The Supposed Beethoven Sketch for WoO88

[robert newman]

I owe a reply first to Peter for his earlier posting on the provenance of WoO87 and WoO88. But also to Rod, who has reminded us today of a sketch.

I will be completely frank about this. The reason I keep posting on this issue is that the attribution to Beethoven (which actually only began in 1884) of these two cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 is simply wrong. I mean seriously and manifestly wrong. The sketch Rod has drawn our attention to seems (at a certain superficial level) to 'prove' the Beethoven attribution of WoO88. We can all rush in to believing it because we simply want to believe in the attribution of these two works to Beethoven. In fact the sketch (and other evidence) can easily prove the very opposite as I would like explain later today in this new thread.

Robert

[gardibolt]

Looking forward to hearing this. But it's not just one sketch. It's a continuity sketch in the Kafka Miscellany, the finished oboe part, also contained in Kafka, and the finished cello part, held by Bonn. All quite indisputably in Beethoven's hand, with other Beethoven sketchwork tucked in around them.

[gardibolt]

And I should mention, the Kafka Miscellany was in Beethoven's possession when he died. I'm without my reference materials so I'm not remembering exactly the provenance of SBH 705 but I probably have it noted somewhere.

Mark S Zimmer
The Unheard Beethoven

[robert newman]

In his post of earlier today I think Rod did us a great service by reminding us music in Beethoven’s hand exists which (according to many) proves beyond reasonable doubt that Beethoven was the composer of the cantata WoO88.

In my opinion Peter has done the same by suggesting here (very importantly) that, in fact, the correct attribution of these two Cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 needs (somehow) to be treated separately in some way when we look for a solution to the question of attribution despite these two works standing in obvious relation to one another. I’m sure this is correct. But these two important things (the sketch and this need to somehow juggle with these two works in our minds) are in my view vital to solving this problem. So I suggest is a third thing (something I promised in an earlier post to write about in connection with this same subject – the surviving Minutes of the Bonn Reading Society. The Lesegesellschaft.

I suggest the surviving Minutes of the Lesegesellschaft do NOT confirm what is generally believed. (Those who know German will be able to confirm this or not). That is, they do not commission anyone to compose anything. This is a very important point. What I believe they record is the expression of an idea, later discussed and approved, which led, eventually, to certain things taking place that ran in parallel with the two cantatas Wo87 and Wo88. This sequence of events, I think, began with the suggestion that someone within reach of the Lesegesellschaft (whether he was actually a Member or not, and whether he was a resident foreigner or not, might compose a work to honour the memory of the late Emperor Joseph 2nd.

I am further given to understand that Bonn received this news of Joseph’s death on 24th February 1790. 4 days later (28th February 1790) E. Schneider made a proposal to the Lesegesellschaft that such a memorial by them – i.e. by the Reading Society of Bonn should consist of a Speech. But also (Schneider suggested) ‘before or after this Speech a person could perform some music – a cantata would have a beautiful effect’. And, having already a text from a local poet (S.Averdonk), Schneider further proposed that ‘one of the best composer partners of our Society, or also a foreigner’ could be commissioned to supply such music’.

It’s at this point that Thayer writes (but nobody suggests it then at the Lesegesellschaft) that Beethoven was the most competent to do this job. Thus, this recorded opinion of Thayer has, over time, tended to obscure the fact that at the time no particular composer was suggested. In fact (as already indicated) the proposal would also have gladly accepted a foreigner. This is surely categorical proof that Beethoven was not immediately in the mind of he who was making the proposal – Schneider. Did Schneider even know Beethoven ? Furthermore, the first obvious fact must be stated. The work now under consideration at that meeting cannot have been WoO88. It MAY possibly have been Wo087. (For obvious reasons). But it, I suggest, was also NOT Wo087.

Furthermore, a note exists dated 4 months later (16th June 1790) and it’s addressed to one Baron von Schall. It is not signed. It says that ‘Beethoven composed in memory of Joseph a sonata’.

I would like to turn next to the article that Rod refered to earlier today in his post. The one written by Mr Mark Zimmer on his excellent website ‘Unknown Beethoven. And I will quote from it at some length. (This being the article that is called there a ‘Lost Cadenza to Leopold Cantata Wo88’). Mr Zimmer has also (quite wonderfully) provided us with a Midi file.

He asks the reader of his article if perhaps this cadenza dates from the year after WoO88 was written. And he reminds us that Thayer describes both cantatas (WoO87 and WoO88) as the most interesting of Beethoven’s compositions at this period. We are also rightly told that this subject is ‘somewhat of a detective story’. I entirely agree with Mr Zimmer in his description. His article is very enjoyable.

