Bach's Impact on 18th Century Music

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

I'm not sure Beethoven was taught much of Bach at Bonn and I don't suggest Luchesi went out of his way to change that. It seems that Kirnberger's 'Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik' was at least available to read in Bonn through Neefe and others (?)

It is clearly stated by Neefe in Cramer's 1783 Magazin der Musik that Beethoven had received instruction using mainly The well tempered klavier - this fact alone throws your whole Jesuit theory into chaos.


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

[robert newman]

Peter,

You write -

'It is clearly stated by Neefe in Cramer's 1783 Magazin der Musik that Beethoven had received instruction using mainly The well tempered klavier - this fact alone throws your whole Jesuit theory into chaos'.

Does it ???? You must have read also reports from this time which say Beethoven's case was common of any young pianist at the time in being able to perform the 48 Prelude and Fugues of JS Bach.

In 1783 (at the time when Mozart had been in Vienna just a few years and when the young Beethoven was 13 years of age) the teaching works of Bach (of which the 48 Preludes and Fugues are surely an example) that work was a foundation for the young Beethoven's PLAYING as for others.

We also know Beethoven played the Well-Tempered Clavier, and "recomposed" it by hand copying several parts so that he might learn and internalize the structure and the process of Bach's counterpoint.

Bach's works were widely regarded as a sound basis for instruction - a fact we both accept.

The issue is whether Bach's teachings and methods were officially approved by the Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi or whether they were, in fact, a rival system to that which he and others in musical authority within the Holy Roman Empire wanted. THAT's the issue.

What we actually had (as far as theoretical teaching of music was concerned) was rivalry. The writer of the article to which you are refering was Ch. G Neefe himself - his influence with Beethoven beginning in 1781 when he began to study with him (becoming deputy court organist the following year, 1782). It was in 1784 (February) that he became the official assistant of Neefe.

Thus, during the time when Beethoven was closely working with Neefe (a time, incidentally, when Kappellmeister Luchesi is in Italy on 1 year extended stay) Beethoven meets the great legacy of Bach. His progress with Bach was the justifiable reason for Neefe himself writing in 'Cramer Magazine' of that same year, 1783, as he does.

If you agree with all this, let's examine next the question of Luchesi and his theoretical system. And here we find something very different. We find that Luchesi was committed to a very different theoretical base. Luchesi was committed to the Padua school (of which he himself had been a member). He was, in fact, a subscriber to the Rameau school of which Vogler (1778) was being described as his appproved successor.

These two systems (that of Bach and that of Vogler) were at this very time in real competition with each other. Beethoven (thanks to Neefe) devoured Bach.

None of this disproves the fact that the Jesuits wanted Bach out. In fact it clearly illustrates that even at Bonn, the second chapel of the entire Holy Roman Empire, the works and methods of Bach were, in practice, at least equal to, if not superior to, systems officially approved.

This was certainly not the case in Mozart's education. Nor that of Haydn. But here, in Beethoven, it is clearly so.

Regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]

[ASSelby]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Yes, I have evidence for all this. If you ask for specific evidence you can have it immediately. Please specify and I will be happy to do so for you Agnes, as so often offered - right here. (Luchesi was of course a boy at the time of Bach's death - you know that is what I mean).

As far as Jesuits and Catholics are concerned, really, one of these two was banned in 1773 by the Pope in Rome. Which was it Agnes ? You should not assume students are fools.

I wait now for your specific questions.

Regards

Robert

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]

----------

Dear Robert,

I have not one question for you but a whole series of questions. When you state that Mozart did not compose his music but stole it from Luchesi, you might like to give specific data to show the original Luchesi compositions and give reason why Luchesi did not publish the great works himself but instead, allowed Mozart to steal them.

None of it makes sense, Robert, not to me and hopefully students in this country will not take it on board. As for the Jesuits, you know perfectly well that I was educated at St. Vincent's College, Potts Point, Sydney,before going to university. I find your tirade, against the Jesuits, very tiresome especially the conspiracies. We have discussed this before years ago and I remember telling you how very irksome I found your religious attacks.

As for specific questions, Robert, especially concerning the Requiem and all the accusations you make against Constanze, you will find this discussed fully in my book, "Constanze, Mozart's Beloved" which you can find on Amazon or you can order it from the Mozarteum book shop. I need not ask you questions as I have answered it all in my book. The onus falls on you as you have brought forth theories which need documentation and explanations. Mine are all documented in my book.

I am fully aware that your have taken on
the writings of Francis Carr, the discredited Mozart writer as far as Constanze Mozart is concerned. I am sorry, I do not know anything about your Italian scholar nor your Japanese one as I have never come across them in any Mozart research. However, if neither of them can supply verifications and nor can you, I must say in all honesty, that I cannot take your assertions seriously.

Regards,
Agnes.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

Your 'whole series of questions' consists of not one that is specific. They are all general and have been discussed at great length here on this forum and elsewhere. Please, will you ask me sSPECIFIC questions or I will simply point you to various threads available here from which you can learn. I am asking you for SPECIFIC questions and am very happy to answer them one by one.

Now, regarding my supposed 'religious attacks', you write -

'I (Agnes Selby) was educated at St. Vincent's College, Potts Point, Sydney, before going to university. I find your tirade, against the Jesuits, very tiresome especially the conspiracies. We have discussed this before years ago and I remember telling you how very irksome I found your religious attacks'.

Yes, I am sure you are discomforted. Was it the Jesuits who taught you to be so evasive when you are asked specific questions time after time on this forum ? And, Agnes, was it the Jesuits (that Order that was 'eternally and forever' banned by the Catholic Church in 1773 by no less a person than the Pope himself in Rome - who died of poisoning the year after) who were banned a total of 82 different times by the rulers of Europe themselves and elsewhere ? Or am I dreaming ?

Was it or was it not the Jesuits who were condemned (by civil AND Catholic authorities) or is this yet another delusion of mine ?

You see Agnes, I have many Catholic friends. I am not a Catholic myself but have the greatest regard for those who are. But if you cannot make or refuse to make a distinction between Jesuits/Jesuitry and Catholicism then, I regret, life must sometimes be very confusing for you.

Get hold of an Oxford English Dictionary and look up the terms 'jesuitical' or (again) 'jesuity'. You will find there the verdict of history on that Order as having been a devious, evil, suppressive, repressive and thoroughly nasty bunch of military fanatics whose actions since their restoration (e.g. in running scores of universities in the USA and elsewhere) since the 19th century has at least given them a chance to restore their credibility in the Christian world and in the world as a whole.

I make no apology for saying (as Catholics have done thousands of times) that toleration is a hallmark of true religion.

If an organisation has had the ear of governments, the rule of banks, and can manipulate and topple elected governments and kingdoms, and if its agents have been confessors to rulers over centuries then, in the light of history, I am justified to say that they, by power rather than by right, have been (and still are) a MILITARY order - one that can learn by accepting its own bloody past.

Until this sits easily with you truth itself must always be so difficult a thing for us to come to terms with in these posts.

Regards

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Peter,

You write -

'It is clearly stated by Neefe in Cramer's 1783 Magazin der Musik that Beethoven had received instruction using mainly The well tempered klavier - this fact alone throws your whole Jesuit theory into chaos'.

Does it ???? You must have read also reports from this time which say Beethoven's case was common of any young pianist at the time in being able to perform the 48 Prelude and Fugues of JS Bach.

In 1783 (at the time when Mozart had been in Vienna just a few years and when the young Beethoven was 13 years of age) the teaching works of Bach (of which the 48 Preludes and Fugues are surely an example) that work was a foundation for the young Beethoven's PLAYING as for others.

We also know Beethoven played the Well-Tempered Clavier, and "recomposed" it by hand copying several parts so that he might learn and internalize the structure and the process of Bach's counterpoint.

Bach's works were widely regarded as a sound basis for instruction - a fact we both accept.

The issue is whether Bach's teachings and methods were officially approved by the Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi or whether they were, in fact, a rival system to that which he and others in musical authority within the Holy Roman Empire wanted. THAT's the issue.

What we actually had (as far as theoretical teaching of music was concerned) was rivalry. The writer of the article to which you are refering was Ch. G Neefe himself - his influence with Beethoven beginning in 1781 when he began to study with him (becoming deputy court organist the following year, 1782). It was in 1784 (February) that he became the official assistant of Neefe.

Thus, during the time when Beethoven was closely working with Neefe (a time, incidentally, when Kappellmeister Luchesi is in Italy on 1 year extended stay) Beethoven meets the great legacy of Bach. His progress with Bach was the justifiable reason for Neefe himself writing in 'Cramer Magazine' of that same year, 1783, as he does.

If you agree with all this, let's examine next the question of Luchesi and his theoretical system. And here we find something very different. We find that Luchesi was committed to a very different theoretical base. Luchesi was committed to the Padua school (of which he himself had been a member). He was, in fact, a subscriber to the Rameau school of which Vogler (1778) was being described as his appproved successor.

These two systems (that of Bach and that of Vogler) were at this very time in real competition with each other. Beethoven (thanks to Neefe) devoured Bach.

