Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

[robert newman]

Hofrat is quite correct about JM Kraus. One could also point to the scandalous case of Franz Xaver Pokorny,who at Regensburg had nearly 100 works attributed to him in the score but the same works attributed to other composers in the performance parts ! The 'Pokorny Case' is rarely discussed (being dangerous to the 'Wiener Klassik') But the same could be said of Sammartini who, early in Haydn's career was submitting sometimes 2 symphonies a month to Esterhazy and who was in huge demand. (One collector in the 1780's had around 1,000 works by this composer alone).

In the early 1780's a Haydn enthusiast at Bonn is said to have owned no less than 80 Haydn symphonies at that time ! These now vanished of course.

It was Leopold Mozart who, as late as the early 1780's was discouraging Wolfgang from performing any of Wolfgang's own symphonies at that time - so low did he himself estimate them.

In the Borde's multi volume work published in Paris in the early 1780's on contemporary music we find listed as a famous symphony writer in big demand amongst German princes a certain Herr Andrea Luchesi. We do not, however, find there either Haydn or Mozart listed as writers of symphonies.

Could this have a bearing on the fateful words written by Constanze Mozart which appear in the Nissen biography of Mozart -

'We do not want and we must not publicly show our hero, as he maybe 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'.

Robert N

[robert newman]

Dear WoO,

You describe Robbins Landon as a person who is capable of error but Taboga as a mere amateur.

I think the truth is that Robbins Landon (on Hadyn in particular) is shown to have consciously falsified evidence and to have purposely misled researchers on many issues.

Taboga is accused on the one hand of being an 'amateur' and on the other hand is said to have earned lots of money from a book. So which is it to be ?

In respect of Robbins Landon, he took the view in his book written in the 1950's on Haydn's symphonies that the Modena symphonies now attributed to Hadyn were copied in Modena using paper produced in Italy. (That paper is so-called 'Nic Heisler' as regards its watermarks).

Well, such a statement is grossly misleading and is in fact completely false. 'Nic Heisler' paper was in fact commonly used in the Rhine area. It was commonly used in Bonn. It was never at any time made in Italy. And it is in fact the Bavarian spelling of the name Heusler. But Robbins Landon wants us to believe that these works cannot possibly be the same works that were inventoried at Bonn in 1784. This is what caused him to invent a completely fictitious paper mill in Italy.

Surely (we might think) he can't be serious ?
Yet the same Robbins Landon is back to his old tricks again when he talks of later Haydn symphonies. Again, he tells us that a special paper mill was in operation that never actually existed - the second such claim which has not a shred of support from history.

The lengths to which he and others will go to defend the indefensible is simply extraordinary.

But this as a typical example of just how 'conservative' the defenders of the Haydn/Mozart tradition are when faced with facts that are not convenient.

RN

[Rutradelusasa]

ok, if what you say is true, there are only two options:
1 - Luchesi was dumb.
2 - We (and a billion other people, including the most respected musicologists) are dumb.

I go with the first.

------------------
"Wer ein holdes weib errungen..."

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

How much blame may we assess to the publishing houses at that time? In many incidents, the publishing houses would change the composers' names to promote sales. Only now, some 200+ years after the "switch," are musicologists able to make some order out of the mess made by the publishing houses.

An example that comes to my mind is the German born Kapellmeister of the Swedish court, Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792). In the 1780's, he was sent on a 4 year musical enrichment tour of Europe. In Paris, he tried to get some of his symphonies published. His material was of excellent quality but the publishers feared that this "nobody" would not sell and they would be stuck with dead inventory. So, the publishers published the symphonies under the name Cambini, a composer who was a big hit in Paris at the time. Stylistically, Kraus is very different than Cambini, but for over 200 years, these symphonies were attributed to Cambini until only recently when scholarly research returned them to Kraus.

Could this be the case with Luchesi??


