The Supposed Beethoven Sketch for WoO88

[Peter]

Robert,

What are you talking about? We haven't discovered a new cantata by Beethoven - you are assuming there is another one. You come up with a theory to explain away the evidence and claim it as fact, so flimsy is your whole Luchesi argument regarding not just this but Mozart and Haydn equally.

You even try to misrepresent the Bonn court by claiming it was second in importance to Rome. According to Marek "Bonn was a small town. It pretended to the graces of Paris, to the self-importance of Berlin, and to the ceremonial splendour of papal Rome. It succeeded in being none of these. It was really just a provincial town which gave itself airs because it was the seat of a prince of the church and the capital of a small land called the 'Electorate of Cologne', one of the many states that made up the holy Roman Empire."

May I remind you of your recent and past inconsistancies -

"I am entirely open to a Luchesi/Beethoven co-operation on these two cantatas and the more one looks at it the more I am sure this is the correct solution."

"Taboga believes that virtually every symphony by Joseph Hadyn was actually composed by either Luchesi or another Italian composer. He also believes that many symphonies by Mozart were also written by the same composers. These opinions are so improbable and so enormous that I have personally rejected them as untrue."


Stop saying we do not have a shred of evidence Beethoven wrote these cantatas, that is a lie and we have provided it. The truth is you do not have a shred of evidence Luchesi wrote them. If you had a sketch in Luchesi's handwriting, if you had Luchesi's name on the title page, if you had two witness statements, if you had a work written later by Luchesi that used the same material, indeed if you had just one of these you would claim it as indisputable proof - we have all of this for Beethoven.

I will have no problem accepting Luchesi wrote the cantatas when you can prove it, otherwise there is no more to be said. Ranting that he wrote them is not proof, we need manuscripts, letters contemporary accounts as we do actually have in the case of Beethoven.

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



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

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:


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.

Whilst I have never doubted there may be a number of lost Beethoven pieces from this period, I have mentioned here long ago that to my mind the structure of the Leopold is such that it was probably not composed as a stand-alone piece. Namely there is no introduction and the final chorus is probably too grand for the Leopold on its own. Thus the repetition of the 'Todt, Stohnt Es Durch Die Ode Nacht!' chorus at the end of the Joseph has more meaning in this context as a 'double cantata', as a prelude to 'part two', namely the Leopold. In this context the finale of the Leopold is wholely appropriate.

I may add that to my ears these two canatatas are not exactly pieces for amateurs to perform. Stylistically they are certainly the work of one composer. Also I don't regard the Leopold as the 'poor relation' of the two, on the contrary.

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




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

[robert newman]

It must be that you recognise the weaknesses in your position that Haydn'a symphonies are now discussed. What relevance have they to our conversation ? (My education is better now than when I first started studying Haydn's career. I now see it was simple for minuets to be added to Haydn symphonies using folk material from Haydn's native country). But this has nothing to do with this thread on WoO88.

I DID say both Luchesi and Beethoven should be credited with WoO87 and WoO88. My view is unchanged on this. Thank you for repeating it. Beethoven prepared these works at Mergentheim but was not their composer. He, Beethoven, was composer of a single virtuoso cantaa, one written for the Bonn Literary Society but which was (according to three contemporary witnesses who have no reason to lie) not able to be played by musicians on account of its formidable technical content and of the way it was written. Beethoven left this ambitious cantata and wrote instead for the Bonn Literary Society a SONATA. That's what the evidence says. It will not change. And it remains my own position.

You seem to have no idea about the norms for the chapels of those days. The rights of the Kapellmeister were quite clear. They were the 'maitre en droit' (the master's right) to be sole head of music to the Elector, (Max Franz at Bonn from 1784), to be responsible for the choir, and to oversee the teaching of music, particularly for the youth. It was the Kapellmeister's job to write WoO87 and WoO88. How can you make us laugh by denying this ? Beethoven, as a young man nearing the end of his time in Bonn, was given the job of overseeing parts and rehearsals for these two cantatas. This is the same time as his recorded meeting with Haydn, at which he showed the old man his new, virtuoso cantata.

