Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

[Joy]

Originally posted by robert newman:

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

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

Best regards

Robert Newman

In the USA for sure! Very interesting. Do let us know if you come across any evidence of this from your inquiries in Boston. Bu the way, how did you get started on this fascinating journey?



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

[Kalimac]

I'm not going to deal with any of the subsequent posts, but just Mr Newman's of 12/24 addressed to me, in which he does not defend, but merely reiterates, his practice of stating highly speculative propositions as outright facts.

I am supposed to "come to terms with the reality" that Lucchesi was Beethoven's teacher because of an unattested report of some scholar agreeing with the proposition at some conference several years ago. Frankly, that isn't even evidence that the scholar said this. (I myself have found myself quoted in print by others as saying the exact opposite of what I meant.) If he really believes this radical resupposition, he should have declared it in print himself and be trumpeting it from the rooftops, as Mr Newman is.

But even if that were the case, the Argument from Authority proves nothing. (If Mr Newman really accepted it, he would drop all his theories, since standard authorities are against them.) In all their available verbiage on the subject, Mr Newman and Signor Taboga have offered only two arguments, neither containing evidence and both of them of specious logic. I cannot "come to terms" with facts that contradict previously agreed-upon facts unless someone offers some evidence in favor of them.

On the subject of the Kochel catalog of Mozart, Mr Newman continues his sleight-of-hand practice of conflating long-agreed misattributions, agreed upon by consensus scholarship, with radical reattributions agreed upon by nobody except himself and Signor Taboga. Thus, nobody claims that K.16a or K.17 are by Mozart, while K.74 is generally accepted by everyone except Taboga and Newman.

Evidence for Mozart's actual composition of a lot of his works is indeed scanty, but this is normal for the period and is not in itself evidence of any suspiciousness, especially as evidence that anybody else wrote them is completely nonexistent, and in the case of Haydn Mr Newman boldly declares that autograph scores are Haydn's own fake evidence. If that is the case then no evidence proves anything, and even the evidence that Mr Newman refuses to provide would not satisfy to establish the Lucchesi theory, which appears, in the end, to be Signor Taboga's nationalistic-puffing attempt to prove that all music of any significance in the late 18th century was written by Italians. I am sure that he would include the works of Bach and Beethoven in that number of he could figure out how to get away with it. How about Handel for Signor Taboga's next hat trick - Handel went to Italy for some years; let us suppose that he died and was replaced by an Italian who wrote all of Handel's subsequent masterworks. It'd be no more improbable than the theory that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike who wrote all of McCartney's subsequent Beatles songs.

[Kalimac]

A few more points:

1) However puzzling Mr Newman finds it, standard commentators have no trouble believing that Mozart wrote K.183, especially if (following Robbins Landon) they postulate that Mozart was familiar with Haydn's No. 39.

2) As Peter observes, believing that Mozart wrote his own masterpieces is far less incredible than believing that Lucchesi wrote both them and Haydn's.

3) Mr Newman's claim that there is something suspicious about K.425 and K.444 both being called the Linz Symphony is a very old canard, long since put to rest. The identification of K.444 as the Linz Symphony was an error made by a pre-Kochel scholar named Johann Andre who didn't know that it wasn't by Mozart. And the proof that Mozart's use of K.444 had nothing to do with Linz in the first place comes from manuscript studies by the same Alan Tyson whom Mr Newman elsewhere cites approvingly. See Zaslaw, Mozart's Symphonies, p. 392.

4) As I noted regarding K.18 in a post in one of Mr Newman's other burgeoning threads, Mr Newman can't even get his misattributions correct. It was K.107, not K.37-41, that was actually written by J.C. Bach. Orthodox scholarship accepts that none of these works are by Mozart; it is not news; it does not constitute evidence, let alone proof, that any works that orthodox scholarship attributes to Mozart are actually be anyone else.

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

[robert newman]

Dear Joy,

Around 12 years ago I started making notes for a biography of Mozart, knowing of course that such things can take a very long time. Searching for a new perspective on his life and work I slowly realised that although there is a movement today to write biographies within their correct historical/social environment (and there are several really good Mozart biographies which now do this) there was one area of study that had not been given so much attention - that of the 'Holy Roman Empire' - that entity that had ruled most of central and southern Europe for hundreds of years and, which, in Mozart's lifetime was about to end. Knowing that Mozart was in various senses one of the first 'freelance' composers, that he had enemies, debts, etc. (and that he so publicly broke with his former employer Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg) seemed to offer the possibility of an unlikely biography 'Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire'.