None of this disproves the fact that the Jesuits wanted Bach out. In fact it clearly illustrates that even at Bonn, the second chapel of the entire Holy Roman Empire, the works and methods of Bach were, in practice, at least equal to, if not superior to, systems officially approved.

This was certainly not the case in Mozart's education. Nor that of Haydn. But here, in Beethoven, it is clearly so.

Regards

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]

You are so contradictory Robert. From what you say the Jesuits were determined to supress Bach and yet at Bonn we have a situation where he is actively taught by Neefe - why was Neefe so unaware of Luchesi's (Jesuit)disapproval of Bach and why did he publish the fact that he was teaching Bach to Beethoven? This is extraordinary in view of your claims.

In your own words Neefe introduced Beethoven to Bach and by that alone he undoubtedly was a far superior teacher than Luchesi, unless you think Beethoven learnt more from Luchesi than Bach? What do you think Beethoven would have thought of a man who actively discouraged the teaching of Bach?

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

[robert newman]

How do you know that Luchesi disapproved of Neefe ? Or that Neefe disapproved of Luchesi ?

These are the things we must see in the lives of these two men Peter.

Yes, to the extent that Neefe introduced Bach to Beethoven (as we seem to agree) he must be credited with being the greater teacher. I entirely agree. Not the first, but definitely the greater of the two.

What Beethoven thought of Luchesi or what people like Neefe thought of him is a very interesting question. Luchesi represented the end of an era despite the fact that with men like Vogler there were desperate attempts to turn the tide.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

How do you know that Luchesi disapproved of Neefe ? Or that Neefe disapproved of Luchesi ?

These are the things we must see in the lives of these two men Peter.

Yes, to the extent that Neefe introduced Bach to Beethoven (as we seem to agree) he must be credited with being the greater teacher. I entirely agree. Not the first, but definitely the greater of the two.

What Beethoven thought of Luchesi or what people like Neefe thought of him is a very interesting question. Luchesi represented the end of an era despite the fact that with men like Vogler there were desperate attempts to turn the tide.

I don't know whether Luchesi approved of Neefe or not - it is your claim that there was a Jesuit plot to silence the teaching of Bach. You claim that Luchesi was part of the overall Jesuit plan so why as Kappelmeister was he allowing Bach to be taught at Bonn? You must concede that your arguments are not consistant as in a few posts back in this thread you suggested that Beethoven discovered Bach after Bonn, yet now you credit Neefe with introducing him to Beethoven!
It is encouraging that you concede the greater influence Neefe had on Beethoven as teacher, but this is contrary to your earlier statements on this issue.

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

[robert newman]

In reply to your post where you write -

'I don't know whether Luchesi approved of Neefe or not - it is your claim that there was a Jesuit plot to silence the teaching of Bach. You claim that Luchesi was part of the overall Jesuit plan so why as Kappelmeister was he allowing Bach to be taught at Bonn? You must concede that your arguments are not consistant as in a few posts back in this thread you suggested that Beethoven discovered Bach after Bonn, yet now you credit Neefe with introducing him to Beethoven!

It is encouraging that you concede the greater influence Neefe had on Beethoven as teacher, but this is contrary to your earlier statements on this issue'.

Firstly, let's agree that there are a number of different but related issues here. One of them is the question of whether the Jesuits wanted to diminish or even replace the legacy of Bach to students of music. Another is the question of who Beethoven's music teacher was. And still another what Luchesi (Beethoven's Kapellmeister) thought about Neefe and vice-versa. You may agree that at the moment these are a bit tangled up.

I am saying that the young Beethoven was first taught by his Kapellmeister, Andrea Luchesi. This was normal, right and natural. I am also saying that Andrea Luchesi came to Bonn after first studying music theory at Padua amongst a group of theorists that included Georg Vogler and many of the leading theorists of the time - none of them teaching Bach - in fact all of them committed to developing a system of music that was intended to replace that of theorists such as Rameau (himself Jesuit educated).

I am saying that Luchesi arrived in Bonn and began teaching according to the traditional methods that Mozart and Haydn learned - those that a composer would have learned at, say, a school run by Padre Martini in Bologna. I am also saying that Georg Vogler, on his return to Mannheim in 1775 (i.e. at a time when Beethoven was a small child) published in that same year a book of music theory which was intended to form the basis of teaching music across the Catholic world of its time - this followed the same year by a book on singing. In short, that Abbe Vogler was a musical pedagogue. And that this same Abbe Vogler established at Mannheim a music school which included amongst its pupils other Jesuit educated musicians such as Joseph Matin Kraus and others. I am further saying that Vogler was an active critic of Bach's legacy (as indeed was Kraus himself) and that, in point of fact, by 1783 (the time of the article to which you refer, and which was written by Ch.G Neefe) Beethoven had discovered (through Neefe) the works, the musical treasures of Bach. To this extent these two rival systems existed at Bonn - though one of them was really of major significance to Beethoven during the year of Luchesi's absence in Italy (i.e. during the year of early 1783 to early 1784).

