Update on Luchesi, Joseph Haydn and Mozart

[robert newman]

I've recently received from Italy a series of 'world premiere' recordings of some music by Andrea Luchesi (the man who was Kapellemeister at Bonn until Beethoven was 22 years old) so I thought I would update readers on these remarkable recordings and on the state of research/discovery as regards the life and careers of Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Why not ? Sometimes I receive emails saying that myself and this Professor Giorgio Taboga in Italy are swimming against a tide of expertise in a futile attempt to prove that Luchesi and others have been systematically ignored for almost 200 years. (Other times we are accused outright of creating myths in place of established fact). Worst of all, it has been seen as 'inappropriate' that the provenance of Mozart's career and music should be so openly questioned during this 'Mozart Year' of 2006.

So I thought I would provide this forum with an update on these issues (just to clarify them to those interested in progress) and would let members here know of some extraordinary developments in this area of research).

First, I would like to quote from an essay written by Giorgio Taboga entitled 'Andrea Luchesi and the Origin of the Viennese Classical Period', this delivered to the University of Bergamo in December of 2004.

In 1980 an Austrian teacher of music theory in Vienna, Fr. Leopold Kantner, (who is an acknowledged expert in Italian and central European music of the 18th century) attended a conference held in Padua, Italy that was to discuss the life and career of the theoretician Valloti. Kantner's contribution at that event included the following statement -

'....Schmidt (is typical of those writers who) can only write in a vague way about the sources of Mozart's style in Italy when he uses terms such as 'maybe' and 'perhaps' - we do not find any true statement. Similarly, we find that Brandt, in his book dealing with Haydn's Masses writes that 'we cannot identify the Italian sources known to Haydn, which perhaps formed his style'. And so we find a blank zone in the geography of the Viennese classical period. We must also confess that musicology of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was very impenetrable in Germany and Austria. Certainly, nationalism is not limited to musicology in these countries but, to tell the truth, we have to admit such a nationalism is the case we are talking about. Everything had to be looked for at home. It's strange that Germans have been even more radical than Austrians on this point. (Haydn and Mozart were Austrian). Germans did not want any Italians, only Germans. Then they found sources at home. But when you listen to this music or study the score, you ask yourself, where does it come from ? Here the silence is complete. At most, a brief hint is given regarding the influence of Lombardy or Venice on the Vienna classical period, without ever explicitly refering to it.

I am not at all satisfied with the first Viennese classic period, because we only have 3 musicians to represent a style and all the others are but 'predecessors' or 'contemporaries' or 'followers'. We have only three men and everybody else is an imitator. But, on the contrary, the Viennese classic period must be connected to the sacred music that was produced in Lombardy and in Venice. Listen to Mozart's Mass K194 and we find almost literally the same themes as in works by Valloti. It's a polyphonic work in the modern style, ''a la Valloti'....'this interpretation is taken from Valloti'...

Let's now take Haydn's 1st Mass. One need look no further than 'Et Incarnatus Est'. It's virtually the same thing as I found in a Credo by Valloti.

Now the time has come to discover more than what has been found by the musicologists of some decades ago....Our discoveries have just begun, but we have to take notice of these connections'.
(Leopold Kantner - 1980)

'There's a gap in German language historiography, in connection with the part played by the schools of the very first Vienna classical period...In other words Kantner has shown that in the sacred style, affinity between Valloti on the one side and Mozart and the Haydn brothers on the other - is sharper than with the presumed contemporaru Austrian models'
(Enrico Corbi 'Il Santo' - 1980)

I would like to ask next - how many Italian musicians were actually working in the German-speaking area during the 18th century ? Was it 5, 10, 20 ? No. Not so. It was in fact hundreds. Today, though hardly mentioned in the music histories we know that they included many whose names fill the documents from that period - Fischietti. Guglielmi, Boroni, Veracini, Piccini, Zani, Porpora, Locatelli, Paisiello, Caldara, Bianchi... the list is almost endless.

