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

[robert newman]

How interesting that you speak of 'stretching credulity to breaking point'. Does not the traditional career of Lorenzo da Ponte, Mozart, Beaumarchais, and, yes, George Vogler do exactly this ? And yet they stood in a relationship to each other in this, the most controversial play and (later) opera in virtually the whole of music history. With two further installments to come your kind remarks have given me hope.

The fact that Mozart was familiar with Bach (well, officially anyway) is no more surprising than the Vatican knowing the works of Martin Luther. Again, the official version (the one that really stretches credulity to breaking point) is that Italian responses to Bach were virtually nil. The hostility to Bach and his legacy was in fact very real even in many areas of Germany.

We cannot really deny that religious bigotry in such matters was a major feature and I have already provided an example in the explusions of Protestants from Mozart's home town. With the Jesuits no longer in authority (well, at least officially) there was no opposition (unless of course you can stretch your credulity to the idea of a network of Jesuit backed musicians existing who worked towards their restoration) who also hoped for the collapse of Bach's influence in Germany as everywhere else. That is why, in the case of Vogler, founder of the Tonschule in Mannheim, he was so active a critic of Bach himself and used his status to remain one throughout his teaching life. We have seen 'neutrals' such as King Frederick of Prussia have similar attitudes.

No - I cannot agree that Vienna at any time did more than regard Bach as 'the opposition' in matters of theory and music teaching despite a few works being of such value that even they could not deny their teaching value. Perhaps you can cite some examples of Bach's works being publicly performed in Vienna between, say, 1730 and, say, 1800 other than those which cannot be disputed as teaching tools ?

As to D'Antoine using the treatise of JP Kirnberger, you may appreciate that the real D'Antonine (who is credited with writing many high quality works) wrote none, and that Kapellmeister Luchesi used 'D'Anthoine' as a pen-name up until 1784 and again after 1791 (i.e. after the death of Mozart). In such a case (one where works are being falsely attributed) it does not surprise me at all that such people have at their disposal a very comprehensive list of theoretical works.

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-31-2006).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
And yet they stood in a relationship to each other in this, the most controversial play and (later) opera in virtually the whole of music history. With two further installments to come your kind remarks have given me hope.

Since you are going on about the controversial Beaumarchais play, perhaps you can explain why Louis Vl allowed it to be performed in Paris in 1784 in the first place, having previously banned it? This seems to me the most curious thing of all!

I look forward to your installments in the sure knowledge that they will prove nothing, in keeping with your previous posts. However I am grateful because we are in the process learning an awful lot about many forgotten people and incidents.



Perhaps you can cite some examples of Bach's works being publicly performed in Vienna between, say, 1730 and, say, 1800 other than those which cannot be disputed as teaching tools ?

Surely the same applies to Paris, London or many other European cities, so why I wonder do you single out Vienna?



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

[Bobbie]

Mr. Newman,
Sorry, without referring me back to your lengthy posts , can you remind me when JM Kraus visited Vienna, what was his business there and for how long ?


thanks

[robert newman]

Dear Bobbie,

JM Kraus (while in the employ of the King of Sweden) was sent on a very extensive tour of Europe between 1782 and 1787. He visited Vienna in 1783, staying there for some 8 months.

The purpose of his long travel was to obtain information on music that would be of use to the Swedish musical situation. His journeys took him also to Italy, France and Germany.
He was also in Paris at the time when Beaumarchais play was first being staged (staying there many months) and he attended (I believe) only the second performance ever given of that play.

As a former student of Abbe Vogler this JM Kraus (the so-called 'Swedish Mozart') is today being increasingly recognised as the musical equal of those works which are today attributed to Mozart - a talent recognised in Vienna by Haydn and others. (Kraus donated a symphony to Haydn at this time which was recognised to be a work of great genius - though Haydn had it published in Haydn's own name at Paris).

During his stay in Vienna Kraus lived literally a few hundred yards from Mozart's home though the two composers have always been separated by tradition from having any contact. In truth (as researchers such as Professor de Boer have argued) the possibility that they had no contact is ludicrously low. The Kraus/Mozart relationship is effectively hidden.

