Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


    I do not think that the young Beethoven's visit to Vienna (at which time he may have met Mozart) proves any motive by Max Franz. They barely met one another (if at all) and Beethoven may not even have known about the politics with which Haydn/Mozart/Luchesi and Max Franz were involved.



    Beethoven needed no instructions. He thought he was perhaps only 7 years old at the time. If he came back with no "story" at all, that might have been all that was needed.




    I tend to agree with you that by December 1791 Mozart's enemies considered him a lapsed heretic. I also agree that a court-imposed sentence would have provided the reason for him being able to predict with some precision the time when his life was in danger.




    But was the sentence really death, or did Mozart invent that to make himself a martyr & so perhaps manipulate the authorities into a reprieve? If they wanted to make Mozart an example of the restored order, slow death by poison isn't the way to go about it. The Golden Fleece is an interesting angle. I know nothing about them (other than a possible alchemical connection), the histories on the net are sanitized. One could make the Vienna chapter out to be an unscrupulous secret magical order who laid one whammy of a curse on Mozart, but this is not the sort of thing secret groups, even nasty ones, want to do. To get them laying a curse on Mozart (which would explain a lot of what Mozart himself was saying about his ultimate demise), I have to put him in the group, I have to have him betray the group in some way they would regard as dangerous, and I have to find a reasonably effective means of making the curse. (How reckless was W.A. Mozart?)





    I honestly believe that the Memorial Service of 10th December 1791 at St Michael's Vienna was the place where a Requiem of Mozart's own composition was sung, this completed by the composer. But news of this small gathering caused great embarrasment and the 'Requiem' project was begun - so that K626 (finally manufactured and published virtually 10 years after Mozart's death) is today portrayed as being 'Mozart's Requiem'. (There are even two newspaper reports that the Requiem was being prepared for performance in early 1792).





    The mass is a white magic ceremony of great power. (For lots of details, find the obscure book, The Science of the Sacraments, by C.W. Leadbeater, 1920.) Priests & bishops are themselves white magicians. A requiem mass manipulates both the corpse & the newly dead spirit, for mutual benefit & blessing. Ordinarily, both are present in the church building at the time of the mass itself. This is of great assistance to the newly deceased. (I can't call the deceased a "soul", as the reduction of the deceased to a soul is what the requiem itself is all about.) Would a requiem mass be effective if the corpse itself was not physically present? It seems to me it would be, if a lock of hair (for example) was present on the altar. Without any physical remains, it would not be as effective. This has to do with placing the service in some context, eg, circumstances which would enable the clergy to consent to it.

    While there were a lot of rules unique to ecclesiastic music, I've always thought K626 to be the work of a man who was inexperienced with large forces & therefore, hesitant in his expression.

    As the morning after Mozart's death seems to have been busy, here are some useful details:

    Sunrise in Vienna on 6 December, 1791 (corrected to Local Mean Time) was 7:42
    Sunset was 4:01. This gives 8 hours, 19 minutes of daylight. (I am uncertain if it should be the 5th or 6th.)

    We may presume half an hour of twilight on either side. The moon was waxing, gibbous. At sunset, the sun/moon angle was approximately 137 degrees: the moon was in the middle of the eastern sky. So there was some moonlight. It was full approximately 3 1/2 days later. Venus was a morning star.

    I would presume that Vienna was stirring by 8:30 or 9. Family & friends must be notified. Presuming that Closset has not already written & signed a death certificate, that will need to be done. It must be presented to the authorities. An immediate decision must be made concerning funeral & burial. If, as you suggest, Mozart's head was severed before burial, and if, as has been suggested, he was buried in St. Marx's the very same day, then here is what that looks like to the gravediggers: They will want to finish for the day around 3:30 at the latest. This would barely give them time to go home & eat their dinners before darkness falls. This is not a highly paid job, their lavish use of candles in the evening is not likely. Presuming that bodies are collected in one place & loaded onto a horse-drawn cart & trundled off to St. Marx's somewhere else, that cart wants to leave by 1 at the latest. I imagine the grave digger's schedule was: Dig a big pit in the morning, have a nice lunch, wait for the cart full of dead bodies to arrive, sling them into the pit, fill. I imagine they spent their spare time, as gravediggers traditionally have, debating the finer points of Greek philosophy.