My colleague in Italy has gone on record only recently saying -

'In my mind, we find ourselves before possibly the greatest composer of the second half of the 18th century and certainly one of the greatest in Andrea Luchesi, the Kapellmeister of Cologne'.

I can tell readers of this forum that studies are now actively underway on Mozart's piano concertos which promise to provide some extremely interesting material in the near future (this in response to those who think their position within the 'Mozart oeuvre' is impregnable). The same is true of the Mozart violin concertos (a subject that has been until now shrouded in a great deal of mystery).

But I would like to finish here by mentioning that the Mozart opera 'Marriage of Figaro' is itself now under serious scrutiny (and with good reason).

What is it that keeps certain facts hidden away from general knowledge when it comes to Haydn and Mozart ? I would like to know if any reader of this post is aware of the fact that in May of 1786, when Mozart and da Ponte finally gave the first performance of 'Figaro' more than 1 year had passed since, at Frankfurt on Main the first performance of that opera had already occurred. (In fact a playbill dated 11th April 1785 survives which advertises the first performance of 'Figaro' on that day).

This existence of this playbill has been known since around 1901 (Wolter) but today no 'Mozartean expert' has dared to speak of it. One must ask whether they undertake research to discover the truth or simply to conceal it. If it happens to be discussed on Mozart forums would this not represent some progress ? But, of course, that is asking a great deal.

The music recordings include a remarkable keyboard concerto by Luchesi, a symphony in B Flat, a symphony in C, the Overture from his opera 'L'Ademira' (1784), two requiems, a stabat mater, and various other smaller church works and I have already approached the BBC Radio (Channel 3) here in London asking if they would consider broadcasting some of this virtually unknown music.

Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-14-2006).]

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

I would like to ask next - how many Italian musicians were actually working in the German-speaking area during the 18th century ? Was it 5, 10, 20 ? No. Not so. It was in fact hundreds. Today, though hardly mentioned in the music histories we know that they included many whose names fill the documents from that period - Fischietti. Guglielmi, Boroni, Veracini, Piccini, Zani, Porpora, Locatelli, Paisiello, Caldara, Bianchi... the list is almost endless.

Dear Robert;

An Italian musician, Francesco Antonio Baldassare Uttini (1723-1795), arrived as far north as Stockholm, Sweden where he eventually became Hofkapellmeister!


Hofrat

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

I would like to ask next - how many Italian musicians were actually working in the German-speaking area during the 18th century ? Was it 5, 10, 20 ? No. Not so. It was in fact hundreds. Today, though hardly mentioned in the music histories we know that they included many whose names fill the documents from that period - Fischietti. Guglielmi, Boroni, Veracini, Piccini, Zani, Porpora, Locatelli, Paisiello, Caldara, Bianchi... the list is almost endless.


Hardly mentioned? It is a well known fact that the centre of musical life at the Hapsburg court in Vienna was dominated by the Italians!



My colleague in Italy has gone on record only recently saying -

'In my mind, we find ourselves before possibly the greatest composer of the second half of the 18th century and certainly one of the greatest in Andrea Luchesi, the Kapellmeister of Cologne'.

In Taboga's mind maybe, but until he can PROVE everything he claims, not so.




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

[robert newman]

Yes, the names of various Italians does appear on liner notes to many works written in German-speaking lands during the second half of the 18th century. That's indisputable (and even inevitable). But what is meant here is that their creation of and their contribution to the symphony, the quartet, the opera, the sonata and to music teaching itself in the so-called 1st Vienna classical period is still grossly under-appreciated. We pay lip-service to these names and it would be a rare thing for their own works to feature in any new music release, for example.

It's not so much a nationalistic issue - it's simply that we've grown accustomed to such an imbalance in the fair treatment of what gave rise to the environment within which great music was written during this time. If we know Mozart's 'Impressario' do we know Salieri's own work performed on that same day ? If we are familiar with Bonn why are we so unfamiliar with who taught who ? Such omissions are understandable in more nationalistic times but I think they keep us really uniformed unless they are pointed out and truly appreciated.