Regards

Robert

[Rod]

Originally posted by 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

The Handel works you quote as evidence of his apparent inferiority is proof enough to me you have little experience of Handel's music beyond the 'usual suspects'. We have discussed Handel's concerti grossi op6 here before and compared them to Bach's Brandenburg concertos. The general consensus from those who had heard both was that Op.6 was the better music.

Then we have the op3 concertos which are of a similar standard. I disagree with you about the organ concertos (op4 and 7), but they are so poorly understood and performed that I can understand your lack of enthusiasm (I could say the same of some Beethoven pieces!). If you want good advice on recording of any Handel piece please look no further than myself, then you may have a change of heart. In comparison Bach is always easy from an interpretational point of view, regardless of any technical difficulties. Aside from this technical element Bach is always 'easy listening' which explains why Jazz fans always have a few Bach CDs in their collections.

But instrumental music was only a chip of the block for Handel, if it wasn't for the pirates most of it would not have even been published. You mention nothing of Handel's great odes, operas and oratorios, of which we have no comparison from Bach (even his laborious Passions are not really 'performance pieces' in the context of Messiah, Solomon, Saul, Isreal in Egypt etc). Handel was a for the most part a composer of the stage, the best in fact, so concentrate on his vocal music if you dont mind. Concerning the use of the voice Handel is unsurpassed, so often with Bach cantatas it sound like an oboe concerto with a voice added later as an after-thought because the melodic lines of both conflict. Handel always knows how to mix the voice and the orchestra to perfection.

I look forward to your further assessment.



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

[robert newman]

Peter, I single out Vienna because it (as you well know) developed (or had developed) the so-called '1st Viennese School' largely on the reputations and supposed musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart - these two composers being nurtured artificially to the lasting glory of the Austrian Empire. This did not happen in London. It happened in Vienna. 'Le Nozze di Figaro' represented still more credibility for Vienna and, of course, for the reputations of Mozart and da Ponte.

As to why the French king should have allowed any performance of Beaumarchais play I will deal with this in my next post. Suffice to say that the history of this play is one full of intrigues and failed attempts to have the work approved by the censors. The net result of all this, of course, was to give massive publicity to the play years before it was actually first staged. And it was in those states ruled by 'reformers' (such as Sweden, Russia, and Austria) where there was real interest that it was staged/made in to an opera.

[robert newman]

Dear Rod,

I wholeheartedly agree with so much of what you have written. I have great love and admiration for Handel. In fact, when I was younger and a student of music the very first recording I bought was one of Handel's arias - a record I loved and music that touches me so deeply. You are of course entirely right that many works of the great man are the equal of those produced by Bach - the Op.3 series being in my view some of the greatest music written by anyone. And I wish to know more of his operas and oratorios whenever I have the time to do so.

But, just as you would agree that the Organ concertos are hardly in the same league as the organ works of Bach so too this cannot be said of, say, choral work. Here again Bach's choruses far surpass (in my view) those of Handel in all but a few cases.

I very greatly respect your comments on Handel's solo voice settings and agree that here Handel is an absolute master.

But the main issue and the context within which we are having this exchange is one where I am saying (and am sure) that Bach as a teacher and as a producer of works suitable for the music student left a legacy that puts Handel in the shade. It's in this sense (his legacy to posterity and to the development of music) that Bach surely remains without equal.

Again, I agree with your thinking that in terms of the solo voice Handel achieved things that may even surpass Bach - though it must surely be noted that Handel struggled with all the vanity of his soloists and was working for a paying public who demanded such things. Bach was far more homogenous in his treatment and the voice is and remains so much an integral part of the overall performance - made so (I believe) intentionally as part of Bach's entire mode of operation.

Certainly, I remain a great admirer of the glorious music of Handel.