You say I misrepresent the status of Bonn during those years by describing its chapel as second to that of Rome within the Holy Roman Empire. Well, I have contemporary evidence saying that. If you want the quote please let me know - there is no doubt Bonn was one of the leading chapels of the late Holy Roman Empire.

The fragments to which you refer quote from WoO88 because Beethoven wrote a work that was both a recognition of Joseph and also of Leopold. He ended by quoting his own Kapellmeister. That was Beethoven.

He did not write this work in 1791. He wrote it in 1790. So says all the evidence. He met and showed the work to Haydn in 1790. He was at Mergentheim in 1790.

Yes, Beethoven would laugh at such absurdities as you seem determined to insist on. He wrote one cantata too difficult for anyone to perform and was involved in the preparation of two others for his boss, the Kapellmeister Luchesi.

Such facts are crystal clear. They cannot possibly be misunderstood. And now we wait for the comments of Mr Zimmer and others to see whether these fragments are consistent with such a virtuoso cantata or not. I think you begin to realise your predicament.

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).]

[HaydnFan]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Such facts are crystal clear. They cannot possibly be misunderstood.

Robert Newman

Obviously, they are misunderstood by you, because the rest of the world does not agree with you. Who is more likely to be right, you or everyone else (which includes many Beethoven scholars). Someone once said, "science is the search for truth, regardless of the consequences". You, Mr. Newman, are not searching for truth. You have come up with an idea and now you are desperately searching for evidence to support it, when all existing evidence clearly points to Beethoven as the composer. This is massively UN-SCIENTIFIC.

[robert newman]

Dear HaydnFan,

Majority opinion is that politicians are a waste of time, that wars should not happen, that Manchester United are the best football team in the world and that Beethoven is boring. The majority opinion is not the issue here.

Speaking of expertise, let us hear their views (men such as Mr Zimmer or any Beethoven scholar). Is that too controversial a request ? He will confirm the 'status quo' but he will be open to looking at this debate. Until we do I remain, like your goodself, a person giving the results of my own studies, my own views based on what evidence really exists. I have submitted such evidence for criticism and have denied or contradicted none of it.

Regards

Robert




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

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


You seem to have no idea about the norms for the chapels of those days. The rights of the Kapellmeister were quite clear. They were the 'maitre en droit' (the master's right) to be sole head of music to the Elector, (Max Franz at Bonn from 1784), to be responsible for the choir, and to oversee the teaching of music, particularly for the youth. It was the Kapellmeister's job to write WoO87 and WoO88. How can you make us laugh by denying this ?

I have never denied the kapellmeister's role but this does not prove he composed WoO87 and WoO88. His music could be missing along with everything his predecessor kapellmeister Beethoven wrote. Where are Luchesi's works for the death of leopold ll and elevation of Franz l in 1792?

He did not write this work in 1791. He wrote it in 1790. So says all the evidence. He met and showed the work to Haydn in 1790. He was at Mergentheim in 1790.

Again you distort the facts. The planned concert at Mergentheim was for autumn 1791, ample time for Luchesi in his supposed role as Beethoven's teacher to ensure the work was playable.

As we will never agree until you provide indisputable evidence that these works were by Luchesi (and then I will be the first to congratulate you on your excellent work) I would like you to deal with the other issues which you have so far ignored.

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.




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

[gardibolt]

Speaking of expertise, let us hear their views (men such as Mr Zimmer or any Beethoven scholar).

I already posted my view, above, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I'll reiterate. While I'll concede that Beethoven's authorship of these cantatas is not ironclad, certainly the extant sketch materials, especially when combined with the anecdotal evidence, point quite clearly in his direction. If Luccesi wrote these cantatas, then why did Ludwig die with sketches for them (including variant ideas), in his own handwriting, in his possession? The Kafka sketch very plainly is related to the Aria of WoO 88. Listen to the midi of the cadenza on the Unheard site and then a recording of the Aria and you'll see that.

