Announcement

**Peter** · 08-18-2005, 02:59 PM

Yes this is very interesting. I believe it is also claimed that the three quartets with piano WoO36, and the Joseph and Leopold Cantatas were actually by Luchesi. However it does seem a bit like another conspiracy theory to me - Beethoven himself does credit Neefe and doesn't mention Luchesi. I have also read claims that he wrote some of the best Haydn symphonies as well as Mozart's Jupiter and Prague symphonies - is there any real substantiated evidence, and why would he not take credit for these himself? Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would also have to be in on this!

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-18-2005).]

**Rod** · 08-18-2005, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes this is very interesting. I believe it is also claimed that the three quartets with piano WoO36, and the Joseph and Leopold Cantatas were actually by Luchesi.

Considering Beethoven for certain quoted from the quartets and the Joseph Cantata in his later music are they suggesting he actualy 'borrowed' this material form Luchesi!? No way, of course. To anyone with ears (apart from certain academics) this is Beethoven music.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

**Peter** · 08-18-2005, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Rod:
Considering Beethoven for certain quoted from the quartets and the Joseph Cantata in his later music are they suggesting he actualy 'borrowed' this material form Luchesi!? No way, of course. To anyone with ears (apart from certain academics) this is Beethoven music.

I believe they are indeed suggesting that!

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

**Rod** · 08-18-2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Peter:
I believe they are indeed suggesting that!

Did not Beethoven show Haydn the Cantata as his? Considering there is enough evidence of Beethoven receiving the commission and producing the work are they saying that there is a lost Beethoven cantata or two out there?!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

**Droell** · 08-18-2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Members,

This is my first posting to this site although I am a quite frequent poster to various Mozart websites and am actively writing a biography on Mozart ('Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire'). I have great love and regard for the music of Ludwig van Beethoven....

On these grounds alone I hope that centres of Beethoven study will, eventually, give credit where it is due, first by acknowledging the vital importance of Luchesi in Beethoven's formative years.

Robert Newman

I thought the idea intriguing. Beethoven has long been taken out of context by his admirers, as admirers are wont to do.

I have in front of me liner notes for Ries's 40 Preludes for piano, published in 1815. It seems that Beethoven picked up no. 23, in E major, and turned it into the first movement of his piano sonata op. 109, some five years later.

The more we learn of the larger world around Beethoven, the better we will understand this man. I, for one, would like to hear more about Luchesi.

**Peter** · 08-18-2005, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Droell:
I thought the idea intriguing. Beethoven has long been taken out of context by his admirers, as admirers are wont to do.

I have in front of me liner notes for Ries's 40 Preludes for piano, published in 1815. It seems that Beethoven picked up no. 23, in E major, and turned it into the first movement of his piano sonata op. 109, some five years later.

The more we learn of the larger world around Beethoven, the better we will understand this man. I, for one, would like to hear more about Luchesi.

Beethoven like all great composers was of course influenced by others, there is nothing new in that - the finale of Op.26 for example was modelled on Cramer's Op.23 sonatas. I've also mentioned before the symphony by Knecht which greatly influenced B's 6th. There are countless other examples. However, influenced and modelled on are not the same as a complete crib! I haven't heard Ries's preludes but I doubt that it is a note for note copy, or that Ries achieved the level of poetry that marks out Op.109.

What is being claimed about Luchesi however is something quite different - that whole compositions such as the two early Beethoven cantatas, many of Haydn's finest symphonies and two of Mozart's greatest, 38 & 41 were all by Luchesi.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-18-2005).]

**Rod** · 08-18-2005, 10:36 PM

[QU
What is being claimed about Luchesi however is something quite different - that whole compositions such as the two early Beethoven cantatas, many of Haydn's finest symphonies and two of Mozart's greatest, 38 & 41 were all by Luchesi.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I should have asked you who is making such a claim (certainly the Beethoven element of it) before wasting any time assessing it!?

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

**robert newman** · 08-19-2005, 07:00 AM

These are interesting reactions to the question of Luchesi's influence on the young Beethoven in Bonn. But let me clarify the actual position.

