Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

[Droell]

Dear Robert,

Bear with me a moment. I got confused with the discussion as it developed. So I looked around & found http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/epi...4/ep4tabog.htm
this</a>. From it, I got the impression that Luchesi was a talented kid who got himself a nice gig in Bonn, fixing the damage that Beethoven's grandfather left. It must have paid well. But as he was unable to publish anything under his own name, it seems to me he got the idea of selling his work to the highest bidder. Perhaps as a way of making cash on the side, perhaps to find his music a wider audience (Bonn's not a very big town), perhaps for critical acclaim, perhaps to rescue it from oblivion.

He found a taker in Max Franz, who funnels Luchesi's music to Haydn & Mozart. Establishing the truth shouldn't be all that much of a problem. There's the watermarks, there's the catalogs. If original manuscripts can be found, there's handwriting. If they match up then we should be brave & go where they take us.

This puts a new slant on why & when Beethoven left Bonn for Vienna. Was he sent as Luchesi's emmissary? Was it at the behest of Max Franz? Had the Bonn court not been dissolved, Beethoven, not Mozart, would have been Luchesi's logical successor. Since musical theory is not learned overnight, Beethoven was obviously trained before he arrived in Vienna. I presume we can determine if Neefe really was an adequate pedagogue & if not, we should look around for some other teacher.

Does this make any sense, or am I still looking in the wrong direction?

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


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

Well it has been a very interesting debate! I can't accept all you say for the simple reason that you have to prove these allegations to the satisfaction of the musical establishment - if you have indisputable evidence this should be possible. There are so many unanswered questions and much supposition - I have little knowledge of Luchesi and no access to the relevant documents such as the Modena inventory. However all logic suggests that such a conspiracy going undetected for so long is highly improbable.


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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-21-2005).]

[WoO]

Young LvB made his first journey to Vienna in 1787 (he was 16 then). Why? To meet Mozart!
So, if Luchesi-Mozart was right there on the spot, in Bonn, why bother at all?

BTW, I have got a Luchesi CD: "Sei sonate Op.1" (Sei sonate per il cembalo con l'accompagnamento di un violino), published in 1772
Label: Agorà Musica (c) 1999
Number: AG 210.1
Maria Grazia Baiocchi, piano
Carlos Garfias, violin
Recorded April 1996 (World Première)

Regards
WoO

[Hofrat]

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

No, I was not using the Beethoven piano quartets to support the Luchesi argument. Beethoven's later use of their thematic material neither supports nor negates the argument.

There is some credence to this Luchesi argument. Some points I can make are:

1. The practice of publishers to change the names of the composers to boost sales. See my Kraus example.

2. Erroneous attributions by musicologists. For example, Brahms' "Variations on a Haydn theme" should be "Variations on a Pleyel theme."

3. Haydn did knowingly submit compositions of Pleyel as his own.

4. Mozart knowingly rewrote his oboe concerto for the flute and submitted it as a new composition.

I am trying to maintain neutrality of opinion on this most interesting argument. I commend Mr. Newman on bringing this before our forum for discussion.


Hofrat

[sam]

hi. forget my awful english( i'm an italian music lover). i choose to register myself in this area after reading some of your very interesting comments. in particular, i find into a topic posted some weeks ago, some lines regarding a top 500 classical works listed by classic fm. where can i find that playlist? are you son kind to indicate me the link? thanks!

[Rod]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
No, I was not using the Beethoven piano quartets to support the Luchesi argument. Beethoven's later use of their thematic material neither supports nor negates the argument.

There is some credence to this Luchesi argument. Some points I can make are:

1. The practice of publishers to change the names of the composers to boost sales. See my Kraus example.

2. Erroneous attributions by musicologists. For example, Brahms' "Variations on a Haydn theme" should be "Variations on a Pleyel theme."

3. Haydn did knowingly submit compositions of Pleyel as his own.

4. Mozart knowingly rewrote his oboe concerto for the flute and submitted it as a new composition.

I am trying to maintain neutrality of opinion on this most interesting argument. I commend Mr. Newman on bringing this before our forum for discussion.


Hofrat

I am not concerned with the Mozart/Haydn allegations, it is the Beethoven ones that are important here and nothing has been substantiated to even the slightest degree from what I've read so far in this chain. Adieu!

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-22-2005).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by Rod:
I am not concerned with the Mozart/Haydn allegations, it is the Beethoven ones that are important here and nothing has substantiated to even the slightest degree from what I've read so far in this chain. Adieu!