Contrariwise, there is zero evidence I've seen that Luccesi wrote any cantatas for the occasion, other than surmise based on his position alone. No sketches, no scores, no anecdotal evidence.

A common fault of Beethoven scholars is to look at the theories of others through a microscope, and look at their own with the approving naked eye, from a distance. They would be better served by turning the microscope on their own theories.

Mark S Zimmer
Project Director
The Unheard Beethoven

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by gardibolt:
A common fault of Beethoven scholars is to look at the theories of others through a microscope, and look at their own with the approving naked eye, from a distance. They would be better served by turning the microscope on their own theories.

Dear Mark;

WOW!! May I use that quote?? It is nice having you back on Beethoven forums.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Dear Mr Zimmer,

Your opinions on WoO87 and WoO88 are are as valid as those of others including myself if they take in to account the documentary and other evidence of the time. And these two cantatas have have been much discussed already on this thread. But I wish to focus on music indisputably in Beethoven's hand. This is music which (rightly) is agreed to have been derived from a soprano aria found in the cantata WoO88. Music you yourself suggest was written in 1791 - later than WoO88. Is this not true ?

The composer of WoO88 is under dispute. But the authorship of these fragments which you say date from 1791 is not under dispute. We agree these fragments are in the hand of Ludwig van Beethoven. We further agree they were in his possession at the time of his death in 1827. We agree too that there is no record of a copy of the Cantata WoO88 being in Beethoven's possession at the time of his death.

This material consists of (and I use your own words from the website on Biamonti 16 that appears on your website 'Unknown Beethoven') -

1.'a hertofore unknown cadenza'

You further describe this cadenza as featuring -

2.'the Solo instruments of Flute and Cello, as well as the Soprano, with acompaniment by Oboe and other instruments'

This cadenza written supposedly 1 year later than WoO88 begs some some of explanation from you Mr Zimmer. Correct me if I am wrong. I am given to understand that a Cadenza normally occurs in a piece of music at a point where one or possibly two instruments/voices (if they are soloists) play and the other instruments or voices are silent. Is this your understanding of the word 'cadenza' in relation to this material, the running time of which is 2 minutes and 28 seconds on your Midi File ?

I would also like to ask you a second question. Is it true the word 'Cadenza' is normally used in music of the 18th and 19th centuries in works which have a soloist or soloists and which require technical virtuosity at the point where such a thing is made ? Cadenzas are found, for example, in many, many concertos. They are found in some cantatas and in operatic arias. They are found in works such as sinfonia concertante. And in partitas or even sonatas. But here, in these indisputably Beethoven fragments you regard this music as being a 'concerted cadenza' from WoO88. What do you actually mean by a 'concerted cadenza' ?

My next question is this. Are you saying this music was written in 1790 but rejected by Beethoven at the time of WoO88 ? Or are you saying it was an afterthought that he made the following year ?

My next question is this. In what sense is this music a cadenza in the accepted use of that term ?

In fact Mr Zimmer, you use the word 'cadenza' at least 29 times in your article. You also use the word 'cadenzas' (plural) once.

There exist (as already posted) 2 contemporary witnesses to the fact that Beethoven wrote a cantata that required technical virtuosity of a kind that was so challenging to those for whom it was scored that it was simply never performed. Assuming that you believe such evidence may I ask if you believe WoO88 or WoO87 are works that can possibly be described in this mannner ?

In your view, is this Beethoven material from that work of 1790 or derived from it ? I mean, of course, was this material of Beethoven in the cantata which Beethoven showed to Haydn, which Simrock and others said was not able to be played by others due to its technical demands ?

Thank you

Robert Newman




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

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

1. You say you never denied the roles and rights of the Kapellmeisters though you deny that it was his duty to compose these two cantatas. In fact, you say that Beethoven, a student whom you later in your post say was hardly recognised as a composer, composed both these two important civic cantatas WoO87 and WoO88. Is this reasonable ?

2. I am happy to agree with the known dates of Haydn's visits to Bonn. This is easily checked. Beethoven met him near Bonn and showed him his own cantata. The evidence is that this cantata was formidably difficult and had to be withdrawn.

