'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Firstly I don't think you can single out any one particular composer as being the greatest influence on Bach. Bach was familiar with an enormous amount of contemporary music, Italian, French and German - yet he was incredibly original, no mere imitator.

Now as to the conspiracy theory, composers such as Hasse and Telemann enjoyed a far greater European reputation than Bach. Hasse was especially popular in Italy. Even in Germany, Telemann was considered the finer musician and this was reflected in a salary three times that of Bach's.

I don't dispute Bach was original but don't forget he was quite willing to make use of other's material (if you listened to much of the BBC radio's 'complete Bach' the 'DJs' made good use of the Theasaurus to find various distractive words to describe these 'borrowings'. Handel would have laughed.

But I'd rather listen to Bach than Telemann I agree. Comparing the two I can suffer the endless countrapuntal mathematics Bach uses (in an attempt to make up for lack of good melodic ideas) because by any standards Telemann's music is bland in the extreme.

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

[Rod]

PS all this business about the origin of Figaro - if the Mozart fans here can't use the music itself as the ultimate proof of Mozart's authorship then what does this say? Not that I'm a fan of this music myself, I find M's operas for the most part very boring, but why does everyone think Mr Newman is now silent on his Beethoven/Luchesi theory?


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

[robert newman]

According to 'Groves' it was Vivaldi who excercised probably the most lasting and distinctive influence on JS Bach, this from around 1712 onwards when a whole series of Italian works became available to him at Weimar. Again, according to Forkel, 'Vivaldi taught him to think musically'. (Whilst this is a quite strong thing for him to say it nevertheless testifies to the great admiration that existed between this Catholic priest and this strongly Protestant composer).

Given these things it's very strange that in the list made by CPE Bach of those Italian composers who his father 'loved and studied' there is no mention made to Antonio Vivaldi, nor to the Marcellos, Corelli, Torelli or others of the late Baroque. Yet of course we know that composers admired by Bach (and on which he often produced arrangements etc) included Vivaldi, Zelenka, Pachelbel, Frescobaldi, Biffi, Benda, Palestrina, Lotti, Marcello, Corelli, Torelli and others.

I want to look beyond religious prejudices on these issues despite taking note of the fact that they were all too real in the 18th century. Vivaldi was eventually viewed as being a renegade, even in Italy, someone who ended up in Vienna before dying in obscurity there. (Note the neglect of Vivaldi's own manuscripts after his death, for example. In 1926 a boarding school in Piedmont, N. Italy run by the Silesian Fathers discovered large numbers of old musical volumes in their archives which proved to be half of Vivaldi's very own collection of compositions- some 319 in all. These were incomplete in many cases until it was eventually discovered (after much research) that the other half of the collection was still in private hands. Further negotiations eventually brought the two different parts of the collection together). In whose hands was the remainder of the collection ? Why, in the hands of ancestors of none other than Count Durazzo, patron of Gluck, of Haydn and a man who was for years in charge of opera in Vienna. How half of Vivaldi's works ended up in Piedmont remains a mystery.

Hasse, of course, converted to Catholicism and quickly enjoyed many of the benefits of him doing so, both in Italy and in Germany. (I must come back to him in another post).

The one thing the Jesuits did not want to happen was that which Bach seems quite happy to have done - having an active appreciation of and even collaboration with Catholic composers. Again, I must ask what impact Bach's music had on Italy ? It seems that in this respect the greatness of Bach is undeniable.

But all of this is preliminary to showing that Catholic authorities took special care to construct networks across Europe which would protect their own interests. These networks prior to 1773 were controlled by Jesuits. And, after 1773 (since the Jesuits were no more officially in existence) by a series of arrangements made with powerful/ rich Catholic patrons and sympathisers who worked tirelessly for their restoration.

Bear in mind that as recently as the 1740's there had been shameful religious bigotry in exiling all non Catholics from highly conservative Salzburg and forcing them to leave their homes. Such bigotry was very much alive in the 18th century and it most certainly had impact on Bach's reception in continental Europe.