This approach made it necessary to look quite closely at Mozart's final years, to separate fact from fiction on such issues as the Requiem project, even the little known prosecution of Mozart by Prince Lichnowsky (about which the earlier biographers deliberately said nothing), and to examine in as much detail as possible why the early biographers seem to have concealed many important aspects of his later life. (Niemetscheck, Nissen, Constanze Mozart, etc). Then too there was the puzzle of how it came about that around 50 years after his death Mozart is suddenly a celebrity in Salzburg when, of course, in the 1790's and early 1800's this was not the case. And of course to ask why Koechel finally produces a reasonably coherent list of Mozart works many, many decades after his death, but nobody seems able to have done so for public scrutiny before this. Added to this are of course rumours/opinions on Mozart being poisoned, of him strangely choosing to remain in Vienna despite opportunities elsewhere, etc. etc.

Around 2 years ago the news that various researchers (chief of which is Mr Giorgio Taboga in Italy) had been saying some extraordinary things about the whole Viennese classical school - and that this involves both Haydn, Mozart, leading figures in the 'establishment' of those times (plus of course issues on the young Beethoven's life and career) - so it seemed logical to examine what this new area of research was saying.

The picture that has emerged at this time is a quite surprising one in which the religious orders of the time (the Jesuits and, after 1773, the Benedictines in particular) play a very important but little appreciated role in many aspects of the story.

But, equally important is the fact that this beautiful music, whether or not much of it was arranged or composed by Mozart, remains the same whether irregularities feature or do not feature in its birth. And, obviously, there may be a question of crediting little known individuals who, till now, seem to have been robbed of credit.

You can see that work of this kind (which has occupied me for most of my spare time in recent years) can easily be viewed as an unfair criticism of the 'established truth' or as some wild conspiracy, or as 'detracting from the great achivements of Mozart' etc etc.

To me, its always been clear that Mozart has been regarded as a special sort of human being whose phenomenal output and extraordinary life has been the justfication for all kinds of theories about genius and its nature but these based, of course, on the basic story being true and unquestionable.

I personally have no doubt that Mozart was a phenomenally gifted pianist and also a man whose ability to arrange works (to orchestrate them and to make them in to wonderful forms) is almost unparalled in the history of music. But great questions exist on a many of his compositions (those assumed today from virtually every period of his musical life). If credit is due to Luchesi, or to other composers I do not see that criticising convention is futile. The important thing is that these criticisms are balanced by providing a sustaianable solution or an alternative to what is popularly believed.

Well, my original idea was that the work would be finished by this coming new year, the year of huge celebrations to mark the 250th anniversary of Mozart's death (a time when all sorts of new books and articles will appear). But that is now not possible and I still need, perhaps, a few more years to finish this.

Yes, I hope to look for any news of this Luchesi string quartet this coming Spring and would also like to meet Mr Taboga in Italy at some time around Easter (who is of course well aware that I work on a Mozart biography).

The time when the young Beethoven arrives on the scene is so fascinating, isn't it, and yet, at the same time, it remains at this time a period that is relatively little known from a music history point of view. The French Revolution, the censorship of the state, the curbs on Freemasonry, etc, etc. - and of course the whole social/religious mix is so extraordinary.

Thanks for asking and very best wishes. In which part of the States do you live ? I have friends in New York and one in Indiana.

Best regards

Robert Newman

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Kalimac:
I'm not going to deal with any of the subsequent posts, but just Mr Newman's of 12/24 addressed to me, in which he does not defend, but merely reiterates, his practice of stating highly speculative propositions as outright facts.

I am supposed to "come to terms with the reality" that Lucchesi was Beethoven's teacher because of an unattested report of some scholar agreeing with the proposition at some conference several years ago. Frankly, that isn't even evidence that the scholar said this. (I myself have found myself quoted in print by others as saying the exact opposite of what I meant.) If he really believes this radical resupposition, he should have declared it in print himself and be trumpeting it from the rooftops, as Mr Newman is.

But even if that were the case, the Argument from Authority proves nothing. (If Mr Newman really accepted it, he would drop all his theories, since standard authorities are against them.) In all their available verbiage on the subject, Mr Newman and Signor Taboga have offered only two arguments, neither containing evidence and both of them of specious logic. I cannot "come to terms" with facts that contradict previously agreed-upon facts unless someone offers some evidence in favor of them.

On the subject of the Kochel catalog of Mozart, Mr Newman continues his sleight-of-hand practice of conflating long-agreed misattributions, agreed upon by consensus scholarship, with radical reattributions agreed upon by nobody except himself and Signor Taboga. Thus, nobody claims that K.16a or K.17 are by Mozart, while K.74 is generally accepted by everyone except Taboga and Newman.

Evidence for Mozart's actual composition of a lot of his works is indeed scanty, but this is normal for the period and is not in itself evidence of any suspiciousness, especially as evidence that anybody else wrote them is completely nonexistent, and in the case of Haydn Mr Newman boldly declares that autograph scores are Haydn's own fake evidence. If that is the case then no evidence proves anything, and even the evidence that Mr Newman refuses to provide would not satisfy to establish the Lucchesi theory, which appears, in the end, to be Signor Taboga's nationalistic-puffing attempt to prove that all music of any significance in the late 18th century was written by Italians. I am sure that he would include the works of Bach and Beethoven in that number of he could figure out how to get away with it. How about Handel for Signor Taboga's next hat trick - Handel went to Italy for some years; let us suppose that he died and was replaced by an Italian who wrote all of Handel's subsequent masterworks. It'd be no more improbable than the theory that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike who wrote all of McCartney's subsequent Beatles songs.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Kalimac:

... If that is the case then no evidence proves anything, and even the evidence that Mr Newman refuses to provide would not satisfy to establish the Lucchesi theory, which appears, in the end, to be Signor Taboga's nationalistic-puffing attempt to prove that all music of any significance in the late 18th century was written by Italians. I am sure that he would include the works of Bach and Beethoven in that number of he could figure out how to get away with it. How about Handel for Signor Taboga's next hat trick - Handel went to Italy for some years; let us suppose that he died and was replaced by an Italian who wrote all of Handel's subsequent masterworks. It'd be no more improbable than the theory that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike who wrote all of McCartney's subsequent Beatles songs.

As a matter of fact, I myself am Paul McCartney and have been since 1966. Evidence for this provided by the fact that I am active in animal rights (as is known to a few of the longtime posters on this board) and Paul is also.

[robert newman]

Kalimac insists the long accepted (German) view is right - that the real music teacher of Beethoven at Bonn was NOT Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi and he even says that there is no evidence to support Luchesi. (The Germans, by saying nothing, are therefore right ??)

Well, Kalimac, it must have been the same sort of 'righteous indignation' that caused you to recently write in complaint to the editors of the online Wilkepedia article on the composer 'Andrea Luchesi' - for your letter of complaint to them is posted there at this very time insisting that Kapellmeister Luchesi is an attack of some kind on historical truth.

I submit the following FACTS and wonder if you would care to comment on them -

1. In EVERY music chapel of Europe it was the Kapellemeister himself who was personally responsible for the teaching of the music pupils of his chapel. Indeed, this was one of his principal duties.

2. Bonn was no exception

3. That Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was employed by the Bonn chapel for over 23 years, during 20 of which he was definitely responsible for the music teaching of students there.

If you wish me to provide evidence that this really is the rule throughout chapels of Europe over the centuries please ask and I will provide you with it - though only (in that case) to show how silly your argument has become.

We already know and agree that for 1 year (1783/4) Luchesi was on extended leave in Italy and in this time his place was taken by a temporary/substitute Kapellemeister.

Which part of the above do you not agree about ?

As regards Koechel, the aim of this catalogue is, principally, to provide a list of musical compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. And as long as this remains the principal reason for the existence of such a catalogue (notwithstanding the fact that other sections can appear which deal with arrangements, doubtful works, fragments etc. etc) then readers of the main body of the said catalogue have the natural expectation, no, the justifiable and entirely logical expectation to see in Koechel's main section nothing less than a list of works actually composed by Mozart. (Not works of JC Bach, Michael Haydn, or anyone else. Not arrangements of other people's music. Not music that somebody somewhere has decided must be Wolfgang's and not Leopold's). Such a reasonable expectation has not however yet been realised - which is the reason for the criticism.

I don't blame you for arguing as you do. It is easy to see that the slab on which the idol has been erected is made of sub-standard material. But I feel I have a right (as do composers whose achievements thus tend to have been supressed at the expense of the 'Mozart industry') to emphasise that the making of Koechel became, in the end, inevitably, the equivalent of Neil Armstrong walking on the studio (oops) lunar surface in 1969 - a public relations exercise designed to create a legend, this to further the myth of the Wiener Klassic and that crucial element within it that is the Mozart story and, in time, to place itself beyond fair and reasonable criticism of the basis on which it has been constructed and is today still being defended.

Oh yes, of course, works have come and gone in the various editions of Koechel. (One might ask whether the Koechel of today is more correct than the one made by Koechel himself). But the issue here is that goal of an index of works BY Mozart (alone) remains at this time unfulfilled with no real prospect of it ever being achieved. Why not ? Well, to remove from Koechel those works which are definitely not by Mozart can be compared to removing steel reinforcement from the structure of concrete and is to call in to question the 'official' version of his life and career. (Necessarily so). And thus, though we may agree there remain major structural defects in Koechel no major change is permitted beyond the periodic and largely cosmetic repair of individual falling bits of masonry. This, in time, becomes an absurdity.

Robert

[Kalimac]

1) I am not interested in soliciting from Mr Newman any "evidence" as to whether Lucchesi must have taught Beethoven on the grounds that Kapelmeisters always taught all the students. This is because repeated attempts have failed to elicit the "evidence" on a simple factual question: whether the Mozart symphonies K.543/550/551 were definitely in the Bonn inventory in 1784. The responses have raised a lot of specific questions which Mr Newman has not addressed. Trying to elicit information out of him, or even an admission that he doesn't have it, is extraordinarily difficult despite the great amount of wordage he has devoted to this topic.

As the details of Kapelmeister practice are not my area of expertise, all I can say is that, if declarations about Lucchesi's role as Kapelmeister are so obviously true, I wonder how orthodox scholarship got away for nearly two centuries in ignoring it. Nobody noticed this discrepancy until Sr. Taboga showed up? Whatever Mr Newman's declarations, there must be more going on here than he is telling us.

I do not flatly deny that orthodox scholarship may be wrong. Orthodox scholarship on any topic is always subject to correction. But first there must be evidence.

2) Mr Newman again continues his practice of falsely conflating generally-agreed-upon Mozart misattributions with Sr. Taboga's speculative theories.

True enough that the purpose of the Koechel catalog is to say what Mozart wrote. As a work of scholarship on the highest level of detail, it must also make reference to works that were formerly, but are no longer, attributed to Mozart. Which it does. Works like K.16a, 17, 18, 37-41, and 107 are clearly indicated as not by Mozart in all recent editions of Koechel.

That other works which Mr Newman chooses to dispute are still listed as by Mozart is simply because the compilers declare that they were. Mr Newman is free to compile his own Mozart catalog to his own beliefs.

3) Any degree to which I am erecting an idolatrous image of Mozart is as nothing to the fantastic degree to which Taboga and Newman are erecting an idolatrous image of Lucchesi, a superman who can write all the masterworks of two differing supreme composers and hide his genius under a bushel for over 200 years.

4) Mr Newman's fantastic mischaracterization of my discussion post on Wikipedia is of a piece with his other misinterpretations. I merely stated that the Lucchesi theory is highly disputed and should be marked as such.

5) It appears from an offhand comment in his latest that Mr Newman is also an adherent of the belief that the moon landings were faked. If he does believe this, then absolutely nothing he says on any subject need be taken seriously.

[Kalimac]

I should also add that if Mr Newman's arguments about Lucchesi's necessary importance are true, then it is not my arguments which are silly, but those of every reputable Beethoven biographical scholar from A.W. Thayer on! How could they have missed what Mr Newman claims is such a self-evident fact?

[robert newman]

Kalimac has posted twice in succession. I will deal here with his second in which he asks how Beethoven scholarship over the past 200 years or so can possibly have missed the fact that Kapellmeister Luchesi was teacher of the young Beethoven if, indeed, such a fact is self-evidently true.

I suggest the main reason is simple and distrubing at the same time. And that several other reasons exist, all of which to some extent have combined to obscure the truth at the present time.

Firstly, a thing which is self-evident hardly needs to be justified, does it ? If a person in the late 18th century writes a manuscript we know they were holding a pen in their hand when they did so and were not holding the pen between their toes - unless this is specifically said. It is just as plain that cows make milk, that water is wet and that koala bears do not fry onions. Likewise, it was self-evidently true in Beethoven's time that Kapellmeisters at music chapels were responsible for music teaching. Such a thing would have been known throughout the European music world till well in to at least the 19th century, until the time when the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire occurred. The fact that the Bonn chapel was forced to close in 1794 (by which time Beethoven was in Vienna) makes it unlikely that anyone needed to remind us of that which was already so obvious.

And therefore the role and duties of Kapellmeisters would never have become the issue in those days that it now may be between us.

A second reason is, I suggest, the rise of the Wiener Klassik trilogy of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven which, although its members were never strictly related to one another, was nevertheless reason for great pride in German speaking lands and gave rise to the error over time that Beethoven had somehow arisen 'out of nowhere', indigenously, just as wrongly as the common error that Mozart had been able as a 'wunderkind' to independently compose fine sonatas, symphonies and operas at the age claimed of him.

But a third reason may exist, in which writers of textbooks, relying ever more heavily on earlier writers of similar textbooks, and seeing no reference to Luchesi by reading Thayer and other sources create a version of Beethoven's early life where the true teacher of Beethoven (his Bonn Kapellmeister) is no longer an obvious truth nor even readily accepted as a truth at all when it is presented.

The two cantatas written for the death of the the Emperor Joseph and for his successor in 1790 (which I think Luchesi and Beethoven probably worked on together) is in my view further support for the view that composing such works were the principal responsibility of the then Kapellmeister or at least his responsibility to oversee the production of. To credit them to Luchesi/Beethoven seems to me entirely logical.

Some things of real significance can be obvious though they (for different reasons) have escaped academics. That is my postion on this point.


Robert

[Peter]

I think the whole issue of Lucchesi being Beethoven's teacher in Bonn is a red herring in this debate. One wonders why Robert considers Lucchesi's name was hushed up to create an impression of Beethoven appearing from nowhere since we know anyway that Beethoven had a host of teachers at Bonn - Gilles Van den Eeden, Tobias Pfeiffer, F.G.Rovantini, Franz Ries, W.Koch, Zenser and C.G.Neefe.

Now let us consider other points. Robert finds it incredible that Mozart could write two stylistically disimilar works in a short space of time, but has no problem in claiming Lucchesi can compose in the style of early Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn.

Now if this is a German conspiracy led by Max Franz, why did the Italian Lucchesi go along with it, allowing others to take credit for the greatest works of the late 18th century? Why is there no written evidence of any kind to support this theory of major deceit, no receipts, no letters, nothing?

Why did Max Franz order an inventory of this 'fraud' to be made? Why would he have wanted any evidence of this recorded? Why would Lucchesi have made copies, when the intent was to pass them off as by other composers? Why indeed would he have involved copyists at all, thus increasing the risk of exposure? He surely would simply have sent off the originals for the composer to destroy after having copied them themselves in their own hand writing.

Why did so many respectable men such as Neefe, Reicha and Franz Ries who lived until 1846 remain silent? If Lucchesi was such a great composer and teacher, why did Beethoven keep silent? Why did Max Franz send Beethoven to study first with Mozart, then Haydn if he already had the real thing present in Bonn? Why would Max Franz have been surprised at Beethoven's lack of progress in Vienna if he knew Haydn to be a fake?

Why did Mr.Taboga state that the initials were those of the copyists, only to state otherwise now? Why does Robert say 'Therefore the copies we see in Modena could easily have been produced after 1784 at Bonn and need not have been the ones actually inventoried that year.'?

So many questions, no real answers yet despite the lack of real evidence we are supposed to believe that Lucchesi was the greatest composer of the late 18th century and Mozart and Haydn fraudulent mediocrities. I have no doubt there are works in the accepted canon that have been misattributed, but nothing like the scale or the wholesale deceit that is being claimed.




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

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

[robert newman]

I appreciate that Kalimac is trying to argue that convention is right on a whole range of issues, not least in the compiling/presentation of various forms of the Koechel list but also in saying that there is no reason to believe that Luchesi or Modena has a great deal to say that calls convention in to question.

Firstly, I am not suggesting (and nor is Taboga) that the idol of Mozart should be replaced by one of Andrea Luchesi. I've several times indicated that many works credited to Haydn and to Mozart were actually obtained from a whole number of sources, of which Luchesi was one, but Sammartini and others also. An idol of Luchesi would be as unacceptable to me as an idol of Mozart.

But you say that I am avoiding your plain question of whether the 'Mozart' trilogy of symphonies (today generally known as 39,40, and 41 and claimed by Mozart to have been written by him in 6 weeks during the summer of 1788 (according to his own thematic catalogue) were actually already existing at Bonn during the inventory made there in May of 1784). I would like to prove here that I am avoiding nothing.

On Page 260 of the Bonn Inventory of 1784 we find listed after an entry for 'n.72' one which says, '10 symphonies de differents auteurs'.

To investigate these 10 symphonies we must obviously start from virtually nothing, since (as previously mentioned) not a single work is attributed to W.A.Mozart in that whole inventory while, at the same time, 19 are attributed to Haydn and 'Heyde' with a further group of 28 symphonies listed as 'de differents Auteurs'. We know that at Modena these same 28 plus 19 (47) are today (somehow) attributed to Hadyn. And we further know that at Modena today are attributed not 10 but 9 symphonies to Mozart. It is plain therefore that works which were not attributed to any composer at Bonn in 1784 have, somehow, ended up being attributed to Mozart between the Inventory of 1784 and the time of their arrival in Modena.