The Beethoven angle is not that he stuck his name on Luchesi's work - it seems clear he did not - but whose agent he was. Does he come to Vienna of his own free will, was he enticed to go as part of a continuing plan to make Vienna the world's capital of music, or did he come on Luchesi's behalf to see what was really going on? Was Luchesi behind the 1786 visit to Vienna? Did Beethoven play for Mozart, or did Mozart "play" for Beethoven?

Luchesi had to be in on this. That he did not know is not credible. To stop it all he needed to do was put a small notice in any newspaper, such as, "the symphony heard at the concert at the Festhaus (or wherever) on the 14 of last month is the property of the Elector of Bonn." That he was out of town in 1784 when the catalog was made sounds like dirty dealing, but even if so, he had to have at least tolerated the situation. Was Beethoven's first trip to Vienna, two years later, his secret response?

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:



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

Dear Robert,

Browsing on a rather dull Sunday afternoon through the Mozart forum I came across the debate there which seemed to have taken place about a year ago. You conclude with these views which seem rather to contradict the position you hold on this forum:


"Thank you for sharing your ideas. I agree with you about Mr Taboga's writings. (I wrote to him twice recently).
He believes that virtually every symphony by Joseph Hadyn was actually composed by either Luchesi or another Italian composer. He also believes that many symphonies by Mozart were also written by the same composers. These opinions are so improbable and so enormous that I have personally rejected them as untrue.
At the same time, I am sure that Luchesi had great impact and influence on the history of Vienna's great trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven - but was certainly not composer of many (if any) works by Mozart.
Nor do I agree with Mr Taboga's theory about Mozart's murder."


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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-21-2005).]

[sam]

i've already find that playlist after a brief research through the classic fm's site. well what a disappontiment! after seeing j. williams' schindler's list far ahead of mozart' marriage of figaro I understand many things about their cultural richness and so i prefer to close the page.. it has been a waste of time! thanks for the same to you.

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

I agree with a great deal of what has been said in recent postings.

It would be very difficult for me to accept (and I do not suggest it) that the young Beethoven was a partner of Luchesi in any other sense than teacher/pupil. I believe myself they co-operated on a number of early works at Bonn but I do not believe that Beethoven is guilty of anything and have not suggested such.

Having said this, you can see the extent to which Luchesi's very name is suppressed from literature on early Beethoven. This in itself is so remarkable that it was the reason for me first being interested in the research of Giorgio Taboga in Italy.

Having worked for some years on a Mozart biography there was to some extent a parallel course. So I wrote to Mr Taboga in Italy (using an email address) and, after several exchanges, received from him a lengthy article on works falsely attributed to Haydn and Mozart.

That article was extraordinary and it focuses on his own research at Modena in the Bonn archives taken there.

In many respects I found myself disagreeing with Mr Taboga (and still do). But, on the issues that interested me at the time (works falsely attributed to Mozart and Haydn) I found his work to be truly remarkable. I still do.

I know for sure that Taboga's research has been the cause of considerable debate despite it being still little known. Both the Haydn Institute and the Mozarteum are dismissive of his main thesis - wholesale misattribution. (I know too that the current director of the Beethoven Institute is described as consciously perverting evidence and that Taboga has not been slow to say similar things about the Mozarteum). There has also been (around the year 2000) a concerted attempt by several musicologists for Luchesi's life and work to be more fairly credited in Beethoven studies.

Mr Taboga is virtually saying that Haydn wrote no symphonies at all. He is saying too that Mozart was a greatly talented young man as a performer but that his musical biography is to a great extent a myth - that he and his supposed achievements were the product of a publicity campaign, a pet project, that used composers such as Luchesi.

I strongly disagree with Taboga when he suggests that entire operas of Mozart were also not of Mozart's composition. To me, a great discovery of the symphonies could easily be ruined by him arguing in this way - and I have written recently to tell him so.

My musical instinct (like that of others) tells me there is indeed a murky side to the symphonic history of Haydn and Mozart but I do not think this has major implications for Beethoven studies. Nor do I think this should be viewed as 'Italy versus Germany'.

It appears that Max Franz was simply determined at any cost to create the idea of a supreme Viennese tradition, even by crediting wholesale a great number of works to Haydn and Mozart. Far from being sucked in to this I think Beethoven broke free of being involved and remained independent of these matters. At least, that is my view.