Anyway, I'm still a few days away from starting a short series that looks specifically at the facts surrounding the birth of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and hope that the relevance of these things will become clearer soon.

Robert

[robert newman]

Dear Rod,

I'm not silent on the Luchesi/Beethoven theory at all. What aspect of it is unclear ? Please say and I will certainly try to clarify it. No problem at all.

Regards

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

According to 'Groves' it was Vivaldi who excercised probably the most lasting and distinctive influence on JS Bach, this from around 1712 onwards when a whole series of Italian works became available to him at Weimar. Again, according to Forkel, 'Vivaldi taught him to think musically'. (Whilst this is a quite strong thing for him to say it nevertheless testifies to the great admiration that existed between this Catholic priest and this strongly Protestant composer).

The idea that Bach didn't think musically before Vivaldi is absurd so we can dismiss Forkel. Bach learnt from many many composers, not just Vivaldi. After all what about Bach's organ works, were they primarily influenced by Vivaldi? Bach's music is fundamentally more polyphonic than Vivaldi's and quite frankly where does Bach sound anything like Vivaldi? I'm not denying he was influenced by the violin concertos, but I think you're overplaying it.

Hasse converted for practical reasons of marriage it would seem to me as he returned to protestant Dresden for over 30 years.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-29-2006).]

[robert newman]

Yes, Forkel's statement is very strange and I mention it only because his opinion was one of the earliest on Bach, biographically. I agree that it's far too strong to suggest that before he came in contact with Vivaldi he was not musical. But these views were written/said of Bach, during his lifetime and even afterwards.

It's interesting to see what Bach did with Vivaldi. We know that Vivaldi's Op.3 concertos were published in 1711 and that Bach transcribed 5 of them. Nowhere were Vivaldi's concertos in greater demand than in Germany, it seems.

We also know that Prince Johann Ernst of Saxe-Weimar wrote that the style of Vivaldi was very attractive to visiting German composers in Italy such as Stolzel and Heinichen (both of whom went there between 1713 and 1714 and also to Pisendel who went there 1716 to 1717. Also we know that Vivalid was based between 1717-1718 in Mantua whose Habsburg representative was Prince Philip of Darmstadt.

The Op.8 series of 1725 was dedicated by Vivaldi to Count Wenzel von Morzin (a relative of the Morzin who later employed Haydn.

De Brosses met Vivaldi in 1739 and noted that Vivaldi's popularity had declined. (It may be one reason why he made his last journey in 1740 to Vienna, since he wished to be involved in a proposed opera at the Karntmertortheater in Vienna (which was somehow delayed). All of this seems to indicate that Vivaldi was generally well known in the Germany of Bach's time.

Regarding Bach and his reputation. It seems that it was the year 1717 before his name first appeared in print. In a preface to a copy of Mattheson's 'Das beschutze Orchestra' in February of that year he refers to 'the famous Weimar organist' and says that he rates his works for church and keyboard very highly. (Mattheson also asked in the same article if Bach would kindly provide him with some biographical information - which Bach did not wish to provide).

I think the next time that Bach's reputation grew must have been in 1719 since Mattheson again asked that Bach provide biographical information (which the composer again saw reason not to provide).

Then of course there is the appearance in print in 1731 of the great 6 Partitas for Keyboard (called by Bach his 'Op.1' and described by him as '1 Teil der Clavier Ubung' clearly indicating that he intended to add to this in the future.

His reputation was also enhanced in September 1731 when he went to Dresden for the premiere of Hasse's opera 'Cleofide'. Local newspapers say that Bach also gave recitals at the organ at Sophienkirche which were very enthusiastically received.

Again, in 1736 Bach is recorded as playing continuously for 2 hours on a newly installed organ at the Frauenkirche (1st December) in Dresden.