Hofrat

Only if Mozart was a complete fraud - he listed his works in his own catalogue I think from 1784 onwards.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Peter,

You wrote (in reference to several of 'Mozart's' greatest symphonies -

'Of course I find it hard to believe! I'm sorry but why should I suddenly accept an unproven theory against all knowledge and common sense? If what you say were true, there would have to be indisputable evidence. An essay will not be necessary, because a book has already been published in 1997 on this which obviously failed to prove the case, though doubtless the author made himself a fair sum.

I still would like an answer as to why Luchesi was the biggest idiot in musical history that he didn't admit to writing these pieces? Can you think of any artist (other than that Tony Hancock film!) who has willingly produced great work over a period of decades in different styles for others to pass of as their own and succeeded in concealing it for over 2 centuries?

As I have said, I can accept that some early Haydn and Mozart symphonies may have been wrongly attributed, I can accept that Luchesi had more influence on Beethoven than is recognised, but the rest is fanciful in the extreme.'

In reply, let's first agree to fairness being the rule. (As I am sure you will readily do).

Fine. In that case, let's first ask ourselves how it is (as you can see very plainly from a mountain of available literature) that as far as Kapellemeister Andrea Luchesi is concerned, he and his musical achievements have been quite amazingly deleted from/edited out of/annulled/proscribed/censored/omitted (or any other term that we could use), and this despite the fact that his importance is today increasingly acknowledged to be real.
Why is this ?

Let me ask a second question -how is it possible that of the symphonies whose composers were not named in the 1784 inventory at Bonn these same symphonies are now to be found credited to Hadyn and Mozart at Modena with all trace of their true origin either deleted (by means of removing their covers) or otherwise altered ? What an astonishing coincidence, is it not ?

3. It was standard practice in the 18th century for the musical works of the current Kapellmeister to remain unsigned and unattributed to him during his lifetime. Why then are these same anonymous symphonies from Bonn of 1784 now accepted wholesale as works by Hadyn and Mozart in Modena ?

I could ask a great more questions of this kind. One could look at these individual works if you please. For example, it is a plain fact that elements of Mozart's 40th symphony are derived from a work written decades earlier in Italy. It is equally true that until 1908 the so-called 'Linz' symphony of Mozart was actually that work which today goes by the name of Symphony No.37, and not Symphony No. 36. Such a cavalier attitude to the Koechel list is very typical.

It is true too (as you seem to agree) that Mozart was not even commissioned to write the trilogy, Symphonies 39,40 and 41 and yet is credited with doing so in 6 weeks during 1788. Yet, again, (with the exception of symphony 41) copies of 39 and 40 are found at Modena, being the very symphonies inventoried in 1784.

Again, I repeat that I would readily submit here strong evidence that many works today attributed to Haydn (Symphonies and Masses) were not of Haydn's composition and that the same is true of many mature 'Mozart' symphonies.

Great efforts were made to conceal these facts but I honestly believe that an accumulation of evidence (watermarks, correspondence, documents themselves etc.etc. points strongly in this direction).

Finally, in reply to your suggestion that a book could be written on such a subject only to make its author money - imagine (if you will) how difficult it would be to write such a book in reality. Imagine too how reluctant any such author would be to state his case openly. And yet we find (contrary to this) the defenders of the traditional view unable and unwilling to come to terms with their own statements and their own attitudes on these very issues.

I therefore think that anyone who wishes to examine these issues would be better placed to form a judgement than those who reject such things outright without doing so.

Very best regards

Robert Newman

Firstly Robert as this is a Beethoven site, lets deal with that one - you stated in one post that no one (yourself included) was claiming any works accepted as by Beethoven were in fact by Luchesi - yet you previously had listed a whole series of works that you stated were by Luchesi! Beethoven never gave any credit to Luchesi for having helped him with composition - the man he thanks is Neefe.

Regarding Luchesi and Modena I admit to little knowledge, but why I wonder are you more ready to accept Mozart, Haydn, Kochel, Robbins-Landon, the Bonn court musicians (including Beethoven) and the entire musical establishment as fraudulent, than the possibility that Luchesi himself was the fake? Or that someone tampered with the Bonn inventory on its apparently dubious journey to Modena? Mozart was known to have enemies amongst the Italians - isn't it coincidental that the inventory ends up in Modena (an Italian city) itself suspicious, especially if there were a conspiracy to keep silent? Why were the works ever listed in this inventory if as you say a great deal of trouble was taken to conceal the facts?