Yes, certainly I credit Neefe with introducing Beethoven to Bach. Perhaps you will credit the view then that the distance between Bach and Beethoven is far shorter, in actual fact, than we would otherwise suppose.
For we both agree that Bach had considerable influence on Beethoven, both then as a young student and in fact during his later/mature years.

Beethoven, at Bonn, had several teachers. There is no contradiction in saying this and I do not think anyone would deny it. But, officially, the man in charge of teaching remained Kapellmeister Luchesi.

I have not the slightest doubt that Bach's music was of immense value to the young Beethoven, whether it was part of the curriculum or not. Neefe was a crucially important person for having been so influential in Beethoven's formative years.

None of this diminishes Luchesi. Nor is it intended to diminish the help he received from Neefe. But we are talking here of two rival systems.

Bear in mind too that even in his early career in Vienna it was considered that Beethoven still needed teaching in matters of theory. But by then (I honestly believe) he was already growing beyond anything that Haydn or Mozart could have shown him.

We have lots of evidence that schools of music were critical of Bach's legacy during the decades in question. (For example, it's recorded that JM Kraus used to debate strongly on these issues around the time when he was promoting the 'Sturm and Drang' movement and I'd like to show evidence for this later). The attitudes of Frederick the Great towards Bach are well known - he of course hugely keen on the 'galant'. And so on.

Hope this helps at least a little !

Robert

P.S. If it doesn't help I can get a lot more 'academic' with lots of names, book titles etc - but that's not really the best approach on such things is it ?

------------------

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Yes, certainly I credit Neefe with introducing Beethoven to Bach. Perhaps you will credit the view then that the distance between Bach and Beethoven is far shorter, in actual fact, than we would otherwise suppose.
For we both agree that Bach had considerable influence on Beethoven, both then as a young student and in fact during his later/mature years.

Beethoven, at Bonn, had several teachers. There is no contradiction in saying this and I do not think anyone would deny it. But, officially, the man in charge of teaching remained Kapellmeister Luchesi.

I have not the slightest doubt that Bach's music was of immense value to the young Beethoven, whether it was part of the curriculum or not. Neefe was a crucially important person for having been so influential in Beethoven's formative years.

None of this diminishes Luchesi. Nor is it intended to diminish the help he received from Neefe. But we are talking here of two rival systems.

Bear in mind too that even in his early career in Vienna it was considered that Beethoven still needed teaching in matters of theory. But by then (I honestly believe) he was already growing beyond anything that Haydn or Mozart could have shown him.

I suggest that it was actually in Beethoven's late music that he came closest to the Baroque, and of course Bach was not the only influence, Palestrina and Handel were just as important.

We know the names of many of Beethoven's teachers at Bonn, but as you are aware (for whatever reason) no source ever mentions Luchesi. We know that Neefe was responsible for introducing Beethoven to the '48'. If Luchesi was teaching Beethoven composition, you have to explain how it is he arrived in Vienna deficient in the basics of counterpoint? You say he wouldn't have needed Mozart or Haydn, but clearly he knew he was deficient in certain basic areas which is why he sought out Schenk, Albrechtsberger and Salieri. Schenk was quite appalled at Beethoven's simple errors, so Luchesi had obviously failed if he was Beethoven's teacher, otherwise as you say he would have felt no need of further instruction in Vienna, certainly not in the basics.

I have given several reasons previously why Luchesi and the Beethoven family were possibly not on the best of terms which would explain why Beethoven was not Luchesi's pupil. It is of course conjecture but no more so than your theories! Don't forget that he wasn't even credited as a composer in an official report, which is extraodinary for a pupil of the Kappelmeister.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-23-2006).]

[robert newman]

''I suggest that it was actually in Beethoven's late music that he came closest to the Baroque, and of course Bach was not the only influence, Palestrina and Handel were just as important.

We know the names of many of Beethoven's teachers at Bonn, but as you are aware (for whatever reason) no source ever mentions Luchesi. We know that Neefe was responsible for introducing Beethoven to the '48'. If Luchesi was teaching Beethoven composition, you have to explain how it is he arrived in Vienna deficient in the basics of counterpoint? You say he wouldn't have needed Mozart or Haydn, but clearly he knew he was deficient in certain basic areas which is why he sought out Schenk, Albrechtsberger and Salieri. Schenk was quite appalled at Beethoven's simple errors, so Luchesi had obviously failed if he was Beethoven's teacher, otherwise as you say he would have felt no need of further instruction in Vienna, certainly not in the basics.