He had pupils for private lessons by the late 1730's onwards.

(It was in 1737 when a highly critical article against Bach by J.A.Scheibe appeared in 'Der critische Musikus'. This article is said to have come as a severe blow to Bach and Bach eventually responded to Scheibe through the Leipzig lecturer in rhetoric J.A.Birnhaum. (This developed in to a lengthy and quite acrimonious debate).

All of these things would surely have been noted by music watchers of the time.

Bach was again under attack in 1749 (the year before he died) when the Frieberg headmaster Biederman violently attacked the whole idea of music schools).

But of course Bach by that date had already made available his teaching legacy in print (even sometimes at his own expense).




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-30-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Yes, Forkel's statement is very strange and I mention it only because his opinion was one of the earliest on Bach, biographically. I agree that it's far too strong to suggest that before he came in contact with Vivaldi he was not musical. But these views were written/said of Bach, during his lifetime and even afterwards.

Yes Vivaldi was a famous name. Bach on the other hand though highly respected by many was treated pretty shabbily in Leipzig where he was regarded as an irritant - so much so that they didn't even honour him with a memorial till 1909 - contrast that with Handel in Westminster Abbey!

Now why should this provincial 'old-fashioned' musician with such a narrow reputation appealing to the connoiseurs alone have been the subject of your great conspiracy? Surely the influential highly famous Telemann was more of a threat? Der getreuer Musikmeister ("The Faithful Music Master") was founded in 1728 by Telemann and J.V. Görner intended as a "home music lesson", this German music periodical, the first of its kind, appeared every two weeks in the form of a four-page Lection.



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

[robert newman]

England was as a relative haven for non-Catholics, even in the 18th century. So in reply to your question I think that German speaking lands where the protestant reformation had powerful support was still a in active opposition to Rome, and Rome with it. And that the opposition took many forms.

I've taken this single example from a Wilkepedia article of events that occurred in the city of Mozart's birth, Salzburg, in 1731 - this at the height of Bach's career and which must have been known to Bach. It illustrates the emnity that still existed in those times -

On October 31, 1731, the 214th Anniversary of Martin Luther's launching the Reformation by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg School door, Roman Catholic Archbishop Count Leopold von Firmian signed his Edict of Expulsion (not to be confused with many similar edicts of expulsion issued against the Jews in various cities in Europe), the 'Emigrationspatent', declaring that all Protestants either recant their non-Catholic beliefs or be banished.

After signing this edict on the 214th Anniversary of Reformation Day, Archbishop von Firmian declared that it was to be read publicly November 11, 1731, the 248th anniversary of Luther's baptism. Believing that this would drive away a few hundred troublesome infidels in the hills around the town, Firmian was greatly surprised when no less than 21,475 citizens professed on a public list their Protestant beliefs.

Land owners were given 3 months to sell their lands and leave. Cattle, sheep, furniture and land all had to be dumped on the market, and these Salzburgers received little money from the well-to-do Catholic allies of Von Firmian. Von Firmian himself confiscated much of their land for his own family, and ordered all Protestant books and Bibles burned. Many children aged 12 and under were seized to be raised as Roman Catholics. Yet those who owned land gained one key advantage: the 3 month deadline delayed their departure until after the worst of winter.

Non-owner farmers, tradesmen, laborers and miners were given only 8 days to sell what they could and leave. The first refugees marched north through the Alps in desperately cold temperatures and snow storms, seeking shelter in the few cities of Germany controlled by Protestant Princes, while their children walked or rode on wooden wagons loaded with baggage.

As they went, the exiles' savings were quickly drained away as they were set upon by both legal and illegal highwaymen, who seized taxes, tolls and payment for protection by soldiers from robbers.

The story of their plight spread quickly as their columns marched north. Goethe wrote the poem 'Hermann and Dorothea' about the Salzburg exiles' march. Protestants and even some Catholics were horrified at the cruelty of such expulsion in winter, and the courage they had shown by not renouncing their faith. Slowly at first, they came upon towns that welcomed them and offered them aid. But there was no place where such a large number of refugees could settle.