Further support for this view is provided by the existence, at Modena, of a catalogue that Luchesi himself used at Bonn from 1785 onwards up until perhaps 1792. This catalogue (known as C.53.1) gives us not 9 or 10 Mozart symphonies but, in fact, 14 (since several of these works were added to the Bonn archive after 1784).

Let me list here the 14 symphonies which Luchesi attributes to Mozart, at Bonn, in this C.53.1 catalogue -

K320
K338
K203
K200
K385
K319
K425
K201
K250
K297
K504
K551
K543
K182

This 14 symphonies did not, as we will see, all arrive at Modena. We know also that Bonn records show that K250,K338,K425 and K543 are at Bonn AFTER 1784 and thus were not at Bonn during the time of the Inventory.

Thus, this leaves us 10 symphonies on which we can attempt to compare what is recorded in Mozart's name at Modena.

If these anonymous symphonies at Bonn are one and the same as what is found in Mozart's name in Modena we would therefore have the following 10 symphonies from C.53/1 at Modena -

K320
K203
K200
K385
K319
K201
K297
K504
K551
K182

And what do we actually find at Modena ? Well, we find that the 4 symphonies which are listed after 1784 in Bonn did not arrive there. And we find too 9 symphonies in Mozart's name. (These are listed at Modena as manuscripts Mus-E-154 to Mus-E-162). A 10th symphony in Mozart's name is at Modena whose reference is Mus-D-640, which corresponds with the symphony K551, 'Jupiter' though its story needs to be told separately.

These symphonies at Modena, now credited to Mozart which were previously not credited to him at Bonn are extremely important. The editors of Koechel (in their 6th edition of 1964) formally recognise the existence of 8 of these works at Modena. NOT 9 or 10. They fail to mention the existence at Modena of a copy of K504 and also the anonymous copy there of K551, 'Jupiter'. It is plain that these same editors of Koechel are very conscious of the fact that the presence of these works at Modena is a consequence of them having been present in the Inventory made at Bonn in May 1784 and that their very presence (though masked in terms of 'by various authors') excludes the possibility that these were really composed by Mozart after 1784.

The paper on which the 'Jupiter' symphony is written at Modena originated in Bonn. (Dutch and Swabian papermarks show this - which were commonly in use at this time there).

Furthermore, this curious catalogue made by Luchesi after 1784 (and arranged alphabetically to list the works of various composers) gives in the section on 'Mozart'

14 Symphonies
2 Cassations
5 Piano Concertos
4 Sonatas for Piano and Violin
9 String Quartets
3 Sring Quintets
1 String Trio

So, all of these works are attributed to Mozart after 1784.

It is of course a very curious fact that prior to 1784 not a single work is at the chapel in Mozart's name. Equally curious are references (for example, those by de la Bordes in Paris in his multivolumed work) which does not list Mozart as a writer of symphonies at all. And here is a reference to Mozart from JN Forkel in which no reference is made to Mozart being composer of either 'Don Giovanni' or 'Figaro' -

'Mozart (JJW) Capellmeister in Vienna since 1787. 'The Rape from the Seraglio' has been printed in 1785. Since 1784 have been publicly known several symphonies, quartets and collections of sonatas, besides concertos for keyboard'

(JN Forkel 'Musical Almanach', 1789, pp.84)

Thus, it seems, Mozart is recognised as a writer of symphonies only from 1784 onwards and it is from 1784 onwards that the Bonn chapel itself first holds in its archives any work in which his name is given. 1784 is the year of his friend, Max Franz, becoming the Elector of Bonn, the year of the Inventory, and also the year when Mozart begins (mysteriously) his own thematic catalogue in Vienna.

Regards

Robert

[robert newman]

Peter, these things were hardly advertised in newspapers. They happened because because the fame and prestige of Haydn and Mozart furthered the ambitions of certain people. Max Franz is a central character in this story as said from the beginning. The music archives of Bonn were at no time Max Franz's property but were, in fact, the property of Bonn. Yet they were removed and not returned to the Principality. By any fair reckoning that is an act of theft, though one that occurred as a result of different complex situations. Prior to 1784 Max Franz did not know, completely, what was in the archives at Bonn. He therefore ordered an inventory - and this conducted while Luchesi was in Italy. It was at this time that the scale of his supply to others (including Haydn at Esterhazy) became apparent. This time too (1784) when a deal was made that he would remain in his post now supplying Mozart. That is the broad outline and I think it corresponds very closely with what we find both at Modena and from other sources, not least studies of watermarks, paper types, and many other lines of evidence.