The circumstances surrounding Beethoven's early years at Bonn are still shrouded in mystery though I do believe that Luchesi provides a key to resolving many of them.

There are a great number of things that could be said on these matters but I feel it only right that I should have clarified here where I agree with Taboga and where I cannot agree with him.

Do I personally think that the mature symphonies of Mozart's last years in Vienna were actually written by Luchesi ? Yes, I think this is likely. Let me just end on Mozart's G Minor Symphony (a copy of which is found at Modena) and which Taboga argues was written before mid-1783. Here is an excerpt from notes Taboga sent to me some months ago -

'Difficulties are well known in accepting that Mozart could compose only within 6 weeks the three symphonies K543, 550 and 551 'Jupiter'. Also the opinion is accepted that Mozart could never perform these last 3 symphonies and no proof of performance has ever been given. According to my opinion, it is evident that the 3 symphonies have been composed by the same author and the fact (previously discussed) that the Jupiter is not a work of Mozart excludes too that K543 is by him also. Today I am sure that K551 and K543 were performed in Bonn and in Wallerstein, Mozart still being alive at the time, but it was not Mozart who sent them there. Indeed, copies of K543 and 551 Jupiter now at Augsburg (coming there from Oettingen/Wallerstein) are not even refered to in the Koechel catalogue. We must further signalise that K550, the second of this trilogy, was ordered 'exclusively' by Mozart from Luchesi and this is why it alone does not appear in the C.53.1 catalogue at Modena - in the same way that we do not find 'Haydn' London symphonies there also, these ordered exclusively by Haydn/Salomon. K550's transcendence is a Traettian one. Luchesi, unlike Mozart, was a long time on friendly terms with Traetta in Venice and this explains a similarity of themes and incisiveness, bordering on plagiarism. I also recall that in June 1784 Andrea Luchesi took Traetta's place at the keyboard at the performance of 'Antigona' in the Padua New Theatre on the occasion of the St Anthony's Fair. Robert Zanetti wrote -

'In 1778 we see registered a new comic work by Traetta for the same San Moise. This is 'Knight Errant' on a Bertati libretto that was completed as a radical readaption of the 'Stordilana - Grenada's Prince', a work born in Parma 18 years before. This work, whose handwritten score is still extant, with the title 'The Knight Errant' has been much talked about not so much for its musical and dramatic value as for its analogies of cuts and attitudes with Mozart's G Minor Symphony, K550, a work whose composition is still 10 years in the future'.

As we know, two versions of Mozart 40 exist, the original (by Luchesi) without clarinets, and one with clarinets, added by Mozart for a performance that may have taken place in 1791 though we have no proof of this. In the light of these facts it is evidence that in this 42 day period Mozart did not compose, but plainly recopied in his own handwriting and entered in his own name (according to agreements reached in 1784) 3 symphonies of Luchesi that had actually been composed at different periods - the first before 1783 (Jupiter), the second after 1784 (K543) and the third K550 specially ordered with exclusivity agreement for at least 5 years. This can help explain why the handwritten symphonies K543 and K551 arrived in Wallerstein and why K550, published by Andre Offenbach only 5 years later. It was not Mozart that sent the handwritten K543 and K551 to Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein. It is evident that Prince Oettingen - who in 1784 kept buying 'Haydn' symphonies but not from Haydn, began also to acquire 'Mozart' symphonies, but not from Mozart, also after 1784.''


Thanks again for your fair mindedness in looking at these quite complex issues. I think Mr Taboga deserves great credit in many respects even though (as mentioned) there are areas on which I cannot agree with him.

Robert Newman

[Peter]

Dear Robert,

Your position has of course changed from saying "but Luchesi was certainly not the composer of many (if any) works by Mozart" to "Do I personally think that the mature symphonies of Mozart's last years in Vienna were actually written by Luchesi ? Yes, I think this is likely."

Presumably this is down to the exchanges you have had with Mr.Taboga, but I wonder what exchanges you have had with the major institutions concerning his allegations and why you do not accept their views? You admit that many of Taboga's findings are suspect, so surely this in itself should raise alarm bells as to the rest? One also wonders why if Luchesi had sent these symphonies to Haydn and Mozart that there was a copy in the Bonn inventory in the first place? Why make a copy if you're trying to deceive? Why list the evidence?