Finally, in 1732 Lutheran King Frederick William I of Prussia accepted 12,000 Salzburger Protestant emigrants, who settled in areas of East Prussia that had been devastated by plague 20 years before. Their new homelands were located in what today is northeastern Poland, the Kaliningrad Oblast, and Lithuania. Other, smaller groups made their way to the Banat region of modern Romania, to what is now Slovakia, to areas near Berlin and Hannover in Germany, and to the Netherlands.

From a musical point of view there can be no doubt that despite a handful of Bach's works being available in Vienna it was he, Bach, who must have been considered the real protagonist of a musical counter-reformation - this downplayed and suppressed by dismissing him on a public level as little more than an outdated pedagogue.

One could give many examples. Again, in 1741 Maria Theresa made it a crime punishable by death to have imported any works in to her territories which had not obtained prior approval by her censors.

We live today in far more tolerant times but there can surely be no doubt that JS Bach (at the academic level) was increasingly viewed as a formidable musical leader during his maturity - not least for his church music and for his determination to establish a system of education that would continue to have influence long after he was gone. The 48 Preludes and Fugues (these alone) are surely evidence of his true musical status at this time.

Regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-30-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
We live today in far more tolerant times but there can surely be no doubt that JS Bach (at the academic level) was increasingly viewed as a formidable musical leader during his maturity - not least for his church music and for his determination to establish a system of education that would continue to have influence long after he was gone. The 48 Preludes and Fugues (these alone) are surely evidence of his true musical status at this time.

Regards

Again you have no evidence to suggest that Bach was singled out as being some kind of threat, only your opinion to conveniently fit in with your theory, so I'm afraid yet another lenghty response does nothing to answer the question why Telemann wasn't regarded as of greater significance since his reputation was far greater than Bach's? We have to realise that there were many protestant composers working in Germany at the time and it's only with hindsight that we are able to appreciate Bach's historical significance. I have demonstrated that in Leipzig Bach wasn't regarded as anything special by the authorities.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-30-2006).]

[robert newman]

This is part 1 of 4 postings on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and is a list of propositions regarding the genesis of 'Le Nozze di Figaro', all of which I will try to expand on in the later 3 postings.

PROPOSITIONS ON THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE OPERA, 'LE NOZZE DI FIGARO' - FIRST STAGED IN THE NAME OF MOZART AND LORENZO DA PONTE IN VIENNA, 1786

1. The writing of this controversial play by Beaumarchais and its equally controversial arrival in Paris led to copies of the text of this play being soon in the hands of rulers in 'reforming' nations who were at this time quite favourably disposed to the possibility of its production in their own countries - namely, King Gustav 3rd of Sweden, The Empress Catherine of Russia, and the Emperor Joseph 2nd of Austria.

2. That these leaders received this text years before the official appearance in print of the published play (1785)

3 That for various reasons this play was not staged in any of these countries

4. That is soon became apparent that 'Le Nozze di Figaro' had great potential as a comic opera. It was also soon realised it was inevitable that 'Figaro' would eventually appear in that form and, shortly, after, this opera became a project for its true composer - this unknown to these three rulers.

5. That a great deal of secrecy surrounded the genesis of both the Beaumarchais play and the first performance of this 'Mozart'opera at Vienna in May 1786

6. That is was eventually agreed by all 3 rulers that Vienna was the most suitable place for first performance of this most controversial piece.

7. That the Emperor Joseph 2nd therefore knew of 'Figaro' years in advance of its premiere but was falsely informed around August 1785 that music for its operatic version was then being written in Vienna by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

8. That the true composer of this music was Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-92)

9. That the true librettist of this opera was Carlo Goldini (1707-93)

10. That the Jesuit Order (officially banned by the Pope in Rome in 1773) were in fact responsible for Kraus writing 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and for misinforming these three leaders about the truth of its origins.

11. That the ringleader in this affair was the Abbe George Vogler

12. That the Jesuit Order, having so recently enjoyed huge power across Europe in the educational and academic fields despite their conservatism were now, in the mid 1780's, pursing a new policy of actively siding with 'reform' - this with a view to being resurrected officially - a strategy that eventually succeeded for them in 1814.


Robert


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-30-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Rod,

I'm not silent on the Luchesi/Beethoven theory at all. What aspect of it is unclear ? Please say and I will certainly try to clarify it. No problem at all.

Regards

Robert

You offered no hard musical evidence/examples to substantiate your case.

Concerning bach and his alleged lack of musicality, this was in some way the point I was making elsewhere. This is not music in the sence that most other composers compose. Only when he borrows an Italian theme or two does his music hold my interest, for only then do we get any bold melodic lines as the Italians were rather more rhetorical. In no way can I accept Bach as the greatest composer that all the academics seem to think. I'm afraid the best all round solution to the baroque manner of composition we have to look to Handel, here we have a homogenation of all the best elements the form had to offer, but from my discussions with those who have studied music it appearsHandel plays little or no part in the curriculum!


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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes Vivaldi was a famous name. Bach on the other hand though highly respected by many was treated pretty shabbily in Leipzig where he was regarded as an irritant - so much so that they didn't even honour him with a memorial till 1909 - contrast that with Handel in Westminster Abbey!

If you have visited the Abbey you become soon aware that anyone with money could buy their place in there. The place is an embarrassment and a mockery, and I'm not even religious. Handel is one of the few deserving cases!

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

[robert newman]

Dear Rod,

I respect the fact that you can't regard Bach as a superior composer to Handel. Personally I think Bach's superiority is easy to show.

Let's take a few fair comparisons. The sonatas or the concertos. Which keyboard works of Handel do you believe are superior in content to the Partitas or the Toccatas of Bach ? Or which concertos ?

Frankly, Handel's Organ Concertos are hardly of any great substance in comparison to many works of Bach. Again, what of the sonatas, or the organ works.

If we compare like for like (setting aside Handel's operas) I think it can hardly be doubted that the works of JS Bach are of an altogether higher quality than those of Handel.

Not that I dislike Handel. In fact I love many of his works. But, frankly, in direct comparisons (whenever these are possible) it seems that Bach wins every time.

At least that's my considered view - but I entirely respect your own which is of course valid for you.

Regards

Robert

[robert newman]

‘LE NOZZE DI FIGARO’

1/3

Having earlier posted a number of propositions on this thread that the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was not in fact composed by Mozart but was the product of others including the Jesuit educated composer Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-92) I submit this first of three sections of the main argument so that a rough outline of the case can at last be made here by use of this forum. I will focus in this first section on the man I believe to have been the principal administrative agent of a network who instigated and oversaw this affair of the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’, George Joseph Vogler, (better known to his colleagues as Abbe Vogler) with the suggestion that an understanding of his role in Mozart’s career (and indeed that of Joseph Haydn) together with that of the Jesuit sympathisers who were members of this musical network can at least make it possible to appreciate the circumstances of how this opera came in to being in some sort of verifiable and hopefully coherent context.

My aim here is not so much to rashly call in to question the traditional attribution of this opera to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte (based as that tradition undoubtedly is on the existence of documentary evidence of various kinds that undoubtedly tends to support such) but is in the first instance intended to highlight the truth that for me so many discrepancies exist and can be shown to exist in the Mozart/da Pontet attribution (though hardly touched on in books and articles on the subject) that a fair minded reader may be able to at least form their own judgement whether the version of the opera's genesis outlined here (though of course briefly) is of a kind that supports a different view from that which is traditionally beliegved - the the view that credit for this opera ought to be given to others. That this affair involved the Jesuit Order and those in musical and other fields devoted to the restoration of that military order(they having been reluctantly banned by Papal Decree 13 years prior in a text which explicity said ‘The name of the Company (Jesuits) shall be, and is forever extinguished and suppressed shall forever and to all eternity be valid and permanent...etc.’ is to my mind a question able to be established on various grounds, some of which can be introduced in this short series of articles and others in more detail if questions and criticisms are allowed on these posts.