    You say the head was severed soon after Mozart's death. This had to be before he was buried. The authorities would not likely stand for grave tampering. (Even with a full moon, it would take the better part of a full night to dig down, find the body, chop away, put everything back in some sort of order & escape. Darkness slows things.) Only in gristly Hollywood movies is the head simply chopped off. A body is put on a slab, it is inclined in one direction or the other, a vein is opened, and the blood allowed to drain. This takes time. Then the head can be severed. This presumes an undertaker, and money to pay him.

    A note on clocks. At this time, only the wealthy have clocks. For the rest of us, there was the communal clock, stuck on the side of some large building, that rang out the hours. As it happens, Local Mean Time (LMT) was a 19th century invention. Prior to that, the time reference was the sundial. I do not know how that related to LMT.

    So if Mozart was buried as claimed, in a pauper's grave, his corpse was misrepresented. If the skull was taken when the bones were disinterred some years later, I am not happy with the story that a wire, put around his neck at burial, was later used to identify the body. The wire may well have been the remains of a cheap necklace. It may have been worn for medicinal purposes, as copper still is today. It could have been any head, from any body. For that matter, the man who claimed to have put it around Mozart's neck, might have put it around the neck of any body of similar size & age, on that day, or on any day, days or weeks later. This is especially true if a major scandal was brewing in subsequent weeks. The wire is, sorry to say, another red herring.

    What a mess this has become!

    [This message has been edited by Droell (edited 08-29-2005).]

    Comment


      #92


      Dear David,

      You ask about the sentence given by the court to Mozart. I think I should try to explain why an answer is so difficult. The background is roughly as follows -

      In 1991 a previously unknown logbook entry was discovered in a Vienna court notebook concerning what seems on the surface to be a court action for debt, this brought against Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart by Prince Karl Lichnowsky. The date/venue of the court action is still unknown. That logbook entry appears to be the only surviving documentation at this time (most of the Vienna court records of the late 18th century having been destroyed by fire in 1927). W Brauneis was first to publish details of this notebook. It records the fact that the Court of the Nobility had written to the Imperial Court Chamber of Vienna on 9th November 1791 (i.e. less than a month before Mozart's death) to enforce an Order previously given (date unknown) for confiscation of Mozart's possessions and to fine Mozart half his salary as Court Composer to the amount of 1,435 Gulden and 32 Kreutzer. Included also was a bill for Mozart related to court fees of 24 Gulden. The notebook rcords that the debt was owed to Prince Lichnowsky but, in fact, Mozart's death weeks later meant that it was never paid - (in fact it appears to have been paid off by Max Franz after the composer's death).

      Nothing whatsoever of this court case is refered to in any early biography. Nor did Constanze Mozart or her second husband Georg Niseen refer to it in their joint bigraphy. It is not even included amongst the list of official debts calculated soon after the composer's death. of the debt is mentioned in any other Mozart literature nor do Constanze Mozart and her second husband Georg Nicolaus Nissen make any reference to it in Nissen's Mozart biography. It does not appear in the list of debts left by Mozart and it is not known whether Lichnowsky waived the debt after Mozart's death.

      Until this time no further information has been discovered to solve this puzzling mystery. Nowhere, it seems, is any other reference to be found to this strange case.
      Mozart, in 1791, was earning large sums of money. Lichnowsky was a fellow Freemason and there seems no logical reason for any court case to have been brought, let alone one in which debt was the issue.

