert and please keep us informed of further developments, particularly the copyist issue. Incidentally I wonder how many of Luchesi's works were really by Michael Haydn?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

I agree, do let us know of anymore information. Fascinating discussion and topic. Merry Christmas to everyone and Happy Boxing Day to our friends 'across the pond'.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Gurn Blanston]

Although I DO find it odd that only Luchesi was the victim of this "conspiracy of slience", while Cimarosa, Paisiello and especially Salieri were apparently untouched by it. Although I suppose it is possible that Paisiello also wrote all of Mozart's piano concerti as well as his own 8.

------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[robert newman]

Thanks Joy - and best wishes to you (in the USA ?)for this coming new year, 2006.

You will smile that the Luchesi story has an angle that involves the USA. (Apparently, there was a German music publisher who established two offices, one in Boston, who is said to have published a mature string quartet by Luchesi around 1803). Since this work has never been seen for over 200 years I'm making enquiries to confirm that it really was published in the USA by writing to various Boston libraries known to hold catalogues of this same German music publisher. It would be great to confirm or otherwise the existence of this work and really wonderful if a copy of this same work was actually to be found.

Best regards

Robert Newman

[robert newman]

Just when it seemed that this thread had come to a temporary halt I've managed to find in my growing mass of papers a letter received by me from Mr Giorgio Taboga last October, part of which I'm sure is relevant to this issue and would be OK to share with you on this matter of the copyists at Bonn. I hope you will agree that it's right to summarise these points here - (incidentally, Mr Taboga has been working on the subject of Luchesi for 20 years, and I myself with the life and career of Mozart for around the same time).

According to Mr Taboga -

The initials 'A.R.' and 'A.F' are not those of copyists as such, or at least not those whose sole occupation is to make copies but they are in all probability the initials of persons who helped Neefe/Fries to make Bonn inventories (both internal and official), not simply that of 8th May 1784. 'A.R.' CANNOT BE ANTONIN REICHA since his arrival in Bonn was only in June of 1785 when he was at the time 15 years old, the same age, in fact, as Ludwig van Beethoven. The initials 'A.R.'are most probably those of (Franz) Anton Reis, the 1st violinist of the Bonn orchestra at the time. 'A.F' may be the initials of the Court Notary Fries. Moreover, you will be aware that initials on a music manuscript do not always denote persons. They are frequently used to signify other things. For example, 'A.F.' is not uncommonly used in works of the mid to late 18th century to denote 'Ad Festum or, 'Ad Responsotia'.

In addition, Luchesi's Assistant as Instrumentalmusikdirektor was NOT Anton Reicha but was in fact Reicha's uncle, Joseph Reicha, former Director of the Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein orchestra where he was Lead Cellist, composer and virtuoso Cellist, who directed there the orchestra in practice despite not being named Konzertmeister (since that title was inevitably reserved for a Violinist). Joseph Reicha did NOT teach his nephew at Bonn since, in the 18th century, this was a duty/right reserved solely for the incumbent Kapellmeister.


Regards

Robert

[robert newman]

Gurn Blanston wants to know how many 'Mozart' piano concertos were actually composed by Paisiello.

Of course it's revealing that we, who have here being discussing mostly symphonies credited to Haydn and Mozart at the time of Beethoven's study in Bonn turn suddenly to Mozart's piano concertos (perhaps as some way of redeeming the shaky structure that is contained within the Koechel list ?) and as if such a question can realistically be answered in a one line email.

Let me at least point out that in the case of Mozart's official career there is the sad truth that exaggeration features from his earliest works till his very last. The same is true of the piano concertos.

How else can one describe the following 'Mozart' (all from Koechel's list) -

KV 37 'Mozart Piano Concerto No. 1 in F'
KV 39 'Mozart Piano Concerto No. 2 in B Flat'
KV 40 'Mozart Piano Concerto No. 3 in D'
KV 41 'Mozart Piano Concerto No. 4 in G'

None of these are really works by Mozart but by, of course, either J.C Bach Raupach/Honauer or others. But this fact (and they were all performed in Mozart's name in 1767 and all were entered as Mozart works in the early days when Mozart's reputation was being carefully constructed - are a truly fine start to the subject of 'Mozart's' piano concertos. Perhaps Gurn Blanston will come to the rescue of Mozart's reputation on these works ?

So the first 4 'Mozart' piano concertos are NOT, in fact, Mozart piano concertos. In the Orwellian world of Koechel this fact does not, however, mean that they are NOT Mozart concertos - since KV595 remains, to this day, his 27th Concerto and not his 23rd. (Was there ever such a strange system as this ?)