Haydn and Mozart were therefore part of a great plan to further the 'superiority' of Austrian music and resources were made available to carry this out - even at the expense of using others who were willing to go along with it for money.

Leopold Mozart had handled Wolfgang in his childhood and in his youth. Now would come backing from Max Franz and others so that any question of Mozart moving from Vienna was soon out of the question. But the extent to which this occurred (whether it includes concertos, operas etc.) I do not know despite the fact (and I know it for sure) that Taboga has plenty more on these matters for next year. (We know already that productions of an early version of Don Giovanni and again of Figaro are known at Bonn years before Mozart became involved in these subjects).

I believe that in Vienna, Michael Puchberg was involved in this to some extent, acting as a banker/financier and I'm currently looking at this quite closely.

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Peter, these things were hardly advertised in newspapers. They happened because because the fame and prestige of Haydn and Mozart furthered the ambitions of certain people. Max Franz is a central character in this story as said from the beginning. The music archives of Bonn were at no time Max Franz's property but were, in fact, the property of Bonn. Yet they were removed and not returned to the Principality. By any fair reckoning that is an act of theft, though one that occurred as a result of different complex situations. Prior to 1784 Max Franz did not know, completely, what was in the archives at Bonn. He therefore ordered an inventory - and this conducted while Luchesi was in Italy. It was at this time that the scale of his supply to others (including Haydn at Esterhazy) became apparent. This time too (1784) when a deal was made that he would remain in his post now supplying Mozart. That is the broad outline and I think it corresponds very closely with what we find both at Modena and from other sources, not least studies of watermarks, paper types, and many other lines of evidence.

Haydn and Mozart were therefore part of a great plan to further the 'superiority' of Austrian music and resources were made available to carry this out - even at the expense of using others who were willing to go along with it for money.

Leopold Mozart had handled Wolfgang in his childhood and in his youth. Now would come backing from Max Franz and others so that any question of Mozart moving from Vienna was soon out of the question. But the extent to which this occurred (whether it includes concertos, operas etc.) I do not know despite the fact (and I know it for sure) that Taboga has plenty more on these matters for next year. (We know already that productions of an early version of Don Giovanni and again of Figaro are known at Bonn years before Mozart became involved in these subjects).

I believe that in Vienna, Michael Puchberg was involved in this to some extent, acting as a banker/financier and I'm currently looking at this quite closely.

Robert

Again Robert I'm afraid no real answers to some vital questions, in fact you have not dealt with any of my questions satisfactorily and you need to if you want to prove this. Now you are suggesting that 'the great plan' was not masterminded by Max Franz, only continued by him. So a deal was struck in 1784 to supply Mozart - so how come you are claiming many of Mozart's pre 1784 works were by Luchesi? You also mention famous works such as Don Giovani and the Marriage of Figaro, both of which were performed at Bonn in the 1789/90 season, so either the entire audience suffered collective amnesia or they too were involved. One wonders how Figaro could have been heard in Bonn years earlier, since Beaumarchais's play was banned by Louis V1 and not performed in Paris until 1784.

Why would Lucchesi sacrifice his 'genius' to betray his own countrymen over a period of decades? What was his motive and what was his reward? Well we know his reward, total obscurity.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-28-2005).]

[robert newman]

Hi Peter,

You write -
' Again Robert I'm afraid no real answers to some vital questions, in fact you have not dealt with any of my questions satisfactorily and you need to if you want to prove this. Now you are suggesting that 'the great plan' was not masterminded by Max Franz, only continued by him. So a deal was struck in 1784 to supply Mozart - so how come you are claiming many of Mozart's pre 1784 works were by Luchesi? You also mention famous works such as Don Giovani and the Marriage of Figaro, both of which were performed at Bonn in the 1789/90 season, so either the entire audience suffered collective amnesia or they too were involved. One wonders how Figaro could have been heard in Bonn years earlier, since Beaumarchais's play was banned by Louis V1 and not performed in Paris until 1784.

Why would Lucchesi sacrifice his 'genius' to betray his own countrymen over a period of decades? What was his motive and what was his reward? Well we know his reward, total obscurity'.

In fairness, some of these points are easy to clear up and there is no real contradiction. But it's entirely possible that in the flurry of posts (many of them in reply to others) that I have failed to clarify certain issues. Anyway, here goes -

In saying that many works of Mozart prior to 1784 were actually composed by composers other than him I am including Luchesi, yes. Firstly, Luchesi, was famous enough to have been sought by Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart during their visit to Italy in February 1771. And it was there (not in 1784) that Luchesi first gave Mozart a copy of a piano concerto. This relationship later extended to supplying Mozart (most probably through Leopold in Salzburg) other works, later including the Paris' and other symphonies (though this last work was sent to Mozart himself, then on tour).

