Bach's Impact on 18th Century Music

[robert newman]

My last post did not appear.

It comes down to this - Beethoven wrote several substantial works while he was still at Bonn. Right ? This categorically proves that he had been competently taught music theory - and not by any of his instrumental teachers.

If we now wish to portray Beethoven in Vienna as knowing less of counterpoint than an average 14 year old student, well, that's the paradox that you must come to terms with. To me it's quite simple. With the exception of early 1783 to early 1784 Beethoven received at Bonn a good theoretical education from the man who was responsible for him having such an education.

The fact that Haydn was totally incompetent is a quite separate issue. Beethoven (as we agree) was a genius.

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Rod,

I can be at the 'Nero' as you suggest (opp. Holborn Station) around 2pm on this Thursday or Friday if that's OK for you (?)- I promise not to say anything about Beethoven's teachers.

Rgds

I think Thursday at 2 should be ok, I'll even bring my laptop with wireless card so you can check your posts here while we're at it.. inbetween buying me Americanos... I'll email you my phone number.

By the way I have sympathy with your notion that Beethoven could not have been a compositional dunce by the time he came to stay full time in Vienna, the works we have from B up until then prove that (works, some of which you dispute Beethoven's ownership of course). But it is too much of a tangled web to discern exactly what Beethoven gained from whom.

There was a time when I would be happy to argue the slightest detail of a minor issue, for example the nonsense that is Solomon's theory of the 'Immortal Beloved', but I perfer to concentrate on the music these days, it hurts my brain less.

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


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-25-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

My last post did not appear.

It comes down to this - Beethoven wrote several substantial works while he was still at Bonn. Right ? This categorically proves that he had been competently taught music theory - and not by any of his instrumental teachers.

If we now wish to portray Beethoven in Vienna as knowing less of counterpoint than an average 14 year old student, well, that's the paradox that you must come to terms with. To me it's quite simple. With the exception of early 1783 to early 1784 Beethoven received at Bonn a good theoretical education from the man who was responsible for him having such an education.

The fact that Haydn was totally incompetent is a quite separate issue. Beethoven (as we agree) was a genius.

I assure you that there is no conspiracy to stop your posts, but Haydn may have intervened!

The facts are quite clear - Beethoven arrived in Vienna deficient in the strict rules of counterpoint, despite according to you having been Luchesi's composition pupil for years. Schenk writes "the first exercise disclosed mistakes in every mode". Nottebohm who studied these exercises noticed only a sixth of them had been corrected by Haydn with countless errors remaining. But he points out that there were many teachers capable of instructing Beethoven in counterpoint and that this was not Haydn's sole function - "it did not require a Joseph Haydn to point out parallel fifths".

That Haydn was not strict in his teaching of Beethoven, lax indeed, does not alter the fact that Luchesi had completely failed to teach this side of music to Beethoven during the supposedly many years of their study together.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I assure you that there is no conspiracy to stop your posts, but Haydn may have intervened!

The facts are quite clear - Beethoven arrived in Vienna deficient in the strict rules of counterpoint, despite according to you having been Luchesi's composition pupil for years. Schenk writes "the first exercise disclosed mistakes in every mode". Nottebohm who studied these exercises noticed only a sixth of them had been corrected by Haydn with countless errors remaining. But he points out that there were many teachers capable of instructing Beethoven in counterpoint and that this was not Haydn's sole function - "it did not require a Joseph Haydn to point out parallel fifths".

Looking at the music, who can say Beethoven was ever conventional in compositional matters? Even with the Great Fugue Karl Holz asked B after hearing a performance '“Why do you have two eighth notes [tied together] rather than a quarter note?” Holz was compelled to probe Beethoven again on the very same issue some time later. Perhaps in this light some of Beethoven's 'mistakes' need looking at again!?

I wonder is Salieri's corrections to Beethoven's vocal studies took away more than they added?

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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-25-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Looking at the music, who can say Beethoven was ever conventional in compositional matters? Even with the Great Fugue Karl Holz asked B after hearing a performance '“Why do you have two eighth notes [tied together] rather than a quarter note?” Holz was compelled to probe Beethoven again on the very same issue some time later. Perhaps in this light some of Beethoven's 'mistakes' need looking at again!?

I wonder is Salieri's corrections to Beethoven's vocal studies took away more than they added?

No great composer is conventinal - rules are made to be broken, but the point is you should know the rules first! My whole point is if Luchesi was teaching Beethoven compostion at Bonn for many years as Robert claims, why didn't he provide him with the standard instruction of Fux's gradus ad parnassum?

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

[robert newman]

Well, Peter, I simply can't agree with this. (Which is itself fascinating if we are willing to look at it fairly). You believe that Beethoven came to Vienna with virtually no idea of counterpoint - this despite claiming that amongst the many works the same Beethoven wrote in Bonn were several important cantatas, much chamber music, etc etc. My suggestion is first this - that we both agree a problem exists here. If we agree that a problem exists we can, between us, perhaps bring some light on the subject so that it can be resolved.

So now, according to your goodself, Beethoven, at 20 years old, had learned virtually nothing of music theory. And I believe very differently.

Is it not possible that an explanation can be found ? What if, for example, these lessons came from Bonn and were brought to Vienna by Beethoven - i.e. that they were years old by the time he placed them before Haydn and others ? That Beethoven simply wanted to show his teachers everything he had ever done on music theory - which Haydn and others corrected ? Not having studied these papers myself I only suggest it as a possible solution.

You see, there are real difficulties with this. Beethoven is recorded by no less than 3 witnesses as having been involved at Bad Mergentheim with the cantata WoO88 - and music derived from it (Biamonti) does not suggest that Beethoven is musically inept at this time. We also have his cantata offered to Joseph Haydn when they first met near Bonn in 1790 - to say nothing of his 'sonata' for the Bonn Literary Society (whatever that finally proves to be). Do you really believe that this evidence (not even talking of other works he is credited with) is consistent with your view that Beethoven knew nothing about consecutive fifths a year and more later in Vienna ?

Instead of smearing the Kapellmeister of Bonn (who, incidentally, was acknowledged to be a master in music theory under Valotti and others, and one of the most talented composers of his time in Italy) by saying he had completely neglected Beethoven - a young man whom you also agree was definitely not taught theory by Neefe ?

You are interpeting these lessons in a traditional way. But by doing so you are also calling in to question Beethoven's entire output up until the time of his arrival in Vienna. This I cannot agree is right.

Best regards

Robert

[robert newman]

Dear Rod,

Yes, that's great - I will be there at 2 on Thursday and will get the Americanos.

Just imagine the outrage if I was to say 'Beethoven wrote nothing before he came to Vienna - since he is a musical dunce as shown by his elementary mistakes in theory at Vienna