I believe a great deal of evidence (both documentary, historical and other kinds) strongly supports the view (most persuasively put forward by Giorgio Taboga and others in Italy over the last decade or so) that many symphonies traditionally attributed to Joseph Haydn (and indeed many Masses traditionally attributed to him also) were actually written by Sammartini or Luchesi. The fact that Hadyn scholars have virtually made Luchesi a 'non-person' and have simply refused to examine the arguments is a typical example of how hard it is to engage them on this issue.

Moving on to Mozart, I think that evidence exists too that a whole series of his symphonies were also actually written by the same Luchesi, including the 'Paris' (K297), Nos.35, 36, 38 ('Prager'), 39, 40 and even 41 'Jupiter'. This too is of course routinely 'rubbished' by institutes such as the Mozarteum and others though it can be argued in considerable detail from many angles.

As regards early Beethoven, the situation with regard to works wrongly attributed to him is quite different. For with Beethoven (unlike Haydn or Mozart) there is NO question of Beethoven ever being involved in such practices and none has ever been suggested. On the contrary, Beethoven's early music is undoubtedly the product of his own genius combined with the excellent teaching/help that he received under Luchesi. (The very fact that Beethoven undertook years of real musical study is indisputable but cannot really be argued for either Hadyn or Mozart). And of course Beethoven learned nothing from Haydn.

Beethoven is, as said, entirely innocent of the fact that quite a few early works are attributed to him wrongly. For example, the 3 Piano Quartets WoO36, the Trio Wo037, the Concerto Wo04 and the Hess serenade (all of which Austrian/German authors have obstinately persisted in crediting to Beethoven, this notwithstanding Ferdinand Reis's own refusal to accept WoO36 as truly by Beethoven (1832) and even Andrea Holschneider's discovery that the supposedly 'first preserved Beethoven autographs' are actually not Beethoven's at all (1970). Then too, there are the two Cantatas Wo087 for Joseph the Second's Death and Wo088 for Leopold the Second's Coronation (these actually composed by Andrea Luchesi as a duty pertaining to his office as Kapellmeister - but which were nevertheless credited to Beethoven (1884) with really no proof of a Beethoven paternity.

There has also been the fiasco of 1905 when the new Koechel edition claimed as authentic Mozart two works listed as K25a and K511a from a source at the British Museum.

In actual fact the D Major Trio for piano, violin and cello (that Georges de Saint Fox later intended to credit to Beethoven (not Mozart) is of course today rubricated among Beethoven's doubtful/spurious works as Anh.3

There is too the 'Jena Symphony' once credited to Beethoven (wrongly) and now (again wrongly) to Friedrich de Witt. Then also Anh.2 (Six Quartets) known at different times as works by 'Mozart', then as works by 'Beethoven' but today without any real paternity.

The rediscovery of Beethoven's teacher, Andrea Luchesi and his remarkable career is destined (when it is finally appreciated) to explain a whole series of mysteries that have been falsely posed and imposed to sustain the myth of the 'Weiner Klassik'. For the nationalistic theory that Beethoven is the third component of an autonomous Austrian musical school known today as the 'Wiener Klassik' has really been built at the expense of the 'damnatio memoriae' of Andrea Luchesi himself.

In reality, Beethoven lived for his first 22 years in a city that was saturated with Luchesian influences. Luchesi's were the most significant instrumental works there, the most avante-garde concertos for piano, his symphonies then in great demand in German speaking courts, and his quartets worthy of praise in 1783. He also excercised considerable influence by having performed in Bonn the works of many other composers, from Handel to Jomelli, from Colizzi to JC Bach, from Naumann to Galuppi etc.

So the issue is not really one of criticising Beethoven, as such, but more of asking that Beethoven scholars do what those who study Haydn and Mozart are most reluctant to do - acknowledge that Luchesi was a far more important composer and person in late 18th century music than they are prepared to accept. Doing so will of course have serious implications for Koechel and for Haydn catalogues - but that's another story.