I would like to bring your attention to a passage that starts several paragraphs down in Mr Zimmer’s article. It concerns the story given by Franz Wegeler to ( I quote –

‘When Haydn first returned from England, a breakfast was given for him by the Electoral Orchestra in Godesburg, a resort near Bonn. On this occasion Beethoven showed him a cantata. Haydn examined it very closely and then warmly encouraged the composer to pursue his studies. Later this cantata was supposed to be performed in Mergentheim, but several sections were so difficult for the wind instruments that some musicians declared they could not possibly play them. As a result, the performance was cancelled. As far as we know, this cantata was never print ‘

I would also like to quote from the same article where the Bonn publisher Simrock says –

‘I only remember that he wrote a cantata there which we did rehearse several times but did not perform in court. We had all manner of protests over the difficult places before us, and he asserted that each player must be able to perform his part correctly; we proved we couldn't, simply because all the figures were completely unusual, therein lay the difficulty. Father Ries, who was the leader in Mergentheim, declared earnestly that this was also his opinion, and so it was not performed at court, and we have never seen anything more of it since.’

Note that in both of these accounts the cantata is said to have presented formidable difficulties to those who tried to play it.

But this makes me ask if these fragments belong to neither WoO87 NOR WoO88 but instead to a third piece, a piece entirely written by Ludwig van Beethoven - for the Reading Society of Bonn, these framents of which have survived and which are today this material. I suggest there is nothing in WoO87 or in Wo088 that could be considered so difficult that Wegeler says it was ‘so difficult for wind instruments that some musicians declared they could not possibly play them. Nor with Simrock who goes even further by saying, ‘ALL the figures were completely unusual, therein lay the difficulty. Father Reis, who was the leader in Mergentheim, declared earnestly that this was ALSO HIS OPINION’

So, I suggest Beethoven had with him at Mergentheim a third work, this being his very own – none other than a work written first for the Bonn Reading Society and drawing from the same text. It was THIS work of which the unsigned note from June is speaking when it says -

‘Beethoven composed in memory of Joseph a sonata’

This work, I suggest was really a one movement work of possibly the sort that Beethoven would again use with the Choral Fantasy, with modest solo string and winds plus keyboard and perhaps one soprano vocalist (the voice entering in to the work near its end) and which was somehow a challenge to all who were involved in its performance (possibly because of the virtuosity required by its players near its conclusion) is the one that is today (perhaps wrongly) regarded as this fragment of WoO88. No such description can possibly be used of either WoO87 or Wo88.

Some will of course say that such a work could hardly be appropriate for a memorial to Joseph 2nd even if it was written solely for performance at the Bonn Reading Society. But there are precedents. (Take for example various passages in the Bach Cantata ‘Christ lag in Todesbanden’, BWV4). Beethoven was attempting something quite special.

I suggest he completed this work all alone. He tried to have it rehearsed at Mergentheim (at the same time as he was involved in preparations for Wo88) but this work (perhaps proving too much of a challenge for anyone at Mergentheim and of course back in Bonn) has never been seen since. The great man kept only these fragments of such an ambitious project from his youth – one that appears never to have been realised.

Regards


Robert

[Peter]

Firstly Robert I would appreciate it if you would stop opening new threads on the same topic and double posting, it makes it impossible for any continuity. I had to delete your last post which is identical to the one here and my apologies to member
mps1600 who replied to that post.

You do not explain the issue of the Beethoven sketches at all satisfactorily. I was expecting proper evidence that would explain the sketches - a smoking gun, instead you present another theory with no proof. Having been made aware of Beethoven's sketches for WoO88 I am convinced that he wrote this work as well as WoO87. You said categorically that he did not but you have provided no satisfactory evidence to the contrary. In fact thanks to Rod and the unheard Beethoven site we have provided the smoking gun that proves Beethoven wrote these pieces. You quote Schneider as evidence Beethoven was not the first composer in the thoughts of the literary society, it is also true that Luchesi was not either. Now the connection with the society, Beethoven and the Elector is Waldstein, described as the Elector's 'favourite and constant companion', he was also a good friend of Beethoven's - according to all accounts the first to recognise Beethoven's genius.

On the whole Luchesi issue you have been far from consistent - let me remind you of some of your previous thoughts posted on the Mozart forum:

"Taboga believes that virtually every symphony by Joseph Hadyn was actually composed by either Luchesi or another Italian composer. Firstly, I think it well established that Joseph Haydn used Bohemian folk melodies a great deal in his symphonies. Is it seriously suggested that Luchesi did so also in writing them secretly for Haydn ?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. Robert Newman"

Also on that forum you stated "We have documentary evidence that Luchesi helped the young Beethoven with several early compositions" yet you never produced it - perhaps you will here now.