Let me continue with Mozart's KV 107. These too are concertos but certainly not composed by Mozart. They are are 3 keyboard Sonatas of JC Bach to which 2 violins and Bass have been added. By Leopold and his son. Are these arrangements sufficient to regard them as compositions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ?? Because Koechel aims to give us works BY Mozart, and so far we have works by virtually anyone BUT Mozart.

Surely things must change. Surely we are at last standing on firm ground with the Concerto K175 - which today is known as 'Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 5' ? No - for here again there is evidence that this particular work is also NOT by Mozart (despite the composer in later years adding his own cadenzas to it and having his own version of it written out and frequently performed). For this work is the very first that was given to him when he met Andrea Luchesi, in 1771, during his visit to Venice, Italy. It was as a keyboard virtuoso that Leopold Mozart records their meeting in Venice and Mozart is recorded as having performed this work in Venice, also in Ellwangen an der Jagst (October 28th 1777). See also C. Valder-Knechtges 'Die weltiche Werke' p.100.

Charles Burney speaks of Mozart in the 1770's saying -

'Judging from the music I listened to, which was composed for orchestra by the young Mozart I still consider it an example of his precocious blooming and as amazing rather than excellent music, as such' ( Vol.2, page 257).

But Mozart scholars will say that this concerto, KV175 is frequenly discussed by Mozart with his father Lepold in correspondence. This is not really so - in fact he is discussing in those letters the far inferior arrangement that is KV107.

How poor in musical value are the Mozart quartets KV168 to KV173 (written around the same time) in comparison to this supposed 'Mozart' concerto KV 175.

So you see that although we cannot discuss this subject in much detail here things are not quite what you suppose.

It is a curious irony, is it not, that Mozart's last keyboard work is K624 (626a11) are cadenzas he wrote for concertos by other composers including cadenzas for 4 concertos by Schroeter (his set published as Op.3) one cadenza for a concerto by I von Merke, and 4 others by unidentified composers).

It is not my objective to demolish Mozart as we know him. But it is surely fair to point out that structure we have constructed on his life and supposed works is filled with glaring contradictions and bended truths - none of them in themselves fatal but, appreciated as a whole, seriously at odds with the version of Mozart's life and work we are familiar with.

Regards

Robert Newman

[Gurn Blanston]

None of which answers my direct question, of course, which is if the Italians were the victim of some great anti-Italian conspiracy, then why is Luchesi the only victim? Does seem a bit strange, that.

As for the early concerti, you are doing a commendable job of misrepresenting the facts. They are/were nothing more or less than studies in concerto writing. The works of Raupach et al were keyboard sonatas which were orchestrated into concerti so that he could learn how to orchestrate. It isn't as though he was in the conservatory. There was never any attempt to conceal this fact, it was known to Köchel himself. They are included in his works because the concerto aspect of it is Mozart's. Where is the mystery here, Mr. Newman? These are simply discoverable facts, no great conspiracy. As for works completed at the time of K 175, I give you the d minor violin sonata, which you dismiss as a trifle but which is nothing like one. And the g minor symphony, and the first string quintet. All 4 of these works were composed within a 3 month span. If you are going to say "sure, Luchesi gave him all four", I will simply dismiss you with a "prove it". If you can't prove it, then it didn't happen. So far, I have read nothing but twisted bushwah from you. Conspiracy theorists such as yourself, who have been run off from every forum so far that allowed you on to start with, will have to spin a far more convincing tale before I throw my Köchel in the trash and take up Taboga/Newman. Proof, man, proof!
Also, your claim that you don't want to destroy Mozart's reputation is laughable on the face of it. That is exactly what you would like to do. Just think, they will make movies about you: "The Man who Destroyed Mozart".

------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[robert newman]

You see what a nonsense we make if we put in to Koechel works that really were composed by others, calling them concertos of Mozart when, in fact, they are at best arrangements of works written by other composers which the boy Mozart (heavily supervised and aided by his father) was credited with by all who knew no better.

And this dodgy practice continues till now, with literally dozens of dubious works filling 'early Mozart' within the 'approved' Koechel list.

It is ironic therefore that you should accuse me of 'destroying Mozart', I whose aim is simply to show repeatedly on what a bogus basis much of the official version of Mozart's works is constructed.

These first 4 concertos 'of Mozart' are nothing more than arrangements of works by other composers and are therefore not, in any consistent sense compositions by either Leopold or Wolfgang Amadeus. Why then are they commonly described today as concertos number 1-4 of Mozart, and why is KV595 commonly known as Mozart's 27th concerto ?

But in spite of your insults you want next (amongst other things) for me to say why the G Minor Symphony (KV183) of 1773 is not an authentic symphony by Mozart.

OK - since you wish to regard yourself as a defender of the 'status quo' or as a defender of what is really true in such matters, let me answer you on this one specific work, the Symphony today known as Mozart 25 (in G Minor) and which you, no doubt, regard as indisputably a symphony by the 17 year old Mozart.