Who could imagine that a time would ever arrive when the Kapellmeister at Bonn was not automatically credited with teaching his music pupils ? Such an absurdity would be almost unimaginable in the 18th or early 19th centuries. Who could possibly imagine that in the mountain of Beethoven biographies the main main at Bonn would be so studiously ignored ? It is surely living proof that many books are written merely by repeating chunks of other books. That common sense somehow becomes a victim.

As to Luchesi being one of the greatest musical composers of the second half of the 18th century, well, we now have a number of symphonies, a piano concerto, and a still increasing number of church works, sontatas etc on which we can make such a judgement. From what I have heard (most of it written in the early 1770's) he was a very major figure and his reputation as a teacher (he who was undoubtedly one of the most learned in that department) only adds to his credit. He got the post at Bonn on merit. This alone justifies us seeing him as such a major figure, the issues of attribution to Haydn and Mozart notwithstanding.

By the way, if anyone listens to Luchesi's Symphony in B Flat, his Concerto for Cembalo and Strings, and his Symphony in C Major (all now available on the same CD) I think they will have better appreciation of his true significance, even in the early 1770's.

Regards

[SR]

Originally posted by Peter:
[B}
In Taboga's mind maybe, but until he can PROVE everything he claims, not so.


[/B]

Mr Newman never lets facts get in the way of his stories. Mozart seemingly could not have written anywhere near what is claimed and was an arranger/thief/liar. Luchesi however seems to have had plenty of time to write Mozart's and Haydn's catalogues. Some Beethoven also perhaps ?

Read Mr Newman very carefully you will not find any evidence of anything, just a loose net of unsubstantiated claims. He uses a prior supposition as "proof" of the next one.

Steve



[This message has been edited by SR (edited 02-22-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by SR:
Mr Newman never lets facts get in the way of his stories. Mozart seemingly could not have written anywhere near what is claimed and was an arranger/thief/liar. Luchesi however seems to have had plenty of time to write Mozart's and Haydn's catalogues. Some Beethoven also perhaps ?

Read Mr Newman very carefully you will not find any evidence of anything, just a loose net of unsubstantiated claims. He uses a prior supposition as "proof" of the next one.

Steve
----------


[This message has been edited by SR (edited 02-22-2006).]

----------

I wonder why Luchesi did not publish his masterpieces under his own name? Was it more lucrative to supply Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven with compositions? And, by the way! Was Luchesi still alive during Schubert's lifetime?

When will Schubert benefit from Luchesi's compositions? It's about time, don't you think?

Agnes Selby.

[Casey]

Those Italians were hardly forgotten...Paisiello wrote a good portion of the coronation music for Napoleon, for example, when Napoleon made himself emperor...

[robert newman]

Dear SR,

Your posting is typical of those who want answers to everything to fall off the shelves of what you think must be an online musical supermarket. Knowledge does not really work like that.

Firstly, internet emails can serve a very useful purpose. If, however, you consider their real limitations you may very well benefit from reading and even contributing to forums such as these yourself.

The best we can do when we post is to condense issues and to exchange views with a mutual respect in such a way that the process teaches us also and we ourselves learn from the dialogue.

But what have I learned from your post. ? Nothing, really. I write because I see that I lack a 'standard letter' in cases such as yours.

You say you are amazed when it's pointed out that Mozart could not (and did not) write many of the works that are today attributed to him. Well, if you knew the first thing about Mozart's catalogue of works (that found in, say, Koechel) you would not make such a clumsy and foolish statement. And, even today, if you were to visit the website www.mozartforum you would learn that a whole string of works still in the Koechel list are acknowledged not to be by Mozart. Have you ever bothered to check this for yourself ? You clearly have not. There are dozens and dozens of such cases. They start at K1 and they just continue. They are still continuing and 200 years later there is no prospect of this ending. Do yourself a service and read Koechel first. You may learn enough from doing so to at least avoid making silly posts.