      Until now, it has been speculated that Mozart was sued for some gambling debt. But there is not any reliable evidence that Mozart was a serious gambler. Indeed, there is instead evidence that Mozart lent money to Lichnowsky, rather than vice-versa. Besides, court cases for gambling debts (even if this was the real reason) were not allowed and had been thrown out of court ever since the early 1780's. So the charge cannot possibly have been that Mozart had failed to service a gambling debt. (I believe Lichnowsky used something as a pretext to ruin Mozart but I suspect it was to do with Mozart's affair with a relative of his, this couched in some way that would justify the court fining him in the way they did).

      No, of course the sentence of the court was not death. Lichnowsky (I believe) was simply out to destroy Mozart socially on the pretext of some unspecified crime. Details of the proceedings of these courts of the artistocracy were secret. And that is all we have in the way of documentation. So the court case ocurred earlier than November 1791 and this logbook entry is simply the date at which the court was reminded to take action. A few weeks later Mozart was dead.

      Mozart (I think it can be shown in detail) was increasingly shunned by the Vienna elite from around 1787 onwards (i.e. from around the time of Leopold Mozart's death). The Lichnowsky case was simply the 'tightening of the screw', so to speak. It is this background (I believe) that needs to be appreciated as we examine the last days of Mozart in Vienna.

      For Mozart's death (at the hands of hired people) was met with indifference in Vienna despite all the 'revisionism'. Shamefully so. (I deal with this in detail in my book).

      In speaking of highly conservative religious bigotry I am of course refering to those who held real power in the Vienna of the late Holy Roman Empire - men who hated the reform programme of the Emperor Joseph and who did all they could to stop it in its tracks. Mozart was a dangerous man. A genius. But a loose cannon. Not dangerous to the Freemasons or even to the Hapsburgs. But an impertinent, individualistic, very vain, stubborn musical genius whose operas and whose values were entirely at odds with certain vested interests within the Empire - (not the Habsburg Empire but that of the Holy Roman Empire itself). Was it not at the villa of Count Walsegg that the Pope had stayed during his visit to Vienna in 1783 (during which time Joseph told the pope to mind his own business about ongoing reforms within Austria) ?

      The Prince Archbishop of Vienna was in open revolt against the Emperor Joseph (so too many others though they went through the motions of reform - many of them reversed in early 1791 on the Emperor's death).

      I believe that Joseph had a hand in reviving 'The Marriage of Figaro' in Vienna in 1787 - this too yet another example of the tensions that were running in Austria at this time. And Mozart had powerful enemies. Joseph could not be seen to be favouring him. So Mozart stayed in Vienna hoping that things would eventually change for the better.

      This, I think is the correct context in which we should look at Mozart's later career in Vienna. (I know it's a strange approach but I think it's right).

      You refer to the Requiem Mass as 'white magic'. Well, of course that's your right to say. I think it is an aspect of church worship that some Christians subscribe to but not others.

      In saying that Mozart was taken from his home directly to the cemetery of St Marx the following evening I am of course saying this because at that time there were rules in Vienna that the deceased could only be taken to cemeteries in the evening.

      It was to be 14 years before Mozart's widow made any attempt to visit the grave of her late husband, by which time the sexton had died and the new one had no idea where his last resting place was.

      Yes, I believe the 'phrenologists' had Mozart's skull soon after his remains were buried, certainly within a few years. But I have no evidence to support your view that this was taken immediately. (The phrenologists believed that certain bumps of the head of a man showed his musicality - and this was behind their grisly unearthing of Haydn's remains within days of their burial).

      It is of course a great tragedy that so great a man as Mozart should have been so shoddily treated at the end, and even more so to realise that much of his later life is the product of falsification and deliberate attempts to mislead.

      There have been recent attempts to test for DNA on a skull supposedly belonging to Mozart (this by sequencing it with the DNA from other members of the Mozart family whose remains at at Salzburg) though it will be 2006 before any announcement is made on this issue.