Let me start with the simple fact that Symphony No. 24 (KV182) and Symphony No.25 (KV183) are chronologically separated from one another by only 3 days, according to the 'documentary evidence'. They are therefore (according to your convention), really a pair of symphonies, in the same way that KV201 and KV202 are also a pair of symphonies. Is that not so ? And here, in this case, you are of the certain belief that in KV183 (the little G Minor Symphony) there is no evidence of any kind that would shake your belief.

Well, I disagree. Consider both these symphonies together. Listen, if you will, to Symphony 24 and follow this with Symphony 25. Is it not apparent that these are works not of one composer but, in fact, of TWO QUITE DIFFERENT COMPOSERS.

When you have given these two symphonies from '1773' a fair hearing bear in mind Leopold Mozart's own letter to his son of fully 5 years later (24th September 1778) -

'What does not do you credit IT IS BETTER TO REMAIN UNKNOWN. FOR THIS REASON I DID NOT GIVE AWAY ANY OF YOUR SYMPHONIES - AS I FORSEE THAT IN A RIPER AGE, WHEN THE CRITICAL CAPACITY GROWS, YOU'LL BE VERY HAPPY THAT THEY DO NOT BELONG TO ANYBODY...'

Now, what is that but a judgement from an authoritarian father that Mozart's symphony attempts prior to 1778 were not even of a quality sufficiently high that Mozart's father would allow anyone to see them ? And yet you expect me and music lovers to accept this G Minor Symphony (no.25) as an indisputable product of the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ?

You see I think the problem. We appreciate that the G Minor IS a very fine symphony. But that is in direct contradiction to Leopold Mozart's own description of his son's symphonice achievements that he gave fully 5 years later. To say the least, this should at least keep you open minded on this issue.

But let me return to this comparison between 24 and 25. You are prepared to accept that Mozart finished 24 on 3rd October 1773 and that he finished 25 on the 5th October 1773 - i.e. around 3 days later at the most. And you see no major difference in the quality of either work - not enough, that is to make you agree that they were really written by two different composers.

Fine. 10 years later Mozart was writing to his father on the piece that was to become 'Mozart's' Haffner Symphony (No.35) 'I had truly worked so much in a hurry that I did not remember a single note of it' (Letter to Leopold of 15th February 1783) - i.e. less than 6 months after Mozart himself had composed the piece ! Never mind, in the Orwellian world of 'official Mozart history' such things are, well, just minor matters, are they not ?

Is it not revealing that the esteemed author of 'Mozart Symphonies' Dr Luigi della Croce writes of this pair of symphonies (KV182 and KV183) -

'With this (G Minor) Symphony, composed at Salzburg only 2 days after its precedent (KV182)Mozart makes a jump in quality such that he places himself on a level with the major symphonists, not only of his time, but in every epoch, including Romanticism. It is like the sudden, (one might say nearly unprepared) blooming, of a now completely formed personality, capable of creating a perfect masterpiece with all its details. The fact that this maturation apparently has occurred in only two or three days, and that Symphony KV183 seems to belong TO A DIFFERENT COMPOSER AND WORLD has put in an embarrasing position commentators and biographers, for whom the true genesis of this 'little symphony' remains largely a mystery'.

Well, is that fair enough evidence ?

We are also informed by the manuscript research of Alan Tyson that the dates on both KV182 and KV183 have been tampered with and that the very same has occurred with the dates of symphonies KV201, KV202, KV203, and KV200. Altogether Tyson has listed around 100 contradictions in dating in other 'Mozart' works (as you can see listed on p.170-174 on his work dealing with Mozart manuscripts.

In the light of such findings on these two symphonies (born virtually as twins) are we not entitled to note that they were born not long after the very poor 6 quartets KV168-173 which are themselves described as so poor that they are euphemistically described by 'experts' as a 'deviation in the Mozartean trajectory' - a polite way of saying that they are close to musical trivia.

Now, by the fact that these works exist in copies at Modena we see that KV182 is a work by Luchesi and that KV183 (also Luchesi but first commissioned for another purchaser) and KV 183 first attributed to Mozart not within his whole lifetime but first, decades later, by Koechel himself in the mid 19th century.

The alternative is of course for this young man to change his style of composition so radically that every single commentator on these two works has to this day been puzzled by it. Proofs of Mozart being the true composer of the G Minor Symphony KV183 are in fact so neglibible that after more than 2 centuries from its presumed birth even the most fair minded commentators describe it as a mystery.