You say I do not let facts get in the way. Well, facts ARE the way. If you can provide some on Beethoven or Mozart, for example, I will accept them gladly.

You even say, if you read what I wrote 'very carefully' you will not find evidence of anything, 'just a loose set of unsubstantiated claims. And that I use 'prior supposition' as proof of the next one, etc.

S.R., rarely has a critic described the emptiness of his own letter as well as you. You have nothing specific to say other than to complain that somebody is arguing that Haydn and Mozart did not write many of the works today routinely attributed to them - this being a fact that students of Haydn and Mozart are almost daily being reminded of.

Let me try to be constructive. Tell me SR, do you personally know of any cases where a composer has been wrongly credited with a work that has since been proved to have been written by Mozart ?

And when you finish thinking about this, please do yourself the useful service of appreciating that the answer is part of ending your ignorance on this issue.

Let me help you. The history of Mozart studies has, in fact, been one of 'one way traffic', as far as giving back to other composers works which have falsely, wrongly, (sometimes innocently but often not) been attributed wrongly to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Such a fact is indisputable. Consider this just for a moment, if you can. I say that the traffic in attribution moves solely in one direction (and not both ways) on such a subject. I therefore have the painful duty to point out that you, SR, are driving very far in the wrong direction up a one way street. Nobody is asking to see your licence. But I think it reasonable to appeal to your common sense.

Robert Newman

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

I have that healthy respect when I see your name (especially here on the Beethoven forum) to take careful note of what you say. And why not Agnes ? You have written (and had published) a biography of Constanze Mozart - and the writing of it was no mean achievement. (I think I've said similar things many times in the past, but...)

Well, for an awful moment, I thought you had brought some answers for this forum on the many questions asked here on the missing Mozart correspondence (something I remember you promised to provide). But, perhaps another day, yes ?

Today you want to know if Schubert profited from the musical compositions of Andrea Luchesi. No, Agnes, Luchesi died when Franz Schubert was only 4 years old.

Franz Schubert 1797-1828
Andrea Luchesi 1761-1801

May I ask you the same question as the previous poster 'S.R.' ? Can you Agnes, think of a case where works have been wrongly attributed to other composers which were really written by (wait for it) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ?

Just a few would do.

(Please can you also tell me what sort of things you are now researching/writing ?)

Robert (Newman)

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-22-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear SR,

Your posting is typical of those who want answers to everything to fall off the shelves of what you think must be an online musical supermarket. Knowledge does not really work like that.

Firstly, internet emails can serve a very useful purpose. If, however, you consider their real limitations you may very well benefit from reading and even contributing to forums such as these yourself.

The best we can do when we post is to condense issues and to exchange views with a mutual respect in such a way that the process teaches us also and we ourselves learn from the dialogue.

But what have I learned from your post. ? Nothing, really. I write because I see that I lack a 'standard letter' in cases such as yours.

You say you are amazed when it's pointed out that Mozart could not (and did not) write many of the works that are today attributed to him. Well, if you knew the first thing about Mozart's catalogue of works (that found in, say, Koechel) you would not make such a clumsy and foolish statement. And, even today, if you were to visit the website www.mozartforum you would learn that a whole string of works still in the Koechel list are acknowledged not to be by Mozart. Have you ever bothered to check this for yourself ? You clearly have not. There are dozens and dozens of such cases. They start at K1 and they just continue. They are still continuing and 200 years later there is no prospect of this ending. Do yourself a service and read Koechel first. You may learn enough from doing so to at least avoid making silly posts.

You say I do not let facts get in the way. Well, facts ARE the way. If you can provide some on Beethoven or Mozart, for example, I will accept them gladly.

You even say, if you read what I wrote 'very carefully' you will not find evidence of anything, 'just a loose set of unsubstantiated claims. And that I use 'prior supposition' as proof of the next one, etc.

S.R., rarely has a critic described the emptiness of his own letter as well as you. You have nothing specific to say other than to complain that somebody is arguing that Haydn and Mozart did not write many of the works today routinely attributed to them - this being a fact that students of Haydn and Mozart are almost daily being reminded of.