      I have personally no doubt that Mozart was a supremely gifted musical composer whether or not certain symphonies attributed to him were actually by him or not. Such mercurial talent is not overthrown even if much of his early life was exaggerated, nor even if these late symphonies prove to be arrangements. Above all, I am keen to attempt a more 'normal' Mozart than has often been presented to us in biographies. Someone as prone to errors as anyone else.

      I have no doubt at all that Mozart was one of the greatest musicians who ever lived and that Beethoven had a talent just as miraculous and just as great a challenge to logic.

      Regards

      Robert

      Comment


        #93

        I am new to the group. Does anyone know the whereabouts of any manuscripts of Luchesi symphonic works? I would love to programme them with early Beethoven.

        Comment


          #94


          Dear Jonjon,

          No, Luchesi's symphonies (i.e. those indisputably of his own composition) have entirely disappeared. So too have those of the mysterious 'Captain D'Anthoin' who in 1783 is recorded as being a prolific composer of works in the style of 'Haydn'. (This man also wrote no less than 7 operas, all of which have also vanished). But most amazing of all - this same man was Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi's own brother in law ! It is strongly suggested that 'Captain D'Anthoin' was simply a pen name that Luchesi used to write symphonies for Haydn prior to 1784.

          There is of course a detailed argument (not conclusively proved) that Luchesi wrote virtually all of 'Mozart's' Vienna symphonies though that argument cannot be made here in the detail it deserves.

          It is certain that as early as 1771 Luchesi's symphonies were in great demand in Germany (as is recorded in a textbook of the time by de la Bordes in Paris).

          A final twist to this story. Within months of the death of Mozart in December 1791 the above mentioned 'Captain D'Anthoin' again begins writing operas and other music, all of which has also completely disappeared. He continues to do so until 1794, the year when the chapel's history under the Elector of Bonn came to an end.

          Several recent writers have tried to give Luchesi undoubted credit for being Beethoven's true first teacher of composition (this for virtually 10 years) though there is great resistance to this.

          I think the whole question of Luchesi is fascinating.

          Robert Newman

          Comment


            #95
            I have just come across this forum (while googling for commentary on the Jena Symphony, as a matter of fact), and this "Luchesi wrote all of Haydn's and Mozart's masterpieces" theory was new to me. I have some questions and comments which I hope Mr Newman will see and reply to.

            As the works in dispute are in Haydn's and Mozart's own catalogs of compositions, for this theory to be true they must have been involved in conscious fraud. This is a very serious accusation.

            The most concrete claim of evidence is the statement that several Mozart symphonies, including the Eb-G minor-Jupiter trio officially stated to have been written in 1788, were in the Bonn inventory taken in 1784. If true this proves much. But I must ask: how is it known they were in this inventory? Is it still extant? Does it have incipits? If one or both of these are answered no, then how is it certain that later copies, which perhaps were held by the archives after being moved to Modena, are the same works that were in it in 1784?

            I found Taboga's arguments about Haydn to be dismayingly unsound. He writes that Haydn was at one time credited with 256 symphonies which have been cut down to 104 (actually 106 or 107, but no matter), heavily implying that if 152 of them can be false attributions, the other 104 can be too.

            But this does not follow. The actual false attributions were made not by Haydn himself, but by publishers and others who wished to capitalize on Haydn's popularity by attributing works of other composers to him (notably Pleyel, but also others). Determination of Haydn's actual output was made by studying his own and the Eszterhazy records, and only Haydn's own fraud could eliminate these.

            Nor can I accept the argument that Luchesi must have taught Beethoven because only the Kapellmeister would have taught the star pupil. That does not follow. Nor that Luchesi must have been a genius because Beethoven was a genius and only a genius can teach a genius; that does not follow either. Who taught the first genius, then? Perhaps God; but then God could have taught Beethoven also, and many believe He did.

            Any claim that Luchesi wrote the Haydn-Mozart works must face several problems:
            1) It's not at all suspicious that Luchesi's signed works are lost; many works of that period are lost, including many by Mozart and Bach.
            2) The evidence for Luchesi's being capable of composing popular works is a few references to his works' popularity. In that case one must be struck by the absence of contemporary attributions of the Mozart and Haydn works to him.
            3) If it is improbable that Mozart wrote that symphonic trilogy in 1788 in a few weeks, how much more improbable that Luchesi wrote it and Mozart's other masterworks and Haydn's too.
            4) Stylistic analysis has become pretty sophisticated over 200 years, and has been used to discover genuine false attributions before. If half of Mozart is by another composer, and half of Haydn is by two other composers, this would have been noticed through internal evidence alone by now.

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by Kalimac:
              I have just come across this forum (while googling for commentary on the Jena Symphony, as a matter of fact), and this "Luchesi wrote all of Haydn's and Mozart's masterpieces" theory was new to me. I have some questions and comments which I hope Mr Newman will see and reply to.

              As the works in dispute are in Haydn's and Mozart's own catalogs of compositions, for this theory to be true they must have been involved in conscious fraud. This is a very serious accusation.

              The most concrete claim of evidence is the statement that several Mozart symphonies, including the Eb-G minor-Jupiter trio officially stated to have been written in 1788, were in the Bonn inventory taken in 1784. If true this proves much. But I must ask: how is it known they were in this inventory? Is it still extant? Does it have incipits? If one or both of these are answered no, then how is it certain that later copies, which perhaps were held by the archives after being moved to Modena, are the same works that were in it in 1784?

              I found Taboga's arguments about Haydn to be dismayingly unsound. He writes that Haydn was at one time credited with 256 symphonies which have been cut down to 104 (actually 106 or 107, but no matter), heavily implying that if 152 of them can be false attributions, the other 104 can be too.

              But this does not follow. The actual false attributions were made not by Haydn himself, but by publishers and others who wished to capitalize on Haydn's popularity by attributing works of other composers to him (notably Pleyel, but also others). Determination of Haydn's actual output was made by studying his own and the Eszterhazy records, and only Haydn's own fraud could eliminate these.

              Nor can I accept the argument that Luchesi must have taught Beethoven because only the Kapellmeister would have taught the star pupil. That does not follow. Nor that Luchesi must have been a genius because Beethoven was a genius and only a genius can teach a genius; that does not follow either. Who taught the first genius, then? Perhaps God; but then God could have taught Beethoven also, and many believe He did.

              Any claim that Luchesi wrote the Haydn-Mozart works must face several problems:
              1) It's not at all suspicious that Luchesi's signed works are lost; many works of that period are lost, including many by Mozart and Bach.
              2) The evidence for Luchesi's being capable of composing popular works is a few references to his works' popularity. In that case one must be struck by the absence of contemporary attributions of the Mozart and Haydn works to him.
              3) If it is improbable that Mozart wrote that symphonic trilogy in 1788 in a few weeks, how much more improbable that Luchesi wrote it and Mozart's other masterworks and Haydn's too.
              4) Stylistic analysis has become pretty sophisticated over 200 years, and has been used to discover genuine false attributions before. If half of Mozart is by another composer, and half of Haydn is by two other composers, this would have been noticed through internal evidence alone by now.
              Very good arguments kalimac and I too am still awaiting Mr.Taboga's response from Mr.Newman regarding the identity of the copyists of the Modena inventory - one of whom appears to be Anton Reicha who didn't arrive in Bonn until 1785, one year after the official date of 1784.

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

              Comment


                #97
                I was searching for a portrait of Luchesi and I found some CDS which give a portrait.But that picture is the same which is given in many of the beethoven books as a portrait of Neefe.That is a bit strange

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by Ludwig:
                  I was searching for a portrait of Luchesi and I found some CDS which give a portrait.But that picture is the same which is given in many of the beethoven books as a portrait of Neefe.That is a bit strange
                  Yes indeed!