I am more convinced also that Luchesi had little to do with Beethoven and certainly was not his teacher. I will post my reasons later today.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-07-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

I posted (or attempted to post) several times but for reasons you may perhaps know none of them appeared on the very thread I had begun. This having previously given this forum notice that I was to post. After each attempt to post I waited for several minutes before attempting to post In addition, several members had said they wished to read my work in advance. Still, the post did not register on the thread. With such repeated and otherwise inexplicable obstacles to my post (none of them explained by your goodself) I therefore began a temporary new thread with printed request and thanks that it be added to the existing thread. Would you have done differently ? And have I caused major inconvenience by doing so ? In short, I did everything reasonable to post an article as I earlier promised this forum. You will perhaps know better the reason why these repeated attempts did not register on the thread and why no explanation for such a block occurred.

Regarding the explanation offered for the fragment - far from giving no explanation, I think any fair minded reader who follows this subject will agree that the explanation offered here contradicts not one of the known facts. All others do. The work spoken of as the result of Schneider's proposal to the Bonn Readers Society in 1790 was NOT WoO88 (which is as you know a cantata for the coronation of the new Emperor). Nor was it WoO87, since the available evidence (plus obvious other facts) indicate without contradiction that the work being discussed at the Bonn Readers Society was beyond reasonable doubt the very one which a note from June that year says that Beethoven eventually wrote - one also refered to repeatedly by two known witnesses (both of them names well known to Beethoven research and witnesses of the same) as being unplayable when set before the musicians at Mergentheim. This was again manifestly neither of the two cantatas just mentioned. It is in fact the same work shown by Beethoven to Haydn. Furthermore, the evidence from both men is that this now lost work was never actually performed. The logical conclusion from all of these complemenatray bits of evidence is by definition consistent. It is that Beethoven wrote a work for the Bonn Readers Society that was neither WoO87 nor WoO88 despite subsequent confusion on this issue by later writers and commentators. What facts are the least bit discrepant with such a view ? I suggest none whatsoever. And because there are none there is a case for readers to reconsider the basis on which their assumptions on this longstanding issue have been based.

Regarding your coming proof that Kapellmeister Luchesi (who was in charge of music amd the teaching of music at Bonn chapel for virtually 20 years - nearly 10 of which Beethoven is known to have had association with that place) your evidence that he did not teach Beethoven is much awaited. But please be aware in advance of your post that in a letter received by me less than three days ago from the Beethovenhaus in Bonn this acknowledgement of Luchesi teaching Beethoven is already no reason for them to take exception. You may know better and (as you see) who can tell what a courteous exchange of messages may bring forth ?

Best regards

Robert Newman

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Peter,

I posted (or attempted to post) several times but for reasons you may perhaps know none of them appeared on the very thread I had begun. This having previously given this forum notice that I was to post. After each attempt to post I waited for several minutes before attempting to post In addition, several members had said they wished to read my work in advance. Still, the post did not register on the thread. With such repeated and otherwise inexplicable obstacles to my post (none of them explained by your goodself) I therefore began a temporary new thread with printed request and thanks that it be added to the existing thread. Would you have done differently ? And have I caused major inconvenience by doing so ? In short, I did everything reasonable to post an article as I earlier promised this forum. You will perhaps know better the reason why these repeated attempts did not register on the thread and why no explanation for such a block occurred.

Regarding the explanation offered for the fragment - far from giving no explanation, I think any fair minded reader who follows this subject will agree that the explanation offered here contradicts not one of the known facts. All others do. The work spoken of as the result of Schneider's proposal to the Bonn Readers Society in 1790 was NOT WoO88 (which is as you know a cantata for the coronation of the new Emperor). Nor was it WoO87, since the available evidence (plus obvious other facts) indicate without contradiction that the work being discussed at the Bonn Readers Society was beyond reasonable doubt the very one which a note from June that year says that Beethoven eventually wrote - one also refered to repeatedly by two known witnesses (both of them names well known to Beethoven research and witnesses of the same) as being unplayable when set before the musicians at Mergentheim. This was again manifestly neither of the two cantatas just mentioned. It is in fact the same work shown by Beethoven to Haydn. Furthermore, the evidence from both men is that this now lost work was never actually performed. The logical conclusion from all of these complemenatray bits of evidence is by definition consistent. It is that Beethoven wrote a work for the Bonn Readers Society that was neither WoO87 nor WoO88 despite subsequent confusion on this issue by later writers and commentators. What facts are the least bit discrepant with such a view ? I suggest none whatsoever. And because there are none there is a case for readers to reconsider the basis on which their assumptions on this longstanding issue have been based.