You also do not deal with the point about Luchesi himself - he lived until 1801, a decade after Mozart and surely he would have told others the true authorship of these works, especially in retirement? Why did he remain silent? Surely though the best witness is Beethoven himself so why does he never mention Luchesi? Why does he never refer to him as a great composer? If as you claim the last 4 symphonies of Mozart were composed in Bonn before 1784, why was Beethoven himself silent on the matter? Why did ne need to travel to Vienna to study with fakes if he had Haydn and Mozart combined in Luchesi on his doorstep?

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-20-2005).]

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

You write -

1. 'Firstly Robert as this is a Beethoven site, lets deal with that one - you stated in one post that no one (yourself included) was claiming any works accepted as by Beethoven were in fact by Luchesi - yet you previously had listed a whole series of works that you stated were by Luchesi!'

Peter, I agree that some contradiction seems to exist here. But this is due to the fact of course that the works we are discussing from Beethoven's early life in Bonn have floated in and out of favour as far (as them being credited to Beethoven) is concerned for almost 200 years. Is it not more likely, more probable, that the composer of the cantatas for Joseph 2nd and Leopold 2nd was not, in fact, Beethoven, but the Kapellmeister of that time, Andrea Luchesi ? It's quite remarkable in itself that such a logical explanation is not even considered, is it not ? Having already refered to a number of these questionable works in previous posts here I think it only fair to describe them as 'works which some people accept as having been entirely written by Beethoven, but not works that are universally accepted as such'. They are works on which there are certainly question marks. And that's why I described them as not being works by Beethoven.

It's my personal view that Beethoven was quickly appreciated as being the most talented of Luchesi's pupils and that these same works were most probably made by Luchesi in partnership with the young Beethoven. We see that at various times some of these same works have even been attributed to Mozart, and so on. Anyone, in fact, rather than the most likely person, the then head of the Bonn chapel, Andrea Luchesi himself.

2. You write -

'Beethoven never gave any credit to Luchesi for having helped him with composition - the man he thanks is Neefe'.

In reply, what evidence have we that Neefe really was a composer of the talent necessary to have helped Beethoven write these works ? He was not Kapellmeister but court organist. It is perfectly true that in late 18th century Bonn music (according to Groves etc.) was cultivated in the artistocratic houses of families such as Metternich, Beldersbusch, and Hatzfeld - that in the Zehrgarten market place the widowed Frau Koch and her daughter (Babette) drew together a like minded group of townspeople (to which students such as Beethoven belonged), as did Eleonore von Breuning, her brothers Franz Wegeler and Neefe - these all paying subscriptions. It's also true that in 1781 the so-called 'Minerval Kirche von Stagire' was founded by Neefe as the Bonn branch of the so-called 'Illuminati' (dissolved in 1785) - and that out of it came another group in 1787 which continued as a literary and recreational society.

But we still have no real evidence that Neefe was a composer of the musical talent or stature to have taught composition to Beethoven. The evidence surely shows he was second to Luchesi in virtually all musical respects. He was court organist and, at best, a temporary stand in for Luchesi in his absence. Given that a Kapellmeister was, by common/universal practice, responsible for the musical education of students pupils in his care, why should this simple fact be ignored or systematically suppressed whenever we consider the early career of Beethoven and the true provenance of these same works ?

I think the answer is, quite simply, that the rise of the 'Wiener Klassik' has always been portrayed as a specially 'German' thing. It was promoted and, as such, this myth has tended to be repeated endlessly in biographies and articles - with the unfortunate result that Beethoven's early career is now shrouded in a completely unecessary mystery that is its product.