Let me try to be constructive. Tell me SR, do you personally know of any cases where a composer has been wrongly credited with a work that has since been proved to have been written by Mozart ?

And when you finish thinking about this, please do yourself the useful service of appreciating that the answer is part of ending your ignorance on this issue.

Let me help you. The history of Mozart studies has, in fact, been one of 'one way traffic', as far as giving back to other composers works which have falsely, wrongly, (sometimes innocently but often not) been attributed wrongly to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Such a fact is indisputable. Consider this just for a moment, if you can. I say that the traffic in attribution moves solely in one direction (and not both ways) on such a subject. I therefore have the painful duty to point out that you, SR, are driving very far in the wrong direction up a one way street. Nobody is asking to see your licence. But I think it reasonable to appeal to your common sense.

Robert Newman

------

Mr. Newman, I am amazed when reading your letter that for you to provide proof is unimportant. You will not solve or change history by an exchange of e-mails or postings. The secret of history is data preserved in a long distant past not in manufacturing unsubstantiated fables which are products of your own active mind.

In my opinion it is you, dear Sir, who needs
a driving licence for you are driving in the wrong direction without a map to guide you.

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

Please can you provide an example of me doing such things ? Just one. I will immediately post to justify what I have said (if I have not already done so).

Robert

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

Please provide an example of what you say in your last post - that I (supposedly) do not provide evidence in support of what I post.

Thank you

Robert

[Agnes Selby]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]
Dear Agnes Selby,

Please provide an example of what you say in your last post - that I (supposedly) do not provide evidence in support of what I post.

Thank you
----------------

Dear Robert,

I have been reading your post and your efforts to destroy Mozart's reputation for
quite a few years now. The same applies to Constanze Mozart.

I have for many years advised you to check original data before you let your imagination run wild. I cannot in this short space ennumerate the leaps of your imagination nor am I interested in doing so.

Suffice it to say, I would very much like to see just one example where you substantiate your findings.

Without such a trivial thing as substantiation, your writings are of no value.

I do not have to defend my writings because I never venture to put pen to paper, so to speak, without archival evidence pertaining to what I have to say. It is thus in writing history or a biography. Of course, you could call yourself a novelist and then you can say whatever you like. But when you write as a historian without a single reference, you must realize you are misleading your captive audience on the internet.

Agnes.
----------------

[SR]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Tell me SR, do you personally know of any cases where a composer has been wrongly credited with a work that has since been proved to have been written by Mozart ?

And when you finish thinking about this, please do yourself the useful service of appreciating that the answer is part of ending your ignorance on this issue.

I know of many missatributions. Problem is you do not speak of missatribution you speak of Mozart not having composed many pieces that he tells us in his thematic catalogue, he did compose. This is not missatribution to Mozart but would indicate fraud by Mozart. This is a claim you cannot backup.
You can make empty accusations and slurs of me just as you do Mozart and Haydn, but accusations no matter how many, without a shred of evidence do not prove your case. BTW I have poked around MozartForum quite a bit. I helped start it. Look carefully at my initials SR,and compare them to the founders names at MozartForum.

I've yet to see you prove a thing. I'd be happy to acknowledge your great discovery if you ever make one. I suppose you took a look around at what you might do to achieve some small moment of internet fame and decided that one more voice saying Mozart was a great composer would hardly seperate you. You choose the opposite tact. You indeed are seperating yourself.

Steve

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

This is bizzare. I am continually asking you in my correspodence to provide examples of what you say. On this forum in the past few days I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's you who are refusing to answer specific questions.

I have now asked you openly to provide this forum with examples of me not providing evidence to support my posts. You now say there are too many for your to give even one example.

Let others decide who is being responsible and who is trying to support their views with evidence. I again ask you to provide evidence in support of your allegations. Just give us an example please. One will be enough. And if it's true I will immediately support it with as many sources as possible.

Robert Newman