I have given several reasons previously why Luchesi and the Beethoven family were possibly not on the best of terms which would explain why Beethoven was not Luchesi's pupil. It is of course conjecture but no more so than your theories! Don't forget that he wasn't even credited as a composer in an official report, which is extraodinary for a pupil of the Kappelmeister.''

It's clear there are a number of unresolved questions about Beethoven and Bonn. I agree completely that he was being influenced/taught by various people in various ways, this including him learning keyboard skills, organ technique, sight reading etc. etc. As far as Beethoven not being described as a composer in any official report, yes, this too is unusual. But how many official reports from Bonn talk of anyone being a pupil of the Kapellmeister ? Wouldn't such things be assumed ? Neefe had every reason to speak of Beethoven's progress if, in fact, he had a personal hand in it. As he did.

It would be interesting to see what mistakes Beethoven made in his Vienna lessons and whether they can be interpreted not so much as mistakes but 'mistakes'. After all, he wrote music at Bonn and must have been a fully committed student from the time he met Haydn in December 1790. He either had firm ideas of his own or he lacked basic knowledge. I think he had firm ideas of his own. But I've not looked at the evidence in detail. He may have been trying to rebel against the things he was being taught. I don't know.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

But how many official reports from Bonn talk of anyone being a pupil of the Kapellmeister ? Wouldn't such things be assumed ? Neefe had every reason to speak of Beethoven's progress if, in fact, he had a personal hand in it. As he did.

No they don't but one would have thought Bossler got his information from the Kapelmeister for his musical correspondence for July 13th 1791 listing the court musicians, only four names are mentioned as composers, Joseph Reicha, Perner and the two Rombergs. Had Beethoven been regarded as a great talent by Luchesi, surely his name would have featured? It all suggests to me that Luchesi and the Beethovens were not on a good footing. This would also explain Beethoven's despondent tone on his return to Bonn in 1787, he saw few prospects there.

Beethoven's 'mistakes' were regarded by Schenk as elementary, akin to those he would expect in a first year student. We know he requested in Vienna a thorough grounding in counterpoint and Fux's Gradus ad parnassum was the staple diet provided by Albrechtsberger. You really need to explain how Luchesi failed to provide Beethoven with what was considered the standard treatise on counterpoint. What on earth did Luchesi teach Beethoven?

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-23-2006).]

[robert newman]

I agree with you - between 1783 and Beethoven's arrival in Vienna is a huge gap that is not explained by his Kapellmeister or by Neefe's influence.

Is it not filled by Beethoven's genius - by his artistic instinct/intuition that he could learn more beyond the official curriculum offered to him by his Kappellmeister ?

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

I agree with you - between 1783 and Beethoven's arrival in Vienna is a huge gap that is not explained by his Kapellmeister or by Neefe's influence.

Is it not filled by Beethoven's genius - by his artistic instinct/intuition that he could learn more beyond the official curriculum offered to him by his Kappellmeister ?

Robert

Absolutely Robert, but this doesn't answer why if Luchesi was his teacher he hadn't been given the proper grounding in composition? - surely it suggests that he wasn't Luchesi's pupil? In Neefe's case, we know he was no theoritician and it was primarily the organ and piano Beethoven learnt from him.

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

[robert newman]

Well, yes, but the very same can therefore be said of Neefe and all others described so frequently as 'Beethoven's teachers' at Bonn.

What we seem to have is a contradiction that needs an explanation - how Beethoven is credited with writing various works before his arrival in Vienna and yet lacking (supposedly) the basic knowledge to do his theoretical homework once he was there.

I mention again the possibility that the 'mistakes' in Beethoven's work may be something else.

It seems reasonable to believe that the Kapellmeister (and others) taught the young Beethoven but, again, WHAT did he teach him (?) - this is (as you say) at odds with the errors in his early work at Bonn and with the list of works attributed to him while he was still there.

Was Hadyn completely incompetent ?

Regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-24-2006).]

[Rod]

Should I be surprised that in a chain supposedly concerning Bach we yet again find ourselves discussing Luchesi et al? As a more interesting diversion I have uploaded some lovely music from Handel's final oratorio Jephtha at my site: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/handelforum/

But back on the real topic of this forum, Robert I would be more interested to read your opinions of the Beethoven music at the mp3 (WMA!) page than any of the largely historical theories you have addressed this page with so far.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-24-2006).]