Haydn seems to be Taboga's main target. I wonder how he explains the use of Croation folk music and rhythms in the Italian Luchesi's 'Haydn symphonies'? In 1878 Dr. Kuhac began to publish his great collection of South - Slavonic melodies and in 1880 he supplemented it by a special pamphlet on Haydn's relation to them. Throughout Haydn's career these can be demonstrated, as in the last 2 London symphonies. Haydn's music is saturated with Croatian melody, and the resemblances are beyond question. Some of his tunes are folksong in their simplest form, some are folksongs altered and improved, the vast majority are original, but display the same general characteristics.

As to it having no bearing on Beethoven's works your position is again contradictory because you and Taboga list a whole series of early Beethoven pieces such as the 2 cantatas apparently not by him.

As regards to Luchesi, one could also argue why no interest in Beethoven's other teachers Gilles Van den Eeden, Tobias Pfeiffer, F.G.Rovantini, Franz Ries, W.Koch and Zenser or even Neefe who himself was a composer of note having written a considerable number of works before he came to Bonn including songs, sonatas and operas, the most popular of which was "Adelheit von Veltheim" produced at Frankfurt in 1780. Franz Ries is of particular interest because he did not die until 1846 and thus would have had to have been part of this conspiracy of silence along with Beethoven and Neefe.

Doubtless there are works in Koechel, Hoboken and Kinsky that shouldn't be there for one reason or another and I think it would be helpful if a thorough review of these catalogues were undertaken to help identify that which is spurious. I do also actually think you are right to raise these issues regarding Luchesi but I would like to hear some of the counter arguments from the main institutions.

By the way a search on Google image reveals that Luchesi and Neefe both look identical so something is definitely amiss there!


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-22-2005).]

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

Yes, my position has changed since I first came in to contact with the subject of Andrea Luchesi through things written of him by Giorgio Taboga and others - these appearing only in the last decade or so. My first reaction to reading of this from various websites (this as someone who has lovingly studied the life and works of Mozart for the better part of 20 years or so) was of course surprise. Mr Taboga's ideas on Haydn and Mozart seemed incredible, outrageous etc. and simply 'had' to be wrong. (Taboga would go so far as to make Mozart virtually a myth and I next learned that Haydn wrote virtually not a single symphony !). In recent correspondence I told him my view that this is an extreme position and that I personally think it would not help his cause. (I said too that in terms of the Modena archive - i.e. symphonies credited to Mozart and symphonies/masses credited to Haydn) he was already in a very powerful position if he focused solely on that, but that if he argues (as he wishes to) that certain operas were not Mozart's also ...this (I said) was not something I could take seriously without at least the same sort of documentary and other arguments he has undoubtedly provided for the Modena symphonic material.

I think it almost inevitable that in something as far reaching and controversial as this it's inevitable for any researcher not to see the wood for the trees on certain issues (myself included). In my recent contacts with Mr Taboga I again urged him to focus on his strongest points (Mozart symphonies and Haydn symphonies/masses as they are now found at Modena) rather than unleash a tirade of criticism (as seems to now be occurring) against what he sees as great injustices from 'dogmatists' - whether these are deserved or not.

There is no doubt that much can be criticised of many things popularly believed about Mozart. There is evidence of things being suppressed/censored even in early Mozart biography (e.g. in the works of Niemetscheck, of Nissen, etc. (both of whom served as censors of the state) and of course in the works/statements on many issues by Constanze Mozart (and also criticism is justified of men such as F X Sussmayr and especially Maximilian Stadler). There is evidence (some of which I am still working on that the Requiem, K626, for example, was not by Mozart etc. etc. and that a great number of things about Mozart's life and Vienna career were hidden - one clear example being the court case brought against Mozart by Lichnowsky, e.g. It's little known too that Maximilian Stadler (who had early access to Mozart's manuscripts after Mozart's death) worked for the secret consistory court system at Linz between 1791-5 etc. etc. and that there is even evidence even within Mozart's lifetime of an attempt to forge his (Mozart's) musical handwriting at the time of the composer's association with Artaria in Vienna.

Moving on to Haydn, yes, one of my criticisms against the Luchesi theory was indeed that we find in many Haydn symphonies tunes from Croatia etc. This is indisputable as you correctly say. But, at the same time, I agree that virtually any musician can have such tunes easily accomodated within a piece attributed to him and their use in Haydn in itself does not prove Haydn wrote these works. So, again, my position definitely shifted. Haydn was able to provide these folk tunes whether or not he actually wrote these symphonies.