Regarding your coming proof that Kapellmeister Luchesi (who was in charge of music amd the teaching of music at Bonn chapel for virtually 20 years - nearly 10 of which Beethoven is known to have had association with that place) your evidence that he did not teach Beethoven is much awaited. But please be aware in advance of your post that in a letter received by me less than three days ago from the Beethovenhaus in Bonn this acknowledgement of Luchesi teaching Beethoven is already no reason for them to take exception. You may know better and (as you see) who can tell what a courteous exchange of messages may bring forth ?

Best regards

Robert Newman

Robert I have no idea why your posts do not immediately appear, other than the fact that other members have experienced similar problems due to technical problems with the software - I can assure you there is no conspiracy here to block you! As it is you seem to have managed to post here in this thread anyway.
Although I profoundly disagree with your reasoning I think you'll agree we have allowed you to have your say and in many ways I am grateful for you bringing the whole thing to my attention as it has been most informative.

Now nowhere do you explain the existence of a sketch by Beethoven for a soprano aria in WoO88 - it is this issue I would like you to deal with.

I would also appreciate it if you would let me know what the Beethovenhaus said concerning Luchesi's involvement as Beethoven's teacher as I would like to be in possession of the full facts before posting!

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

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

I also don't know what caused posts not to appear on the thread. I can only assume it's the software which, from time to time, seems to block additions to a thread. But it's fine and I regret any inconvenience this must be causing you. In future I will post the next day if there are problems. Normally everything is fine.

I appreciate that you wish to pursue the idea that the sketch (sketches) are clear evidence of Beethoven having written WoO88. And you want evidence from me that he did not.

Well, the two reports that the musicians simply could not deal with the technical demands given to them by a cantata indisputably written by Beethoven must reasonably rule out WoO87 and also WoO88. Would you not at least agree this ? Where is the overwhelming technical virtuosity in WoO88 ? Nowhere at all. It does not exist and it cannot possibly be the work that Beethoven wrote - the one which all the evidence says that he did write.

If these two works are ruled out as being the composition shown by Beethoven to Haydn, then, it follows, there must have been and was a third work that was neither WoO87 nor WoO88. That too is exactly consistent with the note written in June 1790. Thus, the work written for the Bonn Reading Society is the one for which a cadenza was written - a very ambitious cantata that was neither of the above two. Cadenzas frequently appear in concertos or works which require virtuosity as everyone knows. But that too is wholly consistent with the descriptions of the work and its reception by musicians from Simrock and from Franz Wegeler. It's consistent with the views of Ries also. Thus, we have 3 different witnesses all saying the thing, a fourth supporting testimony from the Schneider records, and a fifth in the letter written that June in Bonn which credits Beethoven. There is definitely a missing composition by Beethoven and these fragments discussed by Mr Zimmer belong to it.

I will be extremely interested to know what Mr Zimmer thinks about the idea of a lost work solving this problem. His view on this issue (from a practical point of view) would be extremely interesting. And he has ready access to all the fragments. I can't really add much more.

As regards the letter sent to and received from the Beethovenhaus, I sent a question asking if they, the Beethovenhaus, recognise Luchesi playing any part in the teaching of the young Beethoven while he was a youth at Bonn. I am sure Dr Ernst Herttrich (Director of the Beethovenhaus at Bonn) will not object to me quoting part of his letter received by me several days ago -

'Concerning the role Luchesi may have played in young Beethoven's musical education, I think it is possible that he gave lessons to the young man. Neefe's role usually is much overstated'.

I hope this helps and look forward to your post and the next letter from Mr Zimmer.

Rgds

Robert

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:


'Concerning the role Luchesi may have played in young Beethoven's musical education, I think it is possible that he gave lessons to the young man. Neefe's role usually is much overstated'.

Do you know of any existing sketches by Luchesi to support anything you have said regarding these or any other early 'pseudo-Beethoven' pieces that for some reason he subsequently borrowed from so willingly? I listened yet again to these canatas and WoO36 and 37 last night and there is not an un-Beethovenian note there to my ears.

If there is a lost work so be it but considering the number of complaints by Beethoven of poor performances of his music in Vienna it would not surprise me if these cantatas proved problematic for the orchestra they were intended for.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 01-07-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Dear Peter,

I also don't know what caused posts not to appear on the thread. I can only assume it's the software which, from time to time, seems to block additions to a thread. But it's fine and I regret any inconvenience this must be causing you. In future I will post the next day if there are problems. Normally everything is fine.

I appreciate that you wish to pursue the idea that the sketch (sketches) are clear evidence of Beethoven having written WoO88. And you want evidence from me that he did not.

Well, the two reports that the musicians simply could not deal with the technical demands given to them by a cantata indisputably written by Beethoven must reasonably rule out WoO87 and also WoO88. Would you not at least agree this ? Where is the overwhelming technical virtuosity in WoO88 ? Nowhere at all. It does not exist and it cannot possibly be the work that Beethoven wrote - the one which all the evidence says that he did write.

If these two works are ruled out as being the composition shown by Beethoven to Haydn, then, it follows, there must have been and was a third work that was neither WoO87 nor WoO88. That too is exactly consistent with the note written in June 1790. Thus, the work written for the Bonn Reading Society is the one for which a cadenza was written - a very ambitious cantata that was neither of the above two. Cadenzas frequently appear in concertos or works which require virtuosity as everyone knows. But that too is wholly consistent with the descriptions of the work and its reception by musicians from Simrock and from Franz Wegeler. It's consistent with the views of Ries also. Thus, we have 3 different witnesses all saying the thing, a fourth supporting testimony from the Schneider records, and a fifth in the letter written that June in Bonn which credits Beethoven. There is definitely a missing composition by Beethoven and these fragments discussed by Mr Zimmer belong to it.

I will be extremely interested to know what Mr Zimmer thinks about the idea of a lost work solving this problem. His view on this issue (from a practical point of view) would be extremely interesting. And he has ready access to all the fragments. I can't really add much more.

As regards the letter sent to and received from the Beethovenhaus, I sent a question asking if they, the Beethovenhaus, recognise Luchesi playing any part in the teaching of the young Beethoven while he was a youth at Bonn. I am sure Dr Ernst Herttrich (Director of the Beethovenhaus at Bonn) will not object to me quoting part of his letter received by me several days ago -

'Concerning the role Luchesi may have played in young Beethoven's musical education, I think it is possible that he gave lessons to the young man. Neefe's role usually is much overstated'.

I hope this helps and look forward to your post and the next letter from Mr Zimmer.

Rgds

Robert

Robert,

You still haven't accounted for Beethoven having written sketches for a soprano aria that appears in WoO88. The important point is not whether WoO88 was too difficult or not, but that Beethoven clearly wrote at least one of the arias.

Now I have some points concerning Luchesi as teacher. I meant to say in the previous post that Beethoven was not his star pupil and I doubt that Beethoven had much instruction from him. I think the first point to be made is that there is no reason that we should be unaware of Luchesi as Beethoven's teacher had he played a prominent role. No one, especially Beethoven ever credit him for this. Regardless of the Mozart and Haydn theory, this was entirely different and no one at the time had the slightest inkling Beethoven would go on to become such a great composer, the evidence as I shall point out suggests the contrary. There simply was no need for anyone to remain silent on this point.

A report of 1784 describes Beethoven's compositions as those of a beginner student and in 1791 he is not even mentioned as a composer. Between 1785-9 Beethoven is not known to have written anything for certain. Surely if Beethoven was Luchesi's pupil we could have expected to have had more works written and performed at Bonn during this time? Wouldn't Luchesi's backing have ensured the prominence that was given to Reicha, Perner and the Rombergs? In 1787 Reicha conducted his first symphony and his Scènes italiennes yet Somehow Beethoven, 'the star pupil' appears to have become disheartened with composition at this time, perhaps from lack of recognition and encouragement from the Kapellmeister? Between 1784-1791 Beethoven had just one work published WoO65, yet around 50 works are thought to have been written in Bonn.

The following is of course only a theory but I believe plausable. I suspect that relations between the Beethovens and Luchesi were none too warm. Consider that Luchesi's predecessor had been Beethoven's grandfather and that Johann Van Beethoven considered himself as the rightful successor. Both in 1774 and 1784 he dropped strong hints to the elector to this effect. When he failed to obtain this position his drinking increased and it is likely that he resented Luchesi and Ludwig would have been brought up in this atmosphere - Gone were the glory days of kapellmeister Beethoven, held in the highest esteem, instead on Johann's death Max franz quipped that "the revenues from the liquor excise have suffered a loss in the deaths of Beethoven and Eichhoff". Ludwig must have felt this disgrace sorely.

My final point regarding Luchesi as teacher is that how did he fail to give Beethoven the basic grounding in counterpoint that he had to struggle with under Albrechtsberger years later? We know Neefe was deficient in these respects, but Luchesi?

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-07-2006).]

[gardibolt]

If these two works are ruled out as being the composition shown by Beethoven to Haydn, then, it follows, there must have been and was a third work that was neither WoO87 nor WoO88. That too is exactly consistent with the note written in June 1790. Thus, the work written for the Bonn Reading Society is the one for which a cadenza was written - a very ambitious cantata that was neither of the above two. Cadenzas frequently appear in concertos or works which require virtuosity as everyone knows. But that too is wholly consistent with the descriptions of the work and its reception by musicians from Simrock and from Franz Wegeler. It's consistent with the views of Ries also. Thus, we have 3 different witnesses all saying the thing, a fourth supporting testimony from the Schneider records, and a fifth in the letter written that June in Bonn which credits Beethoven. There is definitely a missing composition by Beethoven and these fragments discussed by Mr Zimmer belong to it.

While it's entirely possible that there is a third and lost Beethoven work related to the succession of the Emperors, the connections between his cadenza and the Aria from WoO 88 is quite clear. The main theme of the cadenza is plainly adapted from the WoO 88 aria. It also fits right into the aria.

I'd agree there's a certain amount of speculation here, but we have the evidence of Wegeler that Beethoven DID write a cantata at this time, and we have him sketching materials that are in the WoO 88 cantata. And the provenance of two of the three pieces is entirely indisputable as being from Beethoven's own possessions.

Contra, there is absolutely nothing in support of Lucchesi. No anecdotal evidence he wrote a cantata or two for the occasion, no scores, no sketches, nothing.

Occam's Razor suggests that Beethoven's authorship is probably the correct answer. Is Beethoven's authorship ironclad? No. But he's certainly a better candidate than anyone else, by far.

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

In my view these fragments are from a completely unknown work by Ludwig van Beethoven, written in 1790 for the Bonn Reading Society and undeniably related to both WoO87 and also WoO88, though belonging to neither. The reason for the link is that Beethoven's work was an attempt to write in a single composition both a memorial to Joseph AND a musical tribute to the new Emperor Leopold. This is why reference is made to WoO88 in these fragments.

Biamonti deserves credit for first describing the cello part as coming from an 'unknown work' in 1986 (only some 20 years ago). WoO88 is clearly not an unknown work and Biamonti is of course correct. Mark Zimmerman deserves great credit for seeing these fragments as a 'heretofore unknown cadenza' related to the soprano aria in WoO88. Professor Nicholas Temperley of the University of Illinois has made a huge breakthrough in realising we are here discussing a concerted cadenza
Further input by Joseph Kerman has proved Beethoven had kept in his possession at the time of his death evidence of such a work extending beyond 40 bars. He, Beethoven, kept these fragments for reasons that must now be established.

Mr Zimmer also describes the main sketch as 'degenerating' into a 'number of variants and fragments soon after the 25th bar' etc.
All of this evidence has been focused on in depth only since the late 20th century.

I am convinced that Luchesi wrote WoO87 and also WoO88. I am also convinced these fragments are from a work Beethoven wrote in the first part of 1790 for the Bonn Reading Society and which he attempted to have rehearsed at Mergentheim - the very work which evidence of many kinds suggests was a virtuoso cantata, of which these fragments are a surviving part. The fact that this material has quoted from WoO88 indicates that by the time Beethoven wrote this music Joseph was long dead and Leopold was now in his place. That is why the soprano aria from WoO88 features in Beethoven's composition.

I will not be responsible for overlooking the importance of what is really an unknown work by Beethoven.

Again, I would like to remind readers of the following contemporary reports -

1.Beethoven showed him a cantata. Haydn examined it very closely and then warmly encouraged the composer to pursue his studies. Later this cantata was supposed to be performed in Mergentheim, but several sections were SO DIFFICULT for the wind instruments that some musicians declared they COULD NOT POSSIBLY PLAY THEM. As a result, the performance was cancelled. As far as we know, this cantata was never printed'.

Also from the Zimmer article -

2. 'There may have been an unknown performance of these cantatas during the year 1790, which marked both the death of Emperor Joseph II and the accession of Leopold 2nd'

Thus, the work Beethoven composed was more than a memorial to the death of Joseph. It was a fusion of both the memorial and also of the coronation cantata - a single composition refering to both. But a virtuoso piece. These fragments come from the work that Beethoven wrote for the Bonn Literary Society.

Finally, as clear evidence that Beethoven did write such a work -

3. We had all manner of protests over the difficult places before us, and he asserted that each player must be able to perform his part correctly; we proved we couldn't, simply because ALL THE FIGURES WERE COMPLETELY UNUSUAL. .....Father Ries, who was the leader in Mergentheim, declared earnestly that this was ALSO HIS OPINION, and so it was not performed at court, and we have never seen anything more of it since'

I credit Beethoven with writing such a work. The evidence all points in this direction. It is now for others to credit the Kapellmeister of Bonn, Andrea Luchesi, for having composed the two cantatas WoO87 and WoO88. This, to me, is inevitable and completely consistent with the available evidence. Further research on these fragments will only confirm that Beethoven wrote such a third work.

I know for sure that the two cantatas Wo087 and WoO88 were both presented to the brother of the Emperor Leopold, who was none other than Max Franz, the Elector of Bonn who lived at Mergentheim. This is why the two works were prepared at Mergentheim. It is why Beethoven was there. It is also why the young Beethoven brought with him a third piece of his very own - the one that the Reading Society of Bonn had commissioned him to write, and which exists in those fragments Mr Zimmer now works with. Time will tell and I am sure it will also prove this even further.

You see what absurdities we make to deny that Luchesi was a teacher to Beethoven and how absurd it increasingly becomes to insist that Luchesi was not author of these two official works. It's the third work that we are now discussing when we are speaking of these fragments. I fairly credit Beethoven for the composition of that third work. Others should fairly credit Luchesi with the composition of and the responsibility for WoO87 and WoO88.

Occam's Razor says we should not multiply entities without good cause. We have good cause to celebrate the recognition of evidence that Beethoven wrote a third work of his very own which is only just starting to be appreciated.

Robert Newman



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-07-2006).]

[robert newman]

From the time of Thayer onwards virtually no credit has been given to the musical genius of Andrea Luchesi - this despite the fact that he was Kapellmeister at Bonn for some 20 years and had responsibility for music there. Bonn became the most prestigious music chapel in Europe under his guidance. So shameful is this 'airbrushing' of Luchesi out of our studies of music history that his very name is anathema to Beethoven biographers. And this absurd situation descends in to total farce when Luchesi is not refered to as the likeliest composer of the two civic cantatas now under examamination, WoO87 and WoO88. Thus, Luchesi, Kapellmeister to Max Franz (the brother of the Emperor) is not even credited with having composed the cantata for the death of the Emperor nor the cantata for the accession of his successor Leopold 2nd. These works must instead be dogmatically attributed to a 19 year old student. Why ? Well, its simply been that way ever since Thayer.

From what planet has come such 'logic' ? Max Franz was brother of these Emperors. It was Max Franz who employed Luchesi. It was Max Franz who would call on his Kapellmeister as a matter of course to write exactly this sort of music. And right across Europe this sort of music was always written by the Kapellmeister. Ignore this fact if you please but add to it the simple truth that no evidence whatsoever supports Beethoven being composer of these two works. In the light of this is it any wonder that common sense seems to have been exhausted on this issue ?

Well, Beethoven (you may be sure) is to be credited by the same spurious logic with writing not only two but now a third cantata. WoO87 and WoO88 are simply not enough for your assumptions on this student. He is now about to be credited with having written one more - for the Bonn Reading Society. Is such a thing not now inevitable ?

I think you can see both the absurdity and the natural justice of this situation ? I, a firm supporter of Kapellmeister Andrea uchesi having written both WoO87 and WoO88 (this as the normal function of the Kapellmeister)have been first (and first anywhere for that matter) to propose and to show that young Beethoven wrote a virtuoso cantata for the Bonn Literary Society.

Frankly, I would prefer credit for having shaken you out of your assumption that Beethoven was composer of the 2 cantatas that were written by Kapellmeister Luchesi. But this Beethoven work suggested by these fragments is real and they make it possible to stop appealing to your common sense. Recognition as a true work by the 19 year old composer makes me sure time and closer study of Beethoven's surviving manuscripts will prove and confirm this. In return I hope you will (though it brings you more pain than having a tooth extracted) finally give credit to Andrea Luchesi in respect of the two cantatas he wrote and for which he has never been credited since the time of Beethoven. There is no reason deny that in such a situation the precedent applies that such works were composed by the Kapellmeister.

Beethoven would have laughed at such nonsense as him being attributed these works. He would have called the traditionalists of today jackasses. He would have reminded you that this virtuoso cantata was too difficult even for the Bonn Literary society and that he finally wrote them a SONATA. But please yourself. Beethoven deserves at least respect for the facts.

Robert Newman

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-08-2006).]

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-08-2006).]

[Peter]

Dear Robert,

I'm afraid as ever that you have given us a lengthy repeat of the same arguments that completely ignore the known facts. Your whole argument centres on it being the duty of kapellmeisters to write music on such occasions. Why then do we not have any cantatas from Haydn on the death of Maria Theresa or the elevation of Joseph ll?

You state "The fact that this material has quoted from WoO88 indicates that by the time Beethoven wrote this music Joseph was long dead and Leopold was now in his place. That is why the soprano aria from WoO88 features in Beethoven's composition."
Firstly when the literary society commissioned the work, they expected it for March 19th 1790, implying Beethoven would have begun work immediately. The idea that Beethoven waited months if not a year before beginning is ludicrous. What is odd is that Luchesi his 'great teacher' did not point out the difficulties in Beethoven's score before the work got to rehearsals at Mergentheim! Didn't Beethoven show it to him?