3. You now say that Beethoven's skills as a composer were 'recognised by only a few at court'. And here you see your contradiction.

Were Beethoven's skills as a composer known to Luchesi ? You say that Reicha, Perner and the Rombergs were more highly acclaimed. If that is so, why do you think these two important cantatas were both given to the 19 year old student who was not so highly acclaimed ? To say the least, you seem to be arguing in circles here.

As regards counterpoint, Beethoven struggled with nothing. He found his own solutions. He was Beethoven. And Luchesi, a fine teacher, realised this.

I would like to end by quoting from a book on Fugue. It describes the lessons given to the young Mozart by arguably the greatest teacher of that time, the much celebrated Italian theoretician Giambattista Martini. Note this passage carefully -

'Among the works which Mozart wrote under Martini's guidance, one is of particular interest.....This is the setting of a Gregorian antiphon which Mozart prepared as test for admission to the Bologna Accademia dei Filarmonici. Two versions of this exist, one by Mozart and the other by Martini. A comparison of the two versions shows that Martini RATHER THAN CORRECTING DETAILS carefully chose the best ideas from Mozart's work and used them as thematic material for a completely new example...... Martini's role IS THAT OF THE MENTOR WHO ESTABLISHES A STANDARD FOR THE STUDENT THROUGH EXAMPLE RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT AND CORRECTION. The manner in which he introduces the students to the great heritage of his art heralds a new age, a thorougly modern and enlightened approach to musical instruction'.
('The Study of Fugue', Alfred Mann, p.168)

and also -

'Padre Martini's counterpoint lessons came as a revelation. Now he (Mozart) began to understand the power of polyphony. A whole series of contrapuntal compositions followed his discovery'
('Music in Western Civilization' - PH Lang, p.640)

Luchesi was not simply a teacher. He was a great teacher. His works may have been stolen or destroyed. His name may today not been acknowledged. We do not know what happened to his many compositions written between 1772 and 1794 (though some were in the pen-name of 'D'Anthoine', these themselves totally lost or destroyed). But one thing is sure - Beethoven, the emerging genius, did not arise from nothing. He absorbed all that he was taught and he found his own way.

Robert



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

[robert newman]

Some Relevant Events/Dates

20th February 1790 Death of Emperor Joseph 2
24th February 1790 News arrives of it in Bonn
28th February 1790 E Schneider Proposal to the Bonn Reading Society

16th June 1790 Letter says B wrote sontata in memory of Emperor Joseph 2nd

October 1790 Coronation of Emperor Leopold 2

26th December 1790 Beethoven meets Haydn near
Bonn

(Haydn returns next to Bonn in 1792)

Thus Beethoven had composed his 'unplayable' cantata by December 1790 at the very latest and showed it to Haydn at their meeting.

Robert

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Peter,

1. You say you never denied the roles and rights of the Kapellmeisters though you deny that it was his duty to compose these two cantatas. In fact, you say that Beethoven, a student whom you later in your post say was hardly recognised as a composer, composed both these two important civic cantatas WoO87 and WoO88. Is this reasonable ?


No I say Luchesi may have written something for the occasion, but not WoO87 and WoO88. Based on all available documentary and anecdotal evidence these were the works Beethoven wrote in response to the commission from the literary society. Did every Kapellmeister in the Holy Roman Empire automatically provide cantatas to mark this? I know some did, but all? Surely the only kapellmeister who would have had to provide music to mark the actual funeral and coronation of a new Emperor was the Imperial court composer? For example why do we have no evidence of Luchesi writing anything when Leopold died and Franz was elevated?



2. I am happy to agree with the known dates of Haydn's visits to Bonn. This is easily checked. Beethoven met him near Bonn and showed him his own cantata. The evidence is that this cantata was formidably difficult and had to be withdrawn.

I wasn't questioning the dates of Haydn's Bonn visits or the composition of the cantatas. You stated the Mergentheim rehearsal was in 1790, when it was 1791.


3. You now say that Beethoven's skills as a composer were 'recognised by only a few at court'. And here you see your contradiction.