Has my change of mind been mainly down to the exchanges I've had with Mr Taboga (?). Yes, certainly. I checked much of his material myself and agree with much of it but by no means all. But in the great pile of notes he kindly sent me (which I have rewritten in to a more accessible form of English only within the last 4 weeks or so), there truly is compelling evidence as a whole that something quite unusual is being discussed that relates to major and systematic misattribution that cannot easily be dismissed.

You ask what exchanges have been made on these matters with the major musical institutions and what their response/reaction has been so far.

Well, of course I can only speak from what I know and what I personally have experienced on these questions. (No doubt Mr Taboga and his colleagues can give you a great deal more information than I on this).

I personally made Tabogas thesis available in coherent English (this first in order to learn from it myself in my own attempt at a Mozart biography) but also in order to submit it (as I have already done) first to Mr Taboga in gratitude for sharing it, then to bodies such as the Mozart Society of America, to the board responsible for making the new Koechel Edition (asking them the simple question of whether recent discoveries at Modena have had any bearing on their new Koechel as regards Mozart's symphonic output) - neither of whom have had time to respond - and have also sent a copy of this same Taboga material (some 200 pages or so with over 150 footnotes/quotations etc) to people such as the Moderators of the Mozart Forum. I've also had two online exchanges with the Director of the Hadyn Institute, detailed correspondence with senior librarians at the National Library in Vienna, several debates/discussions with a leading writer on Mozart's symphonies, Neal Zaslaw, (who recently finished a highly acclaimed book on the subject for the Oxford University Press) but who is currently too busy to reply.

It would be fair to say too that Herr Brandbenburg (whose expertise is Beethoven) is no longer ignorant of Andrea Luchesi nor of Giorgio Taboga and has before him with the article good reason to reconsider a number of things he has previously written on the subject.

As to reactions, well, of course, what does an 'establishment' do when it is challenged on such remarkable issues ? It first of all seeks to discredit the source, then it denies the subject is worthy of their time and expertise, and finally it responds with statements such as 'we know very well that this interpretation may be put on these things but.....'. In response to the simple question of why the writers of Koechel seem to have amnesia every time it comes to listing copies of symphonies which contradict their 'traditional view', well, they simply remain silent. Viewed as a whole, I began to see (as Taboga does) that certain views are set in concrete because they have always been portrayed/understood in that way. Luchesi cannot be the real teacher of the young Beethoven because, well, because, because, he has never been mentioned as such (oops.) never been in need of discussion, etc.

The fact that certain documents in Vienna which would have told us clearly of what happened to the Bonn archive before its eventual arrival in Italy have gone missing, or that Tyson's paper studies have made a nonsense of literally dozens of early Mozart works, well, this too is admitted grudgingly, (but only in obscure footnotes or in rare unguarded moments of honesty. No major change is thought necessary).

In the case of Mozart, we have no evidence from Salzburg that anyone there knew of the composer's death for months after it occurred. Not even his sister. And yet, decades later, it was of course necessary to 'rehabilitate' Mozart with the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg funding the first Mozarteum himself - an astonishing story in itself. (Mozart had to die in myth as a faithful servant of the church - 'grey messengers' and all - and this myth making took years to arrive at its modern form). So did the Requiem.

200 years after these events, I think we can compare the emergence of the Haydn/Mozart mythology to Neil Armstrong setting his foot on the film studio/Moon surface in 1969 - with certain people sure that the sheer force of tradition is truth in itself and others, more questioning, seeing it as relentless and specially stubborn propaganda.

Being fairly close to finishing a biography of Mozart myself (perhaps a year away) I still regard Mozart as a tremendous musical genius, able to turn musical 'river mud' in to 'pearls'. So, whether he used others for his mature symphonies or not, I think the picture that has emerged for me from all this remarkable material (of which Mr Taboga's work is only a part) is Mozart a man who lived to orchestrate, to arrange, to fashion things in a way we can compare to Shakespeare. A musical master in dramatic effect. But not the man that we find 'sugar coated' in Salzburg. A much more 'normal' man than I had previously supposed.

Peter, I hope my personal position with regard to the cantatas today credited to Beethoven is not quite as contradictory as you might think. It's my personal opinion that Luchesi and Beethoven probably worked together on these very cantatas (and indeed on various other early works which Beethoven has had attributed to him) - these therefore forged during his student time in Bonn. But I'm in no position to argue against anyone who disagrees with that.