I really do not know why Beethoven did not give credit to Luchesi and why he (Luchesi) becomes virtually a 'non-person'. Is this not highly unusual in itself ? We know that Beethoven's grandfather was being regularly paid money (a pension of a kind) by a strange system of it being paid through George Cressner in Bonn to Luchesi, and through Luchesi to the Beethoven family - this in order to curb Beethoven's notorious drinking habits. Luchesi helped with this. Beethoven was at one time the victim of a nasty rumour that he was the illegitimate son of the nobility because of this funding to the Beethoven family. I think that the young Beethoven longed to be free of the politics and intrigues of which he was aware and simply learned to say nothing.

There was a movement to push the idea of a school of composers that would bring glory to the Habsburgs and Beethoven (like Mozart before him and like Haydn) eventually became seen as a vital part of this movement. The Italians and their real achievements in nurturing these composers was, well, 'edited out' of the official record. The Italians had been 'top dogs' for so long that with the rise of the 'Weiner Klassik' it could be said, 'See, here is Austrian/German independence, at last, in the great trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven'. In this respect (and it was a myth greatly helped by Max Franz) the actual achivements of the Italians was, well, 'downplayed'.

3. I don't think anyone is saying the entire musical establishment is 'fraudulent' as regards the 'Vienna School'. It's simply that certain things were done in the name of Viennese supremacy over Prussia (including the public relations grooming of Haydn as the glory of Austria) that involved crediting him with dozens of works that were simply not his. A practice that continued with Max Franz when he came to power in 1784 and which now started to include works by Mozart (so-called). In 1784 Max Franz is now in a position to have Luchesi writing various works for Mozart (mostly symphonies) - for in that same year begins Mozart's catalogue of his works, not before. This too is the very year of the notorious Inventory of the music at Bonn.

As far as the later symphonies of 'Mozart' is concerned, I honestly think we need to put these works in to some sort of perspective. It had been Sammartini who (according to Carpani) was supplying up to 2 works a month to Esterhazy from 1759 onwards. Joseph Myslivececk (1737-81) on hearing some of Sammartini's symphonies around 1780 is recorded as saying, 'I have found the father of Haydn's style'. And in Groves we have the comment that studies of 12 late Sammartini symphonies show they have a language often likened to Mozart, just as devices found in early Hadyn symphonies are those used by Sammartini himself (e.g. the first movement of Sammartini's symphony J-C4). Sammartini's symphony in G Minor 'J-C57' (whose finale Gluck borrowed for his 'La contesa de numi' is said to have anticipated the 'Sturm and Drag' style by more than 20 years.

Then too the previously mentioned piano/violin sonatas of Luchesi published decades before Beethoven was in Vienna.

It would be (in my view) a grotesque distortion of the truth to ignore the colossal achievements of the Italians in those works that are today listed as being by Haydn, Mozart and even Beethoven. But that is very much what some would have us to do.

To what extent is Mozart's symphonic output invented. My reply is 'to a very great extent' - and this virtually from the very beginning of the Koechel list.

If Tyson and others have identified (as they have) up to 100 or so discrepancies between watermarks and 'accepted dates' in Mozart's works is this in itself not good reason to accept that to some extent we are dealing here with mythology, rather than with fact ?

Regards

Robert

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Is it not more likely, more probable, that the composer of the cantatas for Joseph 2nd and Leopold 2nd was not, in fact, Beethoven, but the Kapellmeister of that time, Andrea Luchesi ?


"Even if there were no name on the title page, none other could be conjectured - it is Beethoven through and through" - J.Brahms referring to the 2 cantatas - another gullible poor musician?




2.

In reply, what evidence have we that Neefe really was a composer of the talent necessary to have helped Beethoven write these works ?

Who says he was assisted in writing this music?

"I thank you for the advice you have very often given me about making progress in my divine art. Should i ever become a great man, you too will have a share in my success." Beethoven to Neefe (26th oct 1793)


3. I don't think anyone is saying the entire musical establishment is 'fraudulent' as regards the 'Vienna School'.

I think by implication you are! Certainly you are claiming Mozart and Haydn were. Why was Beethoven silent on the matter? Surely he would have known that these superb masterpieces were by Luchesi if they were in the inventory? Do you think he was so gullible and poor a musician that he was unable to tell Mozart from Luchesi? Either he had amnesia and forgot that he had heard Mozart's symphonies before they were supposed to have been written or else he concealed the fact! If Luchesi was his main teacher he would have been close to him and would have been fully aware of the situation in Bonn.



It had been Sammartini who (according to Carpani) was supplying up to 2 works a month to Esterhazy from 1759 onwards. Joseph Myslivececk (1737-81) on hearing some of Sammartini's symphonies around 1780 is recorded as saying, 'I have found the father of Haydn's style'. And in Groves we have the comment that studies of 12 late Sammartini symphonies show they have a language often likened to Mozart, just as devices found in early Hadyn symphonies are those used by Sammartini himself (e.g. the first movement of Sammartini's symphony J-C4). Sammartini's symphony in G Minor 'J-C57' (whose finale Gluck borrowed for his 'La contesa de numi' is said to have anticipated the 'Sturm and Drag' style by more than 20 years.

I can accept this - I don't deny that the Italian school was a great influence on Haydn and Mozart - I'm not aware that they denied it or subsequent scholars have either. I can also accept that some of the earlier symphonies of Mozart and Haydn may be of doubtful authenticity, it would explain the unequal quality of the work.


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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-20-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-20-2005).]

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

"Even if there were no name on the title page, none other could be conjectured - it is Beethoven through and through" - J.Brahms referring to the 2 cantatas - another gullible poor musician? ''

You accept surely that Brahms was very aware of the fact that questions were being raised about Beethoven being composer of these cantatas. This is exactly why he said this. And (to be fair to Brahms)he knew virtually nothing of Luchesi, was unaware too of the scale of misattribution in the case of Haydn, and had little reason to suspect that Luchesi had written music in a 'Beethoven' style decades before Beethoven.

May I recommend that Beethoven students listen to Luchesi's sonatas - these now available ?


Yes, Beethoven was greatly encouraged by Neefe. But is it not also argued that Neefe helped Beethoven in the composition of the works now in question - that he, in reality, taught Beethoven composition ? If this is not the case, let us agree so. For, at the present time, we keep hearing about Neefe being Beethoven's teacher at Bonn and this at odds with the simple reality that his true teacher was Luchesi. Beethoven gives Neefe great credit for encouraging him. Yes, this is fully accepted. But that's hardly the same thing - is it ?

I did try to suggest why Beethoven was silent on certain matters ? Surely he would have known that these superb masterpieces were by Luchesi if they were in the inventory?

As to whether Beethoven was so gullible and poor a musician that he was unable to tell Mozart from Luchesi. Nobody is speaking in those terms. It is not gullibility or poor musicianship which makes us today often ask what differences there are between, say, Haydn and Mozart. Indeed, the similarities are so great that biographers go in circles saying one influenced the other and which gave rise to a joke in 19th century Vienna that on certain days Mozart wrote like Haydn and on the other days vice-versa.

Beethoven may not even have known of Luchesi's activities. Why should he have known ? But there were many who did know. It is simply true beyond reasonable doubt that Luchesi was composing works which were quickly credited to Haydn. And even that major works of Mozart were being sent to Bonn even before their publication (e.g. The Magic Flute) - during Mozart's lifetime. (On Mozart's death the widow Constanze was in contact with the Bonn chapel on the subject of Mozart's music within days of her husband's death). It was the Bonn publisher Simrock who wrote to Gottfried Weber admitting that Mozart himself had sent the score of 'The Magic Flute' to Bonn even before its first performance - this orchestrated there prior to its publication. There is very strong evidence that Mozart had a relationship with Bonn right the way through his later Vienna career.

No, I don't think Beethoven had amnesia. I think that those with amnesia are those who forget that the Bonn archive is today in Modena containing works clearly inventoried in 1784 but today crediting Haydn and Mozart with symphonies and masses which, in 1784, were simply not credited to them. Indeed, in the 1784 Inventory not a single work at Bonn was credited to Mozart's name - this despite the fact that no less than 10 symphonies are in Modena from that same source in his name - 9 of them still in the library.

This is the same Mozart whose 'Paris' symphony can be seen in Regensburg with the name 'Mozart' clearly written on top of a still legible name of 'Luchesse'

Every effort was made to conceal these practices and I do not believe that Beethoven would necessarily have been aware of what was occurring.


You accept Peter that the Italian school had great influence on Haydn and Mozart but are not aware of anyone denying this. Well, in the case of Luchesi it seems the rules change - for (as we've been discussing all along) Luchesi's name (indeed his entire life's work) is virtually unknown despite it being very clear that he was associated with all 3 of the giants of the Vienna school, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Setting aside the evidence from Modena (which is itself enormous) we are surely discussing here the bending of historical facts to present a version that is a distortion. And all of this because Kapellmeister Luchesi must forever be a 'non person'. That, I suggest, has been the case and is still the case notwithstanding the fact (as you rightly say) that Beethoven's ignorance or silence is mysterious.

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


Dear Peter,


You accept surely that Brahms was very aware of the fact that questions were being raised about Beethoven being composer of these cantatas. This is exactly why he said this. And (to be fair to Brahms)he knew virtually nothing of Luchesi, was unaware too of the scale of misattribution in the case of Haydn, and had little reason to suspect that Luchesi had written music in a 'Beethoven' style decades before Beethoven.


And a Mozart style and a Haydn style! Brahms was merely reacting to the new discovery of these works and after studying the score he was satisfied that Beethoven was the composer.

May I recommend that Beethoven students listen to Luchesi's sonatas - these now available ?

So he did at least produce some music in his own name! Well yes I would be interested, but we can also discern Beethovian traits in the music of C.P.E.Bach, Dussek and Clementi - all composers he recommended for study. Why didn't he mention Luchesi who if he did all you claim must have been the greatest master of his day?


Yes, Beethoven was greatly encouraged by Neefe. But is it not also argued that Neefe helped Beethoven in the composition of the works now in question - that he, in reality, taught Beethoven composition ? If this is not the case, let us agree so. For, at the present time, we keep hearing about Neefe being Beethoven's teacher at Bonn and this at odds with the simple reality that his true teacher was Luchesi. Beethoven gives Neefe great credit for encouraging him. Yes, this is fully accepted. But that's hardly the same thing - is it ?

What evidence other than supposition do you have that Luchesi was Beethoven's main teacher?




Beethoven may not even have known of Luchesi's activities. Why should he have known ? But there were many who did know.


If works such as Mozart's last symphonies were in the inventory, surely he would have known? Beethoven was on close terms with all the leading members of the musical court and if many new as you say, surely it is inconceivable that Beethoven whose own grandfather had occupied the same post as Luchesi did not? If many knew, why the conspiracy of silence for 2 centuries?

Is it not possible that the Modena inventory is suspect rather than Mozart's authorship of works such as the Jupiter? Why when there are so many unanswered questions and no substantiated proof, such as letters from Mozart requesting works from Luchesi do you assume the case as fact?





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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I'm sure you're not being ignored Rod! I was dealing with the issue raised by Hofrat concerning B's later use of material from the WoO36 quartets, which I regard as incidental.

I made presisely this same point as Hofrat (about the later use of the material in op1 and 2) before his post, perhaps you missed it. No matter, I've said my piece on this subject!


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

[Rutradelusasa]

I have to agree with Peter, it DOES make a lot more sense that Mozart's masterpieces were tampered with than the other way around.
What I read in between the lines of all sites of Luchesi I've found (including the one from where this originated) is two things:
1 - It's unthinkable that someone is naturally a genious and produces masterpieces on his own, some master was behind all that. (ok, not between the lines, this is stated on the page where all came up).
2 - There is a Italians X Germans thing going on. You can tell by the way it's written: "downplay of italian achievements", "myth of the 'Wiener Klassik'", etc.

The same way Mozart could've written 'Mozart' over Lucheese, I don't see why some ill-intentioned mind couldn't have written Lucheese where Mozart is. I live in Brazil, I've seen it all done .

------------------
"Wer ein holdes weib errungen..."

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I made presisely this same point as Hofrat (about the later use of the material in op1 and 2) before his post, perhaps you missed it. No matter, I've said my piece on this subject!

Yes I may be wrong, but I had the impression Hofrat was using this as evidence in support of the Luchesi argument.

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

[Droell]

One reason for Beethoven's silence might be that he knew what was going on (presumably found out once he got to Vienna) and, given a choice between saying something & making a mess where he was, or remaining silent, he chose the later. (Yes, I know that doesn't sound like him!) If his only reference to Neefe was in a letter to Neefe, I can't think of that as being significant. In letters to Ries, Beethoven more than once suggested kissing Ries's wife, which is not to be interpreted as their having an affair. Any number of contemporaries might have known (Ries has been mentioned) and any number of them may have found it wise to remain silent. In this regard, I read in Grove that Bonn's electoral court was dissolved in 1794, which put an end to the court orchestra & presumably Luchesi's employment as well. This may have bearing.

Do dishonest things happen? Sure they do! In my particular field - which will remain nameless - I've just spent the last month demolishing the phony credentials of the no. 1 honcho in the field. A world-famous woman, a story that had stood for 29 years. Over the years a great many people had been told the truth, by someone who was there when it all got started, but had chosen, unanimously, to not act on it. (Behold the power of a web-page.)

Myself, I don't see Haydn & Mozart as necessarily blameless. I see them more as factories, producing output to meet demand. Most of what they produced was their own, but there's a possibility that a lot was not. On the one hand, there is the sheer mechanics of pumping out music to meet demand, on the other, as has been mentioned elsewhere, is the fact that works by the local hero will always outsell those of an unknown outsider. So what to do if you come across a nice work by an unknown composer? Let it lie in obscurity (and risk the eventual destruction of what may be the only copy), or stick your name on it, send it out, make a few bucks & by so doing, preserve a good work for another generation? What some might call theft, others might call self-motivated altruism. JS Bach's use of Vivaldi scores comes to mind.

In terms of publishing, an awful lot can be said about living vs: dead, local vs: remote, well-known vs: obscure, in regards to whose name ends up on the title page. As I've published a few books from the English Revolution (mid-1600's), I've run across more than one strange story.

There's also the fact that Haydn & Mozart, as intelligent adults, were well-equipped to steal, if they had a mind to. Certainly the sheer size of their output may lead to suspicions. Haydn had free access to the Esterhazy music libraries, which must have been extensive. Mozart traveled widely & had a tremendous ear for music. As for the danger of being caught, Haydn, like the phony that I nailed, could claim the authority that comes with senior standing. For Mozart, eternally broke & often out of favor, a quick success with a purloined piece of music may have outweighed the risk of being discovered. And if he was, well, he was already near the economic bottom anyway. (And are all the first 100 pieces of music credited to him really his? If not, what does that say about his upbringing?)

Beethoven is a different story. He didn't travel much, the more subtle parts of his hearing failed fairly early on & his access to private libraries was presumably limited, as he never had a court appointment.

So far as Luchesi is concerned, it seems unlikely to me that Beethoven would steal from his own teacher. On the other hand, if Mozart & Haydn stole from one, they presumably stole from others, too. In this regard, I do not think they would have been all that unusual for their day, nor do I think Viennese efforts at self-promotion would be unusual either.

The world of mis-attributed works started with the invention of moveable type & faded with the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 19th century. It had its own rules & we should suspend critical judgement until we better understand them.

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 08-20-2005).]

[sjwenger]

You've got me curious - I just ordered some Luchesi sonatas. They're unavailable from my usual sources in the U.S., but I found them at:
http://www.germanmusicexpress.com

Fate banging on the door with a jackhammer

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

Few eyebrows would be raised to say that Haydn and Mozart's styles were remarkably similar. And few would dispute that various early Beethoven works have frequently been compared stylistically to Haydn and Mozart. The missing figure in all of this (I suggest) is Luchesi.

Yes, if Luchesi did what is today being claimed of him he must certainly have been one of the greatest musical masters of his time. I'm entirely agree.