Were Beethoven's skills as a composer known to Luchesi ? You say that Reicha, Perner and the Rombergs were more highly acclaimed. If that is so, why do you think these two important cantatas were both given to the 19 year old student who was not so highly acclaimed ? To say the least, you seem to be arguing in circles here.

Not at all. I mean he wasn't recognised by the court, this commission came from the literary society through the influence of Waldstein who again through documented evidence was regarded as amongst the first to recognise Beethoven's genius. The evidence for Beethoven being seen mainly as an instrumentalist is well documented. That Beethoven himself saw little future in Bonn is evident in the telling remark "Fortune does not favour me here at Bonn".



As regards counterpoint, Beethoven struggled with nothing. He found his own solutions. He was Beethoven. Luchesi was not simply a teacher. He was a great teacher. - Beethoven, the emerging genius, did not arise from nothing. He absorbed all that he was taught and he found his own way.


Luchesi judging by the music we have to go on was a fine composer (like many others of the time whose music has vanished)and he may well have been a great teacher, but therein lies your problem. If Beethoven was his pupil, he arrived in Vienna in his view deficient in counterpoint and the exercises we have in his own handwriting back this up. Schenk says "the first exercise disclosed the fact that there were mistakes in every mode". What then was the great teacher Luchesi in all the years at Bonn teaching Beethoven that he left needing Schenk and Albrechtberger to give him a basic theoretical foundation? Yet again all the documentary and anecdotal evidence shows Neefe was his main teacher and this would account for this. I would never claim Beethoven sprang from nowhere, we have a whole list of names who we do know were involved in Beethoven's teaching, yet the one who you claim was the greatest is stangely not amongst them. Not once does Beethoven or anyone connected with him mention or credit Luchesi in any way as his teacher.


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-09-2006).]

[robert newman]

Peter,

A cantata (singular) Beethoven wrote was shown to Joseph Haydn at their first recorded meeting on 26th December 1790 near Bonn. (10 months had passed since the death of Joseph 2nd, 7 months since Leopold 2nd had become the new Emperor, (he being in Italy at the time of Joseph's death) and 2 months or so had now passed since Leopold 2nd had been crowned at Frankfurt).

It is widely assumed that Beethoven showed Haydn at that breakfast one of two cantatas that he had been commissioned to write for the Bonn Reading Society. In fact, it must also be believed that Beethoven wrote in total 3 works for the Bonn Reading Society - a cantata in memorial of Joseph, one in celebration of Leopold's accession, and a sonata (the existence of which is indicated by a letter from June of that year saying that Beethoven had written it).

One of these two cantatas is said to have been shown to Haydn at that meeting. (Not two). So impressed was he by close study of its content that he is recorded as having invited the young Beethoven to become his pupil in Vienna, this to begin on Haydn's return from his tour in England. But this cantata (note that it was only one, not two) is the same one which is described as being so formidably difficult to perform that we have other evidence saying the very same thing from the time at Mergetheim when it was tried out.

Now this leads to the inescapable question of which cantata of the two that Beethoven supposedly wrote (WoO87 or WoO88) can be fairly and reasonably described as unplayable from a technical point of view - this view not only held by Simrock and others but also by resident musicians there and by the whole orchestra who tried to play it at Mergentheim ? The inescapable truth is of course that neither of the above two works can possibly be described as this work which Beethoven is now placing before Haydn. And it would be disingenous to insist that this work by the young Beethoven must necessarily be one of these two cantatas.

You cannot simply ignore this evidence. Here we have a rare (in fact very rare) body of evidence all of it unanimous in saying that Beethoven's composition (singular) was formidably difficult. And no such thing can possibly be claimed for these two above works.

Setting aside WoO87 and WoO88 (neither of which can be shown to have been commissioned by the Bonn Reading Society) we must honestly acknowledge that here, in front of Haydn, was the young Beethoven presenting him with a work which was indisputably of his own composition. A cantata. And one which, in Beethoven's view, was worthy of being examined by Haydn. It is is the very same cantata which is said to have posed such difficulties to the players and musicians at Mergentheim. It is not another cantata but that same one.