I finish here with a number of 'possibly related' footnotes/comments which may/may not be of relevance, seeing that these issues will surely rumble on whether we are familiar with them or not.

On Haydn -

1. There is (apparently) in the British Library a set of parts of 'Haydn's' Nelson Mass that, according to Carl Maria Brand, 'Die Messen von J Haydn' (1941) p.320 (n.47) is in the hand of Joseph Elssler senior. (He died in 1782).

2. J.B. de la Borde 'Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne' (Paris, 1780) Volume 3 has a section on 'Lucchesi' and says that his symphonies are in great demand amongst German princes. Not one of these symphonies have survived. Haydn and Mozart are not even mentioned as writers of symphonies in this publication.

3. It was not until the 1920's that it was generally agreed that large parts of the Bonn music archive are at Modena - till then the subject had simply been ignored or downplayed.

4. In 1773 Luchesi published with the permission of the Bonn Elector through the court publisher F. Rommerskirchen 6 sonatas, Op.1 and also 3 symphonies Op.2, 2 Piano Concertos and 3 Piano Trios, these all disappeared also.

5. Prince Auersperg's Kapellmeister (Johann Schenk), for a short time a teacher to Beethoven in Vienna, regarded Haydn throughout all his life as being 'false' without ever giving detailed justification for his opinion.

6. Of the first 78 'Haydn' symphonies which Hadyn is said to have composed between 1759 and 1784, no less than 46 of these lack performance parts at Esterhazy.

On Mozart -

1. 'What does not do you credit is better to remain unknown. For this reason I did not release to others any of your symphonies, as I foresee that in a riper age, when the critical capacity grows, you'll be happy they do not belong to anyone, even though, when you wrote them, you were personally satisfied. One grows more and more exigent'.
(Leopold Mozart to Wolfgang 24th September 1778).

2. A huge (but typical) error about the crucial Bonn archive in Italy is found in the New Oxford History of Music (section 'The symphony and concerto in the age of enlightenment) where it is said that 'Many of the manuscripts at Modena and Florence are in the hands of Viennese copyists who were sent there (to Italy) because of the dynastic relations with the Habsburgs'. There is not a shred of evidence that these 'Viennese copyists' came to Italy specially to copy these manuscripts. They are none other than the very manuscripts which arrived there from Bonn and which featured in the 1784 inventory. But rather than admit this, we have such inventions being used.


On Beethoven -

1. At Berlin conference on Beethoven held in June 2000 attended by S. Brandenburg, Luigi della Croce argued without reply that Luchesi should surely be recognised in Beethoven studies. Silence. (for the 'nth' time).

2. At a music conference held at Padua in June 1980 on the subject of the origins of Vienna's music -

' The term 'Wiener Klassik' does not satisfy me in the least. For, if a style is represented only by 3 musicians and all others are predecessors or imitators, there is no true style in music or in any other art - there are then only 3 persons and their imitators. But, in fact, and to the contrary, the early Viennese classical music must necessarily be linked to the sacred music produced in Lombardy and in Venice...Padua and the Lombardy school were vital. Discoveries have really just begun but we need to take these in to account without delay...' (J. Kantner - round table discussion on music of F.A. Valloti, Padua, 1980 - p.617-619).

Regards


RN



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-23-2005).]

[robert newman]

Dear Rutradelusasa,

I truly respect your view (and that of Peter) that Mozart's and even Haydn's masterpieces may have been 'tampered with' in Modena rather than the other way around. In fact, this possibility is the first one would consider (quite rightly), seeing that Mozart and Haydn have huge and living reputations whilst Luchesi had/has virtually none.

Since this possibility must be seriously considered perhaps we can look at it briefly here with regard to some of those symphonies today attributed to the mature Mozart.

At Modena in the Estense Library there are today 13 symphonies with the name 'Mozart' on them in that archive, and a fourteenth ('Jupiter') that is not present there but can be derived from other catalogue sources/incipits from catalogue C.53.1 at Modena etc). It is today acknowledged that much of the material inventoried at Bonn in 1784 makes up this same collection.