Let me present the facts for which we have documentary evidence
1) The literary society commissioned a composer to write a cantata for their memorial of Joseph ll on March 19th 1790. They did not immediately think of Beethoven or Luchesi. Waldstein was a prominent member of this society, a close friend of the Elector and Beethoven.
2) Simrock and Wegeler both refer to Beethoven's involvement in the rehearsals of a cantata at Mergentheim. They do not refer to any other cantatas by Luchesi.
3) Sketches in Beethoven's hand for the soprano aria and related material in Woo88 exist! Nothing in Luchesi's hand does. Robert would have us believe that Beethoven borrowed this from Luchesi's work. No proof either of Luchesi having written the cantatas or Beethoven 's 'borrowing'.
4) Beethoven reuses material from the Joseph cantata years later in his opera Leonore.

You did not deal with any of my points regarding Beethoven as Luchesi's star pupil. The most important one is why Luchesi failed to impart a firm grounding in counterpoint - how can this be? Neefe readily admitted to his lack of training and this explains why Beethoven arrived in Vienna struggling with basic counterpoint exercises. The only options are that either Luchesi was deficient or he was not Beethoven's main composition tutor.

It is clear from several reports that Beethoven's skills as a composer were recognised by only a few at court. He was considered as an instrumentalist not a gifted composer which is why he was not under the tutelage of Luchesi. Reicha, Perner and the Rombergs on the other hand were writing quartets, operas and symphonies that were performed in Bonn - they were officially recognised in a report of 1791 as composers where Beethoven was not. All this would explain Beethoven's remarks on returning to Bonn in 1787 "I have not the smallest hopes of earning anything here. Fate is not propitious to me here in Bonn."

You stated months ago on the Mozart forum that you had documentary evidence proving Luchesi's involvement with Beethoven's compositions. Could you please present us with these facts now.


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-08-2006).]

[robert newman]

Instead of acknowledging the discovery of a new Cantata by Beethoven (one whose very existence was never suspected by all students of Beethoven's music over the past 180 years or so) you prefer not to see the wood for the trees by repeating your dogmatic assumption that he, the 19 year old Beethoven, composed the two Cantatas WoO87 and WoO88. You have not a fig of supporting evidence. You do this because you think you are serving truth and are protecting the Beethoven legacy. But you are, in fact, now merely hiding from the appreciation of everyone a work written by Beethoven and undiscovered until now. That is the price of your opinion. An opinion that began with Thayer. He was wrong. You are still wrong, with far less excuse.

You prefer to ignore the fact that such evidence as we have conclusively proves that Beethoven wrote a virtuoso cantata. This is clearly repeated by Simrock and several others and was confirmed at Mergentheim. But still you fail to understand the evidence presented to you. Ignoring it even as a strong possibility that WoO87 and WoO88 were written by Max Franz's Kapellmeister you prefer to side with the dogmatists who falsely tell us that records of the Bonn Literary Society record Beethoven being commissioned. Who pointed all these things out to you ? You ignore the unfortunate suppression (intended and not) of Luchesi's very music and his part in the teaching of students at Bonn). The list goes on. You also ignore the fact that the documentary evidence for WoOO88 in Biamnonti etc. shows at the very least a cadenza - a device used in music performed by virtuoso compositions of the kind that Simrock and others specifically talk about. This too is ignored. You ignore the fact that WoO88 contains nothing more musically demanding than many other cantatas of the time. Nor does WoO87. Beethoven honoured his Emperors and his Kapellmeister in using the aria from WoO88. But still you do not see it.

There seems to be nothing you will ignore to dogmatically attribute to Beethoven two cantatas for which you have not a shred of evidence that he actually wrote. So poor is this traditional attribution of these works to Beethoven that it did not occur during his lifetime. So poor that Beethoven himself never once spoke of them. So poor it was 60 years after Beethoven's death before they became works by 'Beethoven' and were falsely named. Having systematically airbrushed out Luchesi these works became Beethoven's.

Let me be constructive to the last. Let me again show you something you do not know. In the letter from June of 1790 the writer specifically says Beethovem wrote for Joseph a memorial SONATA. This SONATA is now the SECOND work by Beethoven discovered as a result of this thread - and news of it comes yet again from someone who does not believe in the traditional attribution of WoO87 and WoO88 to Beethoven. He, Beethoven, realising his own cantata was simply beyond musicians to play, abandoned the work and gave the Bonn Literary Society a SONATA instead - one dedicated to the memorial of Joseph.

And so, you see how we learn nothing when our attitude is shaped by traditions which are baseless ? You now have with Luchesi some idea of the harm you do when so blindly labelling works for which there is no supporting evidence.

Composers have quoted other composers throughout the history of music. Beethoven quoted others many times. He was no plagiarist. But he was not a person who would have dreamed of making the arguments you make for WoO87 and WoO88. He would have laughed at this nonsense. He would say the traditionalists are wooden donkeys. And they are.

The actual evidence says Beethoven deserves recognition for what he did and not for that which he did not.

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-08-2006).]