Thus there was beyond reasonable doubt a cantata which is neither WoO87 or WoO88. Such a view lacks nothing in support from contemporary witnesses. Indeed, we have here clear evidence of its existence by the testimony of Simrock and others. We cannot set this aside. We must accept it.

From this same time (i.e. between 1790 and 1792) comes the fragments that Beethoven is known to have kept in his possession in Vienna and which in Biamonti undoubtedly quote or use material that is found in the cantata WoO88, a cantata presented to Max Franz at Mergentheim and written to mark the accession of Leopold 2nd.

We know for sure that Max Franz accepted two cantatas. These were WoO87 and WoO88. We know that these were lost until the 1880's. But we have no record of any cantata being presented to Max Franz at Mergentheim by Beethoven, this despite clear evidence that he, Beethoven, tried to rehearse a cantata there of his very own composition. And thus, by any fair interpretation of the available evidence, there were 3 works, only two of which were given to Max Franz (brother of the Emperor), the third being withdrawn by the young Beethoven and thus explaining the survival in Beethoven's papers at the time of his death of those fragments which we are now discussing.

We cannot compound our errors. We cannot say (when it is really not true) that all 3 works were commissioned by the Bonn Reading Society. Nor can we argue that they were received by them (since there is no evidence to support such a view). We cannot say that no such cantata by Beethoven existed. And we cannot say that WoO87 or WoO88 was that work which we are now discussing. We are led, I believe, to the inescapable and logical conclusion that a cantata by Beethoven, one which alludes to an aria in WoO88 was composed by him for Bonn Reading Society, tried out at Mergentheim, found to be far too difficult for the musicians there, withdrawn by Beethoven, and therefore is the work we see before us in fragmentary form in Biamonti 16 and other material.

In this way all the evidence is compatible and the problems are resolved without contradiction. It also explains why Beethoven had these particular papers in his possession at the time of his death and why he did not have WoO88 in his possession at the time of his death. It clearly indicates, I believe, that what we are dealing with here is a cantata by Beethoven and one that has until now (for reasons that are understandable) not been recognised by those who study Beethoven's manuscripts.

Robert

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Peter,

In fact, it must also be believed that Beethoven wrote in total 3 works for the Bonn Reading Society - a cantata in memorial of Joseph, one in celebration of Leopold's accession, and a sonata (the existence of which is indicated by a letter from June of that year saying that Beethoven had written it).


The letter you refer to by Clemens August von Schall of June 16th, 1790
proves that this 'sonata' was in fact a cantata - "As far as the music is concerned, Beethoven has produced such a densely written sonata on the death of Joseph II - the text is by Averdonk - that it can only be performed here by a full orchestra or other similar body." Sonatas are instrumental not vocal and do not set texts. Since the text of WoO87 is by Averdonk are we also to assume that Luchesi set the same text?


Now this leads to the inescapable question of which cantata of the two that Beethoven supposedly wrote (WoO87 or WoO88) can be fairly and reasonably described as unplayable from a technical point of view - this view not only held by Simrock and others but also by resident musicians there and by the whole orchestra who tried to play it at Mergentheim ? The inescapable truth is of course that neither of the above two works can possibly be described as this work which Beethoven is now placing before Haydn. And it would be disingenous to insist that this work by the young Beethoven must necessarily be one of these two cantatas.


The demands that Beethoven, in the creation of this cantata, put to the musicians are described as "challenging and out of the ordinary" but "in no way unplayable", while Nikolaus Simrock later emphasised that "all of the figurations in that cantata seemed 'most uncommon'," but also insisted "that they could all be executed," and that "the musical substance could not be given its adequate expression because there were simply no models." [/b]

I believe, that what we are dealing with here is a cantata by Beethoven and one that has until now (for reasons that are understandable) not been recognised by those who study Beethoven's manuscripts.



Nottebohm states that manuscript copies of these works were listed in the April 1813 auction catalogue of the library of Baron von Beine.


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-09-2006).]

[HaydnFan]

Touché