The truth is surely this, that within a space of 16 years (Between June of 1768 - when Leopold Mozart listed his sons supposed compositions to defend their 'authenticity' to Joseph 2nd - and 9th February 1784 (which is the official beginning of Mozart's personal thematic catalogue in Vienna) all sorts of works were crammed in to the supposed compositional history of Mozart that have nothing to do with him - from the Masses KV115 and KV116 (of Leopold himself) to the Kyries KV90, KV91, and KV92 of Reutter, and the symphonies KV182, KV183, KV200, KV201, KV203, and KV297, to concertos assumed to have been of his composition, from the concerto for piano KV175 to the first three of the string quartets dedicated to Haydn - giving us cause to remember the words of Mozart's wife -

'We do not want and we must NOT PUBLICLY SHOW OUR HERO, AS MAYBE HE WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED HIMSELF IN THE INTIMACY OF DOMESTIC EVENINGS. TO SAY ALL THE TRUTH MIGHT DO HARM TO HIS FAME, TO HIS RESPECTABILITY, TO THE SUCCESS OF HIS VERY MUSIC'
(Constanze Mozart)

This is by no means a full list. But you have asked me on what grounds these things are called in to question and now you have at least a reply on this symphony, KV183, as a reply to your insults.

Robert Newman

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Just when it seemed that this thread had come to a temporary halt I've managed to find in my growing mass of papers a letter received by me from Mr Giorgio Taboga last October, part of which I'm sure is relevant to this issue and would be OK to share with you on this matter of the copyists at Bonn. I hope you will agree that it's right to summarise these points here - (incidentally, Mr Taboga has been working on the subject of Luchesi for 20 years, and I myself with the life and career of Mozart for around the same time).

According to Mr Taboga -

The initials 'A.R.' and 'A.F' are not those of copyists as such, or at least not those whose sole occupation is to make copies but they are in all probability the initials of persons who helped Neefe/Fries to make Bonn inventories (both internal and official), not simply that of 8th May 1784. 'A.R.' CANNOT BE ANTONIN REICHA since his arrival in Bonn was only in June of 1785 when he was at the time 15 years old, the same age, in fact, as Ludwig van Beethoven. The initials 'A.R.'are most probably those of (Franz) Anton Reis, the 1st violinist of the Bonn orchestra at the time. 'A.F' may be the initials of the Court Notary Fries. Moreover, you will be aware that initials on a music manuscript do not always denote persons. They are frequently used to signify other things. For example, 'A.F.' is not uncommonly used in works of the mid to late 18th century to denote 'Ad Festum or, 'Ad Responsotia'.

In addition, Luchesi's Assistant as Instrumentalmusikdirektor was NOT Anton Reicha but was in fact Reicha's uncle, Joseph Reicha, former Director of the Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein orchestra where he was Lead Cellist, composer and virtuoso Cellist, who directed there the orchestra in practice despite not being named Konzertmeister (since that title was inevitably reserved for a Violinist). Joseph Reicha did NOT teach his nephew at Bonn since, in the 18th century, this was a duty/right reserved solely for the incumbent Kapellmeister.


Regards

Robert

Thanks for sharing that info Robert, but it is far from conclusive and raises more issues. If A R was Franz Ries, we have yet another highly respected man who kept silence until his death in 1846 - well past the dates of these events. By coincidence a report by the Bonn court of 1784 describes Ries as a man of excellent moral conduct.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


The alternative is of course for this young man to change his style of composition so radically that every single commentator on these two works has to this day been puzzled by it.

Yet you have no problem with Luchesi apparently changing his style from Haydn to Mozart and even early Beethoven?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-27-2005).]

[robert newman]

Peter,

I understand and agree that this copyist question is far from settled. It nevertheless makes it far more clear how these manuscripts at Modena are the very ones inventoried in 1784 at Bonn. In this sense the arrival at Bonn of Reicha in the summer of 1785 no longer presents a problem.

As far as styles are concerned I perhaps should have emphasised more that there appears to be no evidence that Mozart was credited with having composed the G Minor Symphony (KV183) until many decades after his death, and, even then, first by Koechel (whose errors in such matters can easily be examined). Secondly, that had this same work been by Mozart and had it really been written in 1773 there is of course no chance that Leopold would ever have kept it from the public (as he himself says he did of Mozart's attempted symphonies). For everyone agrees that this is a remarkable and very beautiful work.

The irregularities in dating (which Tyson refers to) further suggests that this work is not a symphony written by Mozart in 1773. Thus, I suggest, this work was unknown to anyone but Bonn Chapel (and of course Luchesi) and it would not have been performed as a Mozart symphony until after the mid-19th century. Given the fact that a deliberate attempt has been made to give the impression that 24 and 25 were completed within days of one another by the same composer I suggest that here is a possibility of us considering real manipulation of this music by vested interests long after the time of Mozart's death.

Regards

Robert