Best regards

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Peter, I single out Vienna because it (as you well know) developed (or had developed) the so-called '1st Viennese School' largely on the reputations and supposed musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart - these two composers being nurtured artificially to the lasting glory of the Austrian Empire. This did not happen in London. It happened in Vienna. 'Le Nozze di Figaro' represented still more credibility for Vienna and, of course, for the reputations of Mozart and da Ponte.


I don't know this at all - you are the one claiming their reputations were manufactured out of thin air and have yet to prove it! As you well know the first performance of Figaro hardly enhanced Mozart's Viennese reputation - it was in Prague that this opera was a success. Also as you well know Soler’s Una cosa rara was a far greater success in Vienna than any of the Mozart operas!

Also in your reply to Bobbie you again misrepresent the truth about Haydn. It was common practice in Paris to publish under a more famous name - Kraus's Symphony in E minor, VB 141 was first published in Paris in 1787, under the name of Giuseppe Cambini.

Haydn himself acknowledged that Kraus symphony to the Swedish diplomat Fredrik Silfverstolpe: "The symphony he wrote here in Vienna especially for me will be regarded as a masterpiece for centuries to come; believe me, there are few people who can compose something like that."




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

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Rod,

I wholeheartedly agree with so much of what you have written. I have great love and admiration for Handel. In fact, when I was younger and a student of music the very first recording I bought was one of Handel's arias - a record I loved and music that touches me so deeply. You are of course entirely right that many works of the great man are the equal of those produced by Bach - the Op.3 series being in my view some of the greatest music written by anyone. And I wish to know more of his operas and oratorios whenever I have the time to do so.

But, just as you would agree that the Organ concertos are hardly in the same league as the organ works of Bach so too this cannot be said of, say, choral work. Here again Bach's choruses far surpass (in my view) those of Handel in all but a few cases.

I very greatly respect your comments on Handel's solo voice settings and agree that here Handel is an absolute master.

But the main issue and the context within which we are having this exchange is one where I am saying (and am sure) that Bach as a teacher and as a producer of works suitable for the music student left a legacy that puts Handel in the shade. It's in this sense (his legacy to posterity and to the development of music) that Bach surely remains without equal.

Again, I agree with your thinking that in terms of the solo voice Handel achieved things that may even surpass Bach - though it must surely be noted that Handel struggled with all the vanity of his soloists and was working for a paying public who demanded such things. Bach was far more homogenous in his treatment and the voice is and remains so much an integral part of the overall performance - made so (I believe) intentionally as part of Bach's entire mode of operation.

Certainly, I remain a great admirer of the glorious music of Handel.

Best regards

I appreciate you more rounded assessment this time Mr Newman. However, concerning once more the Organ Concertos, are you aware that the instruments Handel had at his disposal were of the most basic kind compared to the monster instruments available to Bach. Also with the concertos Handel did not fully write out the solo part in many cases, with some movements we have not a single note, he just wrote 'ad libitum'! So this is why one has to be careful with the assessment of the concertos - for sure Handel was a better performer than anyone today on these basic organs. Op7 no1 and no4 are two of my favourite Handel pieces so that says something. What Bach would have done under similar circumstances I can leave to you to think about. This link explains:
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/notes/22052-N.asp

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

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Bobbie:
Mr. Newman,
Sorry, without referring me back to your lengthy posts , can you remind me when JM Kraus visited Vienna, what was his business there and for how long ?


thanks

Dear Bobbie;

Joseph Martin Kraus was sent by his patron, King Gustav III of Sweden, on a four year trip to Europe from 1782 to the end of 1786. The purpose of this trip was to learn the new trends in theater music. During these four years, Kraus spent considerable time in Vienna (where is was Mozart's neighbor at one time), Paris, Germany, and Italy.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

Peter,

I say that the careers of Haydn and Mozart were stage managed at virtually every stage. If this is not true please provide the name of a composer other than these two who have been credited (falsely) with having written twice as many works as they are today credited with ?

In the case of Mozart, at every single stage of his life and supposed career we run up against gross exaggeration, plagiarism and falsely attributed works. From his childhood to his youth, from his youth to adulthood, and from his adulthood till the time of his death. Despite truly massive propaganda the wheels of the Mozart bandwaggon have been coming off.