These 14 symphonies by 'Mozart' are listed below (references given are those of Koechel and of the archives at Modena themselves. The dates are dubious but are those given by Koechel ) -

Modena Reference Koechel Koechel Date
1. E-55 K320 1779
2. - K338 -
3. E-158 K203 1774
4. E-154 K200 1774
5. E-159 K385 1782
6. E-161 K319 1779
7. - K425 1783
8. E-157 K201 1774
9. - K250 1776
10.E-160 K297 1778
11.E-162 K504 1786
12.D-640 K551 1788
13. - K543 1788
14.E-156 K182 1775

(The 4 symphonies from the above that were attributed to Mozart at Bonn before the Bonn archives came to Modena are therefore K338, K425, K250 and K543)

Now, in the 1784 Bonn archive a group of 10 symphonies is listed. But these same Mozart symphonies were falsely described there as 'de differents auteurs' (implying that more than one composer was involved but not giving reason why they were not named). We know that between 1784 and 1794 a further 4 symphonies were added at Bonn (these labelled 'Mozart'). Thus the total of known 'Mozart' symphonies at Bonn was 10+4 =14 in total by the time they left for Italy.

The writers of Koechel are so afraid of these manuscripts being at Modena that they entirely failed in the 6th edition of Koechel to refer to either K504 or K551 - the reason being, of course, that the evidence from Modena excludes the possibility that these two works were written years after 1784.

Leaving aside these two famous works for a moment let's look next at K385 'Haffner'. Correspondence tells us that, following urgent demands from his father (made on July 27th, July 31st and 7th August 1782)Mozart sent to Salzburg some pieces for a serenade to celebrate the title of nobility confered on Sigmund Haffner and he recommended to his father to use a March contained within the 1st Haffner Serenade (K250) which had been composed in July 1776.

This was a suggestion that Leopold Mozart did not follow. Firstly, he could not use the pieces Mozart sent to him because the nobility of Haffner was actually celebrated on 29th July 1782 and no work had been received from Mozart by that date. Leopold therefore resorted to other music at his disposal in Salzburg, and this explains why, when Leopold 'sent back' the work in January 1783 Mozart did not even recognise it as his own composition. (In Mozart's letter of 15th February 1783 he writes, 'I did not remember one note')- this some 6 months after its supposed composition. To this symphony (not one by Mozart but actually by Luchesi) Leopold in Salzburg added trumpets and timpani, stretching it into a serenade fit for the event. On his part, Mozart in Vienna, on its receipt, restored it to a symphony again and added flutes and clarinets, performing it as his own composition in a concert held on 23rd March 1783.

The parts we see of this 'Mozart' symphony at Modena are of a symphony without the trumpets and timpani added by Leopold and ALSO without the flutes and clarinets added by Wolfgang - the very original, therefore, which Leopold had before him in Salzburg. (Needless to say, Koechel speaks nothing about this 'unique' version.

The scoring of K385 at Modena (similar to that of K201 and K203) enables us to suggest a composition date for the piece of around 1774.

K385 is also one of the first 'Mozart' symphonies to be widely printed. (Artaria had it in print by 1785, one year after the Luchesi/Mozart arrangement. We are therefore faced not with a Mozart serenade adapted to a symphony (as is conventionally believed) but with a Luchesi symphony that Leopold Mozart transformed in to a Serenade in Salzburg and which Wolfgang turned back to a symphony with new orchestration.

K297 is a work on which a great deal has been written. Mozart angered his father by not explaining why he had to leave Paris so suddenly after its performance. The Regensburg copy of this work (the one in which Mozart's name supersedes of Luchesse) is not even refered to in Kochel. It too was in Bonn in 1784.

K318 and K319 sound very much like the work of two completely different composers (as has often been noted).

Still more revealing is K320,'Posthorn Serenade'. This too is a Luchesi symphony transformed into a Serenade by adding two movements (andantino and a rondo). The story that it was written for Colloredo's birthday is unfounded (30th September) since this differs from the date on the manuscript. There are again no trumpets or timpani in the Modena version, which clearly predates the version used at Salzburg.

K425 'Linz' (also known as Mozart 36) only became such after 1908 when it was finally decreed that K444 was NOT the work that Mozart allegedly wrote at Linz. (K425 is not in Mozart's personal catalogue, the autograph is lacking and its composition in 3 days must be excluded on various grounds). The transfer of the 'Linz' title from K444 to K425 is one of those acts of conjuring that even the Mozarteum must be a little ashamed has happened so blatantly. This work, K425 proves two forgeries. The first by Mozart by placing at the start of K444 a short adagio in order to modify its incipit and so to pass it off as his own work. The second, by musicologists, who, now attributing the rest to Michael Haydn have also transfered the legends relative to it to K425 - though K444 is yet another Luchesi symphony.