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

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Stopping by the university library today I did a little looking and noted the paucity of references to Lucchesi (as his name is usually spelled) in Thayer's biography of Beethoven and the complete absence of his name in the indices of every other book on Beethoven I checked, like Solomon's biography and Cooper's Companion. Now either this is "a conspiracy so immense ..." as Joe McCarthy would say, or else Lucchesi is of no significance in the life of Beethoven. And what is the evidence that it is anything other than the latter? Only Taboga's completely unsupported assertion that a genius must be taught by a genius, which in turn is based on a dubious assumption that Lucchesi was a hidden genius, which seems to be based on the assumption that Haydn and Mozart produced too many masterpieces for any two men to have written, therefore they must have really been written by one man, i.e. Lucchesi.

                    It's a strange supposition. We all know that Stravinsky, a genius, learned his way with orchestration at the feet of Rimsky-Korsakov, another genius. But who taught Rimsky? Did Lucchesi survive his recorded death in 1801 and turn up in Russia at the age of 120 to teach Rimsky, perhaps?

                    According to Grove 7, at least nine of Lucchesi's attributed symphonies are in manuscript in libraries in central Europe. Let Signor Taboga visit these libraries. Any competent musicologist could offer an opinion as to whether the author of these works could have written the masterpieces we know as Haydn's and Mozart's.

                    Of course, if they turn out to be mundane and unremarkable, one could postulate that the same sneaky ghost that somehow erased Lucchesi's name from the masterworks and persuaded the world that Haydn and Mozart wrote them, also got into these other manuscripts and put Lucchesi's name on them to hide his genius from the world. Uh-huh.

                    Comment


                      Wow, conspiracy theories aplenty...I'm very sure Mozart and Haydn were too feeble to write their own music...

                      I really need to send some of the people from the Mozart forum over here.

                      (rolling my eyes)

                      Kallimac, I'm glad you have made that post...at least I know there is at least one other person with some sense...

                      [This message has been edited by HaydnFan (edited 12-03-2005).]

                      Comment


                        I've just noticed that, in his last post here (I hope he will come back), Mr. Newman wrote that "Luchesi's symphonies (i.e. those indisputably of his own composition) have entirely disappeared."

                        I just want to reiterate that, according to Grove 7, that is not so. Nine symphonies attributed by conventional scholarship to Lucchesi (though perhaps Mr. Newman does not consider that "indisputable"?), and fragments of others, exist in European libraries. This is a fuller list than appears in Grove 6, so it's not just a mindless repetition of obsolete data. More likely, Mr. Newman was just repeating false information he was given. (It would certainly be harder to prove Lucchesi didn't write something if we had none of his own music to compare it to. Actually, we have vast quantities of his vocal music, much more than of his symphonies, and that's a start.)

                        It should be noted that multiple attributions are common in 18th-century music, and the name of Composer B on a copy of a work fairly securely attributed to Composer A is not necessarily suspicious. Some years ago a catalog of all known 18th-century symphonies was established to try to hash these matters out, and a lot of problems have been hashed out.

                        How do we know who wrote what? Well, several reasons working together:

                        1) Uncontested attributions. (Of course, as Mr. Newman postulates, Lucchesi could have been pathologically shy and reluctant to claim his own work. But it's not very likely.)
                        2) Composers' own papers, e.g. their letters and their own catalogs of their works. (Of course, they could have all been pathological liars.)
                        3) Stylistic analysis. It is not true, as sometimes postulated, that Haydn and Mozart are indistinguishable. They have resemblances, they have borrowings of stylistic features, but they're no peas in a pod. (Of course, analysis can be wrong.)

                        So it's not absolutely impossible that two centuries of orthodox scholarship are wrong. But it has to be proven. What do we have from Signor Taboga?

                        1) Contemporary statements that Lucchesi was popular, leading to an assumption that he must have written works still famous today. A completely unwarranted assumption, as any familiarity with the history of taste should demonstrate.
                        2) A claim that he must have been a genius because Beethoven was a genius, therefore he must have been taught by a genius, and Neefe wasn't a genius, therefore Lucchesi must have taught him and must have been a genius. Except for "Beethoven was a genius," there's not a single valid argument in this line of reasoning. (Even Neefe could have been a genius - a genius teacher. Genius in teaching and in composition don't have to go together - Beethoven wasn't a very good teacher.)
                        3) An assumption that Haydn and Mozart couldn't have written their masterpieces in the time available. Also unwarranted.
                        4) A claim that some Mozart symphonies were in the Bonn archives before the date of their supposed composition. This is the one interesting claim of the bunch. I have asked before that it be substantiated - how do we know the works in the 1784 inventory were the Mozart symphonies, how do we know the inventory was taken in 1784 - and await Mr. Newman's reply.

                        Comment


                          Oh, one additional claim from Signor Taboga, which does more than anything else to cause me to doubt his scholarly capacity:

                          5) Many works are known to be falsely attributed to Haydn and Mozart, therefore it's equally reasonable to suspect that the works still attributed to them are falsely so.

                          Comment


                            A very weak hypothesis. Interesting intellectual ideas. They certainly can't be considered as substantial enough to garner serious consideration, i.e., the questions are unanswerable, the evidence never more than nebulous at best. Interesting but with no hope of substantiation. At least it's a chance to learn something about a little known musical figure.

                            Comment



                              I've been quite busy over the past few months so have not replied to various posts on this thread. For example, Kallimac has asked twice here for confirmation/evidence that the symphonies credited to Haydn and Mozart at the Estense Library in Modena and elsewhere were one and the same as those which were inventoried by Neefe at Bonn Kapelle in 1784.
                              (In fact 3 symphonies were later added to the Bonn archives, though these were added AFTER 1784 and all 3 of them were works of Mozart's youth).

                              But before I answer your points in some detail I think it's important to point out that your criticisms of Giorgio Taboga are not really very useful - since Taboga has at least gone to the trouble of summarising a great deal of evidence (much of it unknown to English readers) in an attempt to bring these important historical/musical issues in to the public forum. So your attitude towards him is, I think, lacking somewhat in understanding the tremendous work has had done so far. (He would be first to admit that much more still needs to be done).

                              Anyway, let me try to answer your question as well as I can. Perhaps the best way is to make below a list of certain facts -

                              1. The Inventory of the Chapel Music made at Bonn in 1784 was done at a time when the Kapellmeister (Andrea Luchesi) was absent on leave in Italy.

                              2. That Inventory of 1784 was commissioned by the new, incoming, Elector of Bonn, Max Franz, who had himself just inherited the office. It was given high priority. (His friend Mozart wanted the post of Kapellmeister).

                              3. Max Franz made his grand entry in to the Cologne principality on 27th April 1784 and one of his first instructions was therefore for an Inventory to be made of the musical assets of the Bonn chapel.

                              4. This instruction was given to a board of officials presided over by Fries, Court Notary, this cross-checked by the Court Organist Christian Gottlob Neefe (who was also acting temporarily as substitute Kapellmeister during the time of Luchesi's stay in Italy).

                              5.The return of Kapellmeister Luchesi was expected within a few days of Max Franz's arrival and had already been called for (along with that of the 1st Violin/Conductor of the Bonn orchestra, Gaetano Mattioli)

                              6. The return of both these Italians was expected in time for solem obsequies for Max Friedrich which were planned for 15th May that year of 1784.

                              7. The Inventory at Bonn Kapelle was completed on 8th May 1784 and its results officially handed over to Max Franz by the above mentioned Fries, Court Notary.

                              Finally, in Thayer's 'Beethoven' we find that author saying of Bonn -

                              'Otto Jahn does not indicate why Mozart was not engaged at Bonn. Had Andrea Luchesi resigned on seeing his stipend reduced he might have gone there. But Luchesi continued to hold his Kapellmeister position and he could not be fired without a reason. Mattioli's employment was teminated however with Joseph Reicha being appointed new Konzertmeister - but there was simply no vacancy for Mozart at this time'

                              (A.W.Thayer - 1.p.144)

                              I hope this at least provides an acceptable context within which we can discuss this issue.