Regards

Robert Newman

**sjwenger** · 08-19-2005, 08:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]

(snip)

As regards early Beethoven, the situation with regard to works wrongly attributed to him is quite different. For with Beethoven (unlike Haydn or Mozart) there is NO question of Beethoven ever being involved in such practices and none has ever been suggested. On the contrary, Beethoven's early music is undoubtedly the product of his own genius combined with the excellent teaching/help that he received under Luchesi. (The very fact that Beethoven undertook years of real musical study is indisputable but cannot really be argued for either Hadyn or Mozart). And of course Beethoven learned nothing from Haydn.

When Beethoven studied under Haydn, he hired a young music student to write the music exercises that Haydn had assigned to him; and took credit for having completed the assignments.

- Fate, pounding on the door with a jackhammer

**robert newman** · 08-19-2005, 08:52 AM

I do not think anyone is suggesting that Beethoven did anything wrong as regards Luchesi. He was simply helped by Luchesi in various early works. But there are various works today attributed to Beethoven that are simply not his but were in fact works of Luchesi.

The difference is of course that Hadyn and Mozart knew they were obtaining entire works from Luchesi - this never happened in the case of Beethoven.

Regards

Robert Newman

**Peter** · 08-19-2005, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by robert newman:

I do not think anyone is suggesting that Beethoven did anything wrong as regards Luchesi. He was simply helped by Luchesi in various early works. But there are various works today attributed to Beethoven that are simply not his but were in fact works of Luchesi.

The difference is of course that Hadyn and Mozart knew they were obtaining entire works from Luchesi - this never happened in the case of Beethoven.

Regards

Robert Newman

This is all very interesting Robert and I'm thankful for you bringing this debate that I was unaware of to our forum! Now certain things I can accept - Luchesi may well have been responsible for some of the early Mozart and Haydn works that were wrongly attributed to them, but I find it incredible that it is being stated that Mozart's greatest symphonies were by this man and that Mozart and Haydn were aware of the duplicity - I imagine you are having a pretty heated debate about this on Mozart forums! I can also accept that Luchesi must have had a far greater influence on the young Beethoven than has hitherto been acknowledged, though it is interesting that Beethoven himself never refers to him.

Luchesi is undoubtedly an interesting character whom history has overlooked, but could you give us some of the evidence that is being proposed for his composition of Mozart's last symphonies and why did he not claim all these works as his own?
You say that no duplicity on Beethoven's part is implied, yet the Joseph cantata is one of the works he showed to Haydn in 1790. Also regarding this Cantata, Beethoven himself quotes from it in Fidelio, and why one wonders as Luchesi was Kappelmeister was the work not performed? I suggest the answer is that it was by Beethoven!

[Incidentally Robert, you need only click the post button once - all your messages so far have been sent twice!]

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-19-2005).]

**Rod** · 08-19-2005, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by robert newman:

I do not think anyone is suggesting that Beethoven did anything wrong as regards Luchesi. He was simply helped by Luchesi in various early works. But there are various works today attributed to Beethoven that are simply not his but were in fact works of Luchesi.

The difference is of course that Hadyn and Mozart knew they were obtaining entire works from Luchesi - this never happened in the case of Beethoven.

Regards

Robert Newman

The canatas and the piano quartets are Beethoven's. There is more than enough evidence for this. I can't believe anyone is taking the claim seriously.

In adition to the Fidelio connection with the Joseph cantata (and I mention the link with Haydn myself above), a movement from one of the op2 sonatas is based largely on material from one of the WoO36 quartets, also a fragment is used in op1.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-19-2005).]

**WoO** · 08-19-2005, 03:50 PM

Welcome Robert,

hey, this is my topic! Just kidding , see my posting "Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)" (6 oct 2004). Just glad to see it pop up again!

It seems that you wholeheartedly accept Taboga’s argument (Luchesi as "composer behind the scenes"). From what I recall, Taboga failed to really prove his claims, but I should re-read the whole stuff (articles and books).

Those interested may check the link http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/epi...4/ep4tabog.htm or google the title: "A case of damnatio personae. Andrea Luchesi, and his role in the birth of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven myths".

More often than not Taboga’s arguments seem far-fetched and, in some cases, guesswork.