K182 and K183 are still another example of two virtually different composers.

The 6 quartets of Mozart K168-173 are generally recognised to be amongst the very poorest of Mozart's compositions. And yet they are written at a time when (according to popular belief) Mozart was shortly to write K182 !

As for K183, the proofs that this is by Mozart are so neglible that its true provenance still remains an open question.

One could go on at great length on these issues. The Modena archives (I suggest) hold certain works which needed to be 'buried' since they called in question the provenance of these works (already circulating at that time in the name of Mozart and of Haydn).

If these 10 symphonies are correctly attributed to Mozart in Modena why were they not correctly attributed in 1784 at Bonn, from where they originated ?

I cannot personally understand what anyone stood to gain by attempting to pawn off works of Mozart as though they were by Luchesi, and see no example of this, even in the 'Paris' symphony copy at Regensburg - since it was in print in Paris within months of its first performance. (For a Kapellmeister to do so would lead to his instant dismissal as occurred in 1846 when Kapellmeister Robert Fuhrer was fired for trying to pass off as his a Mass by Franz Schubert - (see M. Lademburger in 'Beethoven' (1989) p. 61).

I think the evidence (viewed as a whole) strongly indicates that Mozart in his own lifetime certainly was credited with being the composer of all the above works, whether or not he wrote them.

Best regards

Robert N

[robert newman]

Dear Droell,

I think you understand the basic idea quite well although I have no idea whether Beethoven was sent to Vienna by Luchesi.

The whole affair is so puzzling that, as I see it, the most logical explanation (not necessarily the correct one) is that Luchesi was working for both Haydn and Mozart. But is THAT logical ?? The alternative (that Haydn and Mozart were somehow working for the obscure and virtually unknown Andrea Luchesi) seems even more bizzare.

Looks like a case for Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson !

Robert N

[Peter]

Dear Robert,

It would be possible to construct any number of other theories around this. How about an entire Italian conspiracy for example? That is no less believable than what you are suggesting. Niemetschek wrote immediately after Mozart's death "Mozart's enemies and slanderers became so vehement, particularly towards the end of his life...These stories and lies were so shameless, so scandalous."

Let's look at your theory from Max Franz's point of view - he wants to assert the dominance of Austrian music and he wants the inferior Mozart for this purpose. Unfortunately realising he's stuck with this greater genius (the true author of Haydn's music) who can write music in any style, he instructs the willing Luchesi to do this and thanks him by cutting his salary. All the Bonn musicians (including Beethoven, Neefe and Ries) are aware of this and agree never to speak of it, even decades after. Haydn continues sending folk tunes heard around Esterhazy to Luchesi. Then twice Max Franz agrees to send the young Beethoven to study with both men he knows to be inferior in Vienna, rather than insisiting on him remaining in Bonn with the great Luchesi. He expresses his displeasure in a letter to Haydn that Beethoven has not produced any thing of note since leaving Bonn! (Odd if he knew Haydn to be a fraud and Luchesi to be the source of Beethoven's early works?)
On top of this he instructs that a record of the deceit be made and this damning piece of evidence instead of being destroyed to prevent its falling into enemy hands conveniently ends up in Italian Modena.

Now let's look at it from Luchesi's point of view - if he has the genius to produce the works claimed for him, what on earth is he doing in Bonn? Why is it preferable to remain in Bonn indulging in fraudulent activity at the whim of a German prince who would rather he wasn't there anyway? If he is a Haydn and Mozart combined and can see the fame and glory they achieved through his work, why not go to the Italian dominated court at Vienna and have his masterpieces published in his own name. Why stay silent even 10 years after the death of Mozart? If he is now obscure then he has only himself to blame for being a)stupid and b)deceitful or more likely simply one of the many talented but now forgotten lesser composers.

Beethoven was in close contact for years with all of the men (except Mozart)involved in this theory, and we are supposed to accept that he was either unaware or that he was involved? Neither is feasable.

Regarding your comment "In the case of Mozart, we have no evidence from Salzburg that anyone there knew of the composer's death for months after it occurred. Not even his sister." Well it was noted in the Wiener Zeitung on 7th Dec 1791, there was a report in a Berlin paper on the 31st Dec and Haydn knew of it in London on 20th Dec -most likely Salzburg knew within days.


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-23-2005).]