I must again point out that the very same month that the Elector Max Franz took over in Bonn is the same month in which Mozart begins to keep his thematic catalogue in Vienna - this fully 3 years after his arrival in that city. So, in answer to your question, the supply began even before Mozart was 16 and it continued sporadically up until 1784 when it was formalised through Max Franz. Up until this time Luchesi had been free (and took advantage of it) to supply Haydn etc. though prior to this date in the name of his brother in law at Bonn, Captain D'Anthoin - a pen-name used by Luchesi until the formalisation of the agreement in 1784, which occurred once Luchesi came back from his extended stay in Italy.

Further evidence of irregularity is to be seen in the version of KV320 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-E-155) which is dated 3rd August 1779. Here also (as in the case of KV203) and of KV385 'Haffner' we are really faced with a Luchesi symphony that Mozart transformed in to a Serenade by adding two movements (a fine andantino and a rondo) which is better known as the 'Posthorn Serenade'. Of this 'Mozart Symphony' I paraphrase from the work on Mozart Symphonies by Luigi della Croce -

'Often described as a piece written for Prince Archbishop Colloredo's birthday (which was actually 30th September) this date does not coincide with the one found at the foot of the manuscript. Likewise, uncertain is the circumstance of the transformation in to a symphony, obtained by eliminating the minuets and the two solo central movements'.

He does not mention that the version at Modena is absent of Bach trumpets and that it lacks timpani, so we are sure that Mozart added these.

What we therefore have at Modena is a form of KV320 that predates even the Haffner Serenade. And it was (later) from that same Serenade that Symphony No. 35 was born.

The 6 mediochre quartets KV168-KV173 are dated August 1773 but by October (according to convention) this same Mozart had not only written the B Flat Symphony No. 24 (KV182) but is also to be credited with the remarkable G Minor, No. 25 (KV 183). How many worlds is the composer of the G Minor symphony away from those quartets of only weeks prior ? But, as usual, this amazing rollercoaster of Mozart's supposed progress is allowed to go virtually unquestioned. Is any performance of Symphony No. 25 known in Mozart's lifetime ? How about refrerence to it in correspondence, by anyone during Mozart's lifetime ? And just when was it first published ?

It's 1785 before Artaria begins to distribute a Mozart symphony. How is that if, in fact, this 'miracle that God has wrought in Salzburg' (using Leopold's words) has been all that it is assumed to be ?

And if it is said that it's common for early works of this time to be lost, how shall we credit this in the case of Leopold Mozart, whose oversight of Mozart's early and middle career was unrelenting ? Is it not unusual that he, Mozart's father, appears to have been so lax that the vast majority of works supposedly composed by Mozart in his childhood and youth lack a score or other sort of confirmation that Wolfgang was their true composer ?

At what stage, actually, do these normal, routine points have any bearing on this issue ? By what criteria, other than those we would use of any composer at any time, start to influence our view with regard to the 'official' career of the same Mozart ? One could document till one is blue in the face if, at the end, these absurdities and contradictions have no impact on our appreciation of facts.

To make Mozart great it is not sufficient to add to his supposed achievements two or three works by other composers. For, like KV183, it is the absence of documentary and other evidence that forces us to bear in mind just how routinely we have been conditioned to give credibility to a myth - one that virtually begins with the baby Mozart and does not stop making appeal against our judgement until the Requiem.

Who can deny that the Mozart story, greatly embellished by Lepold, continued under Max Franz and Constanze Mozart, brought to near perfection by her second (unmusical) husband Nissen, and further inflated by Maximilian Stadler, Sussmayer, Baron Gottfried van Sweiten, Otto Jahn and, eventually, Koechel, has given us the most astonishing version of something that really deserved more honesty ?

I think it would be premature of me to talk about either Don Giovanni or Figaro here, since those works belong to Mozart in Vienna and, for the past few posts, we've been focusing mainly on the earlier works. But if that subject is of interest I will get information on it. (It's information I have not studied myself and would therefore not post unless/until I was sure of it being credible).

I'm sorry if none of this answers your questions but it's not due to lack of me trying. Such posts can hardly overturn a point of view (one I shared myself for many years) so easily. And I'm the first to agree that there is no 'killer fact' but, instead, only the accumulation of evidence. That is why I respect those who disagree or who think that these posts cannot provide them with the clear, finished, answers that we would all like. It's work in progress.

Regards

Robert