Of course it's a highly unusual view that a creative person (whether he is a composer, a librettist or any other artist) should voluntarily concede credit for his work to others. Especially here in what is, by any fair reckoning, one of he greatest works ever written for the stage. And its already been agreed that the task of laying out such a case is formidable in itself, whether that case finds the approval of readers or not. Still, a start must here be made so this first article will focus very briefly on the life and career of Abbe Vogler, he meriting such special treatment in my view. Further reference to him will of course be made in the remaining two posts.

Georg Joseph Vogler (1749-1814) was the son of an instrument maker and violinist who studied first theology at Wurzburg and Bamberg universities and who first came to Mannheim, the great music centre, in 1771, being appointed a chaplain there the following year. In 1773 Vogler was awarded a scholarship by the Elector to study music in Italy and met/briefly studied in Bologna with the leading Italian musical theorist of that time, Padre Martini (1706-1784). This was the same Martini who, some 3 years earlier, had been teacher to the young Mozart. For reasons that are generally described as unknown Vogler did not stay long with Martini but is next known to have associated himself with a group of musical theorists at Padua, members of which certainly included musicians who were Jesuit educated and whose aim was to develop new systems of harmony and treatment of orchestration that would be more accessible to Catholic schools of musical education. (It was to this same Padua group that Beethoven’s future Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi also belonged and which also included amongst its members the celebrated Francesco Antonio Valloti (1697-1780). Vogler (around the same time as the Jesuit Order is being banned) is then summoned to Rome where he is papally honoured with three awards, that of Knight of the Golden Spur (emulating that which Mozart had received some years prior), but also the extraordinary appointment of Papal Prenotary and that of Chamberlain to the Pope. (Vogler’s musical achievements at this time were extremely modest and little is generally spoken of what the last two of these awards actually entailed).

On Vogler’s return to Mannheim in 1776 he obtained approval from the Elector to establish a public music school (the so-called ‘Mannheimer Tonschule’), was appointed deputy Kapellmeister, (this against some opposition), the post of Almoner to the Elector, and during this first year of his return managed to publish two works, one of music theory and the other on vocal studies. The Electoral court and orchestra removed to Munich in late 1778 but Vogler remained at Mannheim (he having earlier met Mozart – an experience which Mozart describes in less than kind terms).

Vogler’s career takes another sudden turn in 1780 when, with no obvious reason, he is allowed to leave Mannheim not for Munich but for Paris, ostensibly to promote his musical theory to the Academy of Science but also (as it turns out to produce a series of stage works for both Paris and Versailles). He takes up residence in the city and uses this as his base before next travelling to London where his theoretical treatise is more quickly approved by the Royal Society through Sir George Banks. Vogler then begins an extraordinary series of travels across Europe that end only in 1784 when he is recalled by the Elector (then in Munich) to become Kapellmeister there, succeeding the lately deceased Bernasconi. His travels have included visits to St Petersburg and many European cities where he has gained a reputation as an organist.

By 1786 (the year of ‘Figaro’s premiere in Vienna) Vogler is on the move again. He suddenly obtains an appointment to become a tutor in Sweden to the royal household of King Gustav 3rd. During his time there he meets and has regular contact with the German musical genius Joseph Martin Kraus – Kraus having already been in Stockholm for several years at the time of Vogler’s arrival. In late 1792 (Mozart having been dead for almost a year) King Gustav is assassinated, this followed a few months later by the death of JM Kraus. Shortly after these deaths Vogler now leaves Sweden on another series of travels across Europe, travelling by sea from Hamburg with places visited including Cadiz (a city in which he is arrested on charges of being involved in spying), Gibraltar and even North Africa. Returning to Stockholm in 1793 he remained in his official position until 1799 before leaving for a 1 year stay in Denmark, 1 year in Berlin, and then travelling to Austria, arriving in Vienna in late 1802. In 1803 he receives an operatic commission from Emanuel Schickaneder (famed for his collaboration with Mozart in ‘Die Zauberflote’) and produces ‘Samori’, this staged at the Theater an der Wein where, a year later Beethoven’s ‘Fidelio’ had its premiere. Vogler revives contacts in Vienna with both Constanze Mozart and with the now aging Joseph Haydn. He continues to be known as a theorist and after several attempts to found a theory school has students and associates that included Meyerbeer, the young Weber, the theoretician Gottfried Weber (the same who in 1825 published an article describing Mozart’s Requiem as a forgery) and others.

Vogler died in 1814.

This man is known to have been a severe critic of Bach’s teachings. In fact Vogler (pupil of Martini and later of Valloti) rejected all existing systems of contrapuntal teaching and was specially severe on Bach admirers such as Kirnberger (whose ‘Kunst des reinen’ of 1774 was hugely influential in north Germany. (On page 6 of Vogler’s own ‘Choral System’ (published 1800 in Copenhagen) he quotes Padre Martini in saying, ‘We have no (music) system but that of Fux’.

JM Kraus studied composition at Mannheim with Vogler. Vogler’s connections with the Mozart family and with Haydn is clear. So too is the fact that Vogler left Mannheim for Paris at the very time that Beaumarchais finished work on the text to his play from which the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ was written – the city where JM Kraus was to arrive some years later during the interim between the play and the premiere of ‘Mozart’s’ opera of that name.

I believe that sufficient evidence exists to support the view that Vogler, appointed by the papacy to fulfil a special role in musical administration during the time when the Jesuits were banned, was a pivotal person who arranged for the composition of both the music and the libretto to the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ premiered in Vienna in 1786 and credited (wrongly) to WA Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte. The strange, apparently eccentric career of this man masks the fact that, in truth, he was very actively an agent to ensure (amongst other things) that the ‘Weiner Klassik’ movement (and the reputations of Haydn and Mozart) would continue to be developed despite those reputations depending to a great extent on the works of other composers of that same network.

The ‘Figaro’ affair was therefore (I submit) a Jesuit affair but one whose unusual features are not apparent due to the fact that it involved the manipulation of truth and the inventing of ‘facts’ which are contradicted by others of more lasting value.

In the last two posts to this thread I would like to sketch the main events that have a bearing on this issue during the time when Beaumarchais play was being written and on those events which led up to the premiere of that opera in Vienna in 1786.

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


‘LE NOZZE DI FIGARO’

1/3


This man is known to have been a severe critic of Bach’s teachings. In fact Vogler (pupil of Martini and later of Valloti) rejected all existing systems of contrapuntal teaching and was specially severe on Bach admirers such as Kirnberger (whose ‘Kunst des reinen’ of 1774 was hugely influential in north Germany.

Mozart was in turn a harsh critic of Vogler thinking his new system of fingering ridiculous. Mozart was also one of these 'heretical' admirers of Bach, a fact well documented.

I'm pleased you mention Kirnberger because his treatise (along with Marpurg) was in the possession of Captain D'Antoine, cited by Neefe, as being how he learnt composition. So it would appear that the Luchesi side of 'the conspiracy' were quite happy with this 'heretical' Bach loving treatise.

Since the whole thing stretches credulity to breaking point, it is not enough to construct these theories without hard substantiated evidence as Rod correctly pointed out in the Beethoven case - you provide long winded arguments but no evidence. Even when repeatedly asked for this you waffle around the issues but are unable to prove it.



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