Separating fact from fiction (which is surely a healthy thing) would have very little impact on Beethoven studies, or that of Chopin, or any other great composer. It would have a colossal impact on Haydn and on Mozart.

Sorry, but these two icons have enjoyed far more than they deserve. Again, vastly more than others as worthy as they. The careers of these two composers were largely products of stage management.

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Bobbie,

JM Kraus (while in the employ of the King of Sweden) was sent on a very extensive tour of Europe between 1782 and 1787. He visited Vienna in 1783, staying there for some 8 months.

The purpose of his long travel was to obtain information on music that would be of use to the Swedish musical situation. His journeys took him also to Italy, France and Germany.
He was also in Paris at the time when Beaumarchais play was first being staged (staying there many months) and he attended (I believe) only the second performance ever given of that play.

As a former student of Abbe Vogler this JM Kraus (the so-called 'Swedish Mozart') is today being increasingly recognised as the musical equal of those works which are today attributed to Mozart - a talent recognised in Vienna by Haydn and others. (Kraus donated a symphony to Haydn at this time which was recognised to be a work of great genius - though Haydn had it published in Haydn's own name at Paris).

During his stay in Vienna Kraus lived literally a few hundred yards from Mozart's home though the two composers have always been separated by tradition from having any contact. In truth (as researchers such as Professor de Boer have argued) the possibility that they had no contact is ludicrously low. The Kraus/Mozart relationship is effectively hidden.

Regards

Robert

Dear Robert;

In an article in the Journal of 18th Century Music some two years ago, Professor van Boer provided conclusive, if circumstantial, proof that Mozart and Kraus were in contact. So, the contact is not hidden by "official scholarship." Contact between two composers does not make a corroboration between them.


Hofrat

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Peter,

I say that the careers of Haydn and Mozart were stage managed at virtually every stage. If this is not true please provide the name of a composer other than these two who have been credited (falsely) with having written twice as many works as they are today credited with ?

In the case of Mozart, at every single stage of his life and supposed career we run up against gross exaggeration, plagiarism and falsely attributed works. From his childhood to his youth, from his youth to adulthood, and from his adulthood till the time of his death. Despite truly massive propaganda the wheels of the Mozart bandwaggon have been coming off.

Separating fact from fiction (which is surely a healthy thing) would have very little impact on Beethoven studies, or that of Chopin, or any other great composer. It would have a colossal impact on Haydn and on Mozart.

Sorry, but these two icons have enjoyed far more than they deserve. Again, vastly more than others as worthy as they. The careers of these two composers were largely products of stage management.

Many composers have had works misattributed and scholarship has been keen to sort this out over the years. The reputations of these two composers whether you like it or not (and clearly you don't) are down to their supreme genius. Of course all sorts of stories and myths grow up around all great men/women.

Why on earth would Italian composers seek to establish the supremacy of a Viennese school of Austrian/ German composers at their own expense? Why were composers of equal note in their day such as Dittersdorf and Vanhal not included in this grand scheme? There are hundreds of questions that your theories do not satisfactorily address, let alone failing to provide proper substantiated evidence.

You draw all the wrong conclusions - I entirely agree that many composers such as Kraus have been unfairly neglected, but that is an entirely separate matter.

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

[Bobbie]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

Dear Robert;

In an article in the Journal of 18th Century Music some two years ago, Professor van Boer provided conclusive, if circumstantial, proof that Mozart and Kraus were in contact. So, the contact is not hidden by "official scholarship." Contact between two composers does not make a corroboration between them.


Hofrat

Thanks Hofrat,
It does strike me as rather odd that according to 'The Kraus Society' it is very unlikely that the Swedish 'Mozart' JM Kruas, never met Mozart whilst in Vienna in 1783, as during this time Mozart was ill.
Haydn was also a good friend of Kraus and Mozart and I am sure he would have wanted them to meet.