                              I understand you wish to know for sure that these symphonies today normally credited to Haydn and Mozart were really in Bonn at the time of the inventory in 1784. Certainly, yes, they were. For it is these same archives which were eventually (and illegally) taken by Max Friedrich from the Bonn Kapelle to escape the French invasion of the Rineland in 1794 and which, eventually, arrived at Estense Library, Modena, home of his own relatives. It was Max Fran'z death which made their concealment in Italy the most practical solution (and prior to this the archives were kept at a castle of Max Franz).

                              The inventory of 1784 was corrupted by the fact that it (contrary to accepted practice) did not credit anonymous works automatically to the existing Kapellmeister (Luchesi).
                              Thus, a whole group of works appear in the 1784 inventory as 'anonymous' or as 'by different authors' without any name being specified. This curious feature of the Bonn Inventory of 1784 is highly irregular and it was to cause many problems in the years to come.

                              But there is further confirmation. In the same Inventory there is not a single reference to any work by Mozart.

                              And finally, at Modena's Estense Library is the still surviving catalogue (known as Catalogue C.53/1 made by Luchesi himself from 1785 onwards which records the fact that symphonies now credited to Haydn and Mozart ARE in the collection. This Catalogue C.53/1 arrived in Modena along with the archives themselves.

                              Finally, there was only music archive which ever came to Modena from Bonn. It was the music archive of the Bonn Kapelle - in charge of which was none other than the Kapellmeister (and teacher of Beethoven) Andrea Luchesi.

                              Luchesi served a total of 23 years in Bonn. He was widely regarded at the time of his appointment as one of the most talented musicians in Europe. His work as Kapellmeister ended in 1794, at the time when the music archives were removed from the Kapelle by Max Franz.

                              The fact that Luchesi's name and works have fallen victim to prejudice and supression (some of which he seems responsible for himself) should not detract from us seeing him as a truly great composer, one who certainly wrote a considerable number of works today credited falsely to Hadyn and/or Mozart.

                              If you wish to examine this in more detail please post and I will try to answer you as well as I can.

                              Regards

                              Robert Newman

                              Comment



                                Dear Brithooven,

                                What you regard as unable to be proved will certainly be proved, one way or the other, given time.

                                What we have in the case of Hadyn and Mozart is not simply a tradition but (I suggest) reinforced concrete set in to a form that makes real progress specially difficult. If you can agree that this is really the case we can certainly make some progress.

                                You will nod your head that, for example, virtually 100 symphonies have at one time or another been credited to Mozart and that well over 250 have at one time or another been credited to Haydn. Such amazing facts will not shake you, however. You will, no doubt, say that such things are, well, just annoying details. In fact, in this special case (that of the 'Vienna School') they are typical. And this (with respect) is the problem.

                                We are here discussing the very real possibility that the mature reputations of Haydn and Mozart were, to a very great extent, cultivated/manufactured falsely as regards a whole series of works which both these composers claimed to have written but which they, in actual fact, did not write.
                                Let it be admitted too that in such cases every care was taken to conceal such facts (since this too is obvious) and let it also be admitted that we are here discussing a massive fraud.

                                It is agreed (and has been from the outset) that the onus of proof lies with those who would challenge the 'status quo' and this is one reason for this post, which began many months ago.

                                Please do not, however, confuse attempts to obscure/delete/hide truth with those attempts to allow the truth to speak for itself.

                                In the case of Mozart (irregularities in his supposed works beginning very early in the Koechel list) there are very good grounds for allowing these issues to be discussed fairly.

                                Again, I do not agree that the available evidence is thin. I think it is remarkably consistent and that it all points to gross irregularities that occurred even during the lifetimes of both Haydn and Mozart, the net result of which has been to grant credibility to those composers on grounds that would not normally be granted to other composers. To this extent I think this discussion can help us make some progress.

                                Robert Newman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X