You ask what evidence (other than supposition) there is that Luchesi was Beethoven's main teacher. Honestly, Peter, is it conceivable that a young student of music at Bonn chapel could be there for virtually a decade and not have as his principal teacher the Kapellmeister himself ? Is it not a fact that the Kapellmeister of the chapel has as one of his chief responsibilities the teaching of music students ? Are we to allow this simple fact to be ignored simply because it has already been ignored for almost 200 years ? Luchesi was, by definition, Beethoven's main teacher. But so long has this abnormality of Neefe being the teacher of Beethoven goes unchallenged one must reverse the question - 'What evidence, other than supposition, do you have that Neefe (rather than Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi) was Beethoven's main teacher' ?

Luchesi was Beethoven's main teacher during the decade or so that Beethoven was at Bonn. That's not supposition but simply reality.

You say that if works such as Mozart's last symphonies were in the inventory surely Beethoven would have known about it. Yes Peter, if these particular works (the 3 symphonies called 'Mozart' 39,40, and 41) were in the Bonn inventory (which they undoubtedly were) they would have been known by Beethoven. That's very likely. But HOW they were known is another issue. He (Beethoven) may have known them as '3 symphonies by Mozart'. He may have known them as '3 symphonies by Luchesi'. Or even '3 symphonies by an 'anonymous' composer' - the third of which (after all) is precisely how they were inventoried at Bonn in 1784.

The conspiracy of silence to which you refer comes from the fact that the 'Vienna School' was a pet project of Max Franz, the elector of Bonn, brother of the Austrian Emperor, who sought to gain glory for Austrian music and used Haydn and Mozart to achieve this. His relatives were in Modena and that is why the archives finally arrived there with a whole series of works now attributed (wrongly) to Haydn and Mozart though not inventoried as such in Bonn.

The Bonn music archives were taken by Max Franz in October 1794 to the castle of Bad Mergentheim to escape the possibility of them being ransacked by the invading French army. The following month (November 1794) the Bonn/Cologne Principality was dissolved. Max Franz died in 1801. And we know that the archives were not returned to Bonn (now in Prussian hands) and were illegally held (being the real property of the people of the principality) before they finally arrived in far away Modena. We know from S. Brandenburg (Beethoven Yearbook 1978) that these music archives were certainly in Modena by 1836. And we know they were first studied in detail by the Modena Librarian, Angelo Catelani in 1851. (Catelani emphatically says in 1851 that they had not been touched by anyone since the time they arrived in Italy and had certainly not been properly catalogued - something he, Catelani, started to do). He (Catelani) noted many of the covers of these works had purposely been torn off and that they had been inventoried later than 1784 (various reference numbers being found on each work).

But it was to be the late 20th century before detailed comparison was made between these Bonn works at Modena and the details found in the 1784 Inventory Book over which Neefe had presided at Bonn.

You ask if the errors were actually made in Modena rather than in Bonn. I don't think so. There is simply too much evidence of a deliberate attempt to deceive, this starting at Bonn with describing these works as having been written by 'anonymous' writers. (The Inventory of 1784 was made with Luchesi absent). And, at Modena, nobody profited from attriubting these works to Haydn and Mozart. Clearly, this affair was done to further the reputation and status of Haydn/Mozart and such a view is entirely consistent with a great deal of other evidence.

Anyway, thank you very much for allowing this exchange. I've no doubt that these issues will be far more openly and comprehensively debated in the near future even though they seem so improbable.

Robert Newman


If works such as Mozart's last symphonies were in the inventory, surely he would have known? Beethoven was on close terms with all the leading members of the musical court and if many new as you say, surely it is inconceivable that Beethoven whose own grandfather had occupied the same post as Luchesi did not? If many knew, why the conspiracy of silence for 2 centuries?

Is it not possible that the Modena inventory is suspect rather than Mozart's authorship of works such as the Jupiter? Why when there are so many unanswered questions and no substantiated proof, such as letters from Mozart requesting works from Luchesi do you assume the case as fact?