.

[Bobbie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobbie:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]INTRODUCTION

I’ve promised to submit a short series of articles on this thread over the next few weeks (perhaps 4 in total) in support of the view that, contrary to general belief, neither Mozart nor Lorenzo da Ponte were responsible for creation of the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ premiered at the Vienna Burgtheater in 1786. I’ve also suggested that the real composer of that opera was the less well known Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792). References or footnotes will be avoided here or kept to a minimum to allow me to write in a more informal style than would be the case if I was trying to write, say, a journal article on the same subject. (I will of course be happy to provide source details on any point if these are specifically asked for).

I want to begin this ‘Introduction’ by explaining what I mean by ‘approaching this subject from an unusual angle’. I mean that this subject is itself unusual and that certain sorts of evidence must be introduced to make my case whose relevance may not immediately be obvious to some readers or which may even be disputed as relevant at all by others. In my view presentation of such evidence (since it rarely features in discussions on Mozart, Kraus or music in general) is of crucial importance to my case. My aim remains to show beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Martin Kraus wrote the music to the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

I wish to identify what are for me two crucially important themes that I intend to use repeatedly in arguing for Kraus. These unlikely themes provide a context within which my case can be presented. Frankly, I doubt whether this issue can be resolved if the evidence they provide is not presented. I name them as follows -

1. The Jesuits and their Place in Art and Music c.1720-1814
2. Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)

Now a brief description of the relevance of these two themes to my argument –

1. We all agree that composition of and the first performance of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ occurred in Europe during the late 18th century and within the span of time during which the so-called ‘Holy Roman Empire’ enjoyed a position of political and religious dominance in Austria. Even greater dominance in Europe as a whole existed within educational fields controlled by the Catholic Order known as the Society of Jesus (better known to us today as Jesuits). Jesuits had immense and real power in many areas of academic study and their influence (even in the fields of Art and Music) was huge up to and even after the time when they were finally dissolved by the Pope in Rome in 1773.

2. With the exception of territories where the Protestant Reformation had prevailed (large parts of Germany, for example) it would be fair to say that 18th century Europe was a Catholic continent. The astounding life and career of Johann Sebastian Bach (a man who only became well known around the 1720’s) was, I will argue, judged to have serious implications amongst Jesuit centres of musical study not least because the same Bach, a Lutheran was devoted to providing a comprehensive school of music for students in his exquisite publications but also because this German man had proved his ability to sustain his teachings in areas where Catholic education (and therefore Jesuit influence) was already shown to be of far less significance. Bach was bad news for the Jesuits. They wished to limit his impact.

Just as Luther centuries before had spearheaded the Reformation and been responded to by a ‘Counter Reformation’ from Rome (one that included the founding of the Jesuit Order as shock troops of actively pursue such a counter reformation), so too in the musical sense the prodigious talents of Bach and the immense significance of his musical teachings eventually made it necessary for Jesuits in the music sphere to provide a musical counter-reformation.

It’s these unlikely themes that I wish to develop and build on so that it might be appreciated how networks of composers could (and did) exist by which reputations could be made and even enhanced if it was deemed to sustain and consolidate Catholic musical interests in lands where they were still dominant.

To argue that the history of music c.1729-1814 is really one of ‘a reaction to Bach’ would of course be a gross oversimplification. It nevertheless has more substance than has often been appreciated. That view of things (provided that we avoid dogmatism) certainly provides a context within which a number of curious relationships between composers can be explained, of which one is that between Haydn and Mozart and another that of Mozart and Kraus themselves. The religious conversion of one of Bach’s sons to Catholicism also had implications for musical history. So did that of Hasse and various others. To ignore these issues is to rob us of the reality of those times.


-
KRAUS, A ROMAN CATHOLIC, WROTE MUSIC FOR LUTHERAN SERVICES.
BACH, A LUTHERAN, WROTE HIS GREAT FULL ROMAN CATHOLIC B MINOR MASS.
-


..



[This message has been edited by Bobbie (edited 04-01-2006).]