Nevertheless the connection Luchesi-Bonn-Beethoven surely deserves closer attention.

Regards,
WoO

As Gurn used to say, it’s my opinion, I may be wrong

**robert newman** · 08-19-2005, 04:39 PM

Dear Peter,

You ask what evidence exists that many of the greatest works of Hadyn and Mozart were not in fact composed by them. And of what evidence there is for the scenario where the young Beethoven writes (for example) cantatas with the help of Andrea Luchesi.

Honestly, it would require a very long posting to deal with this issue of Hadyn and Mozart alone and I certainly have little of the detailed expertise of others such as Giorgio Taboga on these issues. But perhaps I can at least touch on some of the main points now and then later on Beethoven ?

Mozart (Leopold and Wolfgang) had in fact met Luchesi whilst they were on tour in Italy but it was 1771 before Luchesi was recommended for the prestigious post at Bonn by his teacher Galuppi. (The standard of the chapel music at Bonn had fallen badly under the wayward leadership of Ludwig van Beethoven senior and Galuppi had of course valuable experience himself of reviving musical prestige when he had been invited to reorganise the chapel music for Catherine the Great).

Luchesi arrived in Bonn and first served for 3 years as private Kapellmeister to Maximilian Franz (the Elector whom Max Franz would eventually succeed). He brought with him a whole series of works including symphonies, chamber music and even concertos. Luchesi is officially made Kapellmeister 3 years later (during which time he also co-operated with a stage troupe).

Luchesi had actually begun to supply music to Nikolaus Esterhazy as early as 1763 (when he sold him a symphony now wrongly catalogued as Hob.13 (entered in the 'Kees' catalogue under 'n.15') through the good offices of his brother in law Giacomo Durazzo.

Max Franz, who succeeded Max Friedrich in 1784 is a central figure to the emergence of the myth of Mozart and Haydn as 'glories of Austria' since it was he who was to shape the profile of Mozart from 1784 at the time of his accession at Bonn. (Up until this time first Sammartini and then later Luchesi had been supplying German princes with a whole series of works that were in many cases attributed not to them, but to Haydn).

Max Franz, prior to his succession, had promised Mozart himself the post of Kapellmeister at Bonn. But several things happened to make this impossible. First of course was the spectacular end of Mozart's career with Prince Archbishop Colloredo in Vienna (where Count Arco had literally kicked him out) - a scandal of major scale. Mozart found himself in Vienna with no post and now simply waiting for his main chance, Bonn, to eventually materialise.

But it was to be 3 years later (1784) when Max Friedrich died. In the meantime Max Franz simply repeated endlessly that he would certainly keep his promise to Mozart.

The problem was of course that the Kapellmeister at Bonn was a certain 43 year old Italian master, Andrea Luchesi - and he was not about to resign. One of the first acts of the new Elector when he arrived in Bonn was conduct an inventory of Bonn chapel in Luchesi's absence - he and his Konzertmeister being in Italy at the time and due back within days).

It was the findings of the inventory of 1784 and the discovery there that many works by Luchesi were actually being credited to Hadyn that caused a deal to be done between Luchesi and Max Franz (the latter determined to make Hadyn and Mozart vital evidence of Austria's musical supremacy against Prussia).

And so the Inventory contains a whole series of works against which no composer is given despite the fact that these (including many symphonies and masses) are today found in Modena attributed to either Haydn or Mozart.

In the case of Mozart no less than 9 symphonies - all of these in existence in 1784 at Bonn - though all of them not credited to Mozart at the time of the inventory. The same can be shown for Haydn's symphonies and masses.

The full story of the archives at Bonn and how they finally arrived at Modena is one full of twists and turns. Every attempt was made to remove evidence of the true origin of many works (including removal of covers that would betray their real origin). But enough evidence has survived to show beyond reasonable doubt that a massive fraud has occurred whose aim was to pass off works by others as though they were by Haydn and Mozart. Luchesi, of course, was well aware of this.

I can go in to some detail on specific works but that's just a general outline.

Regards

Robert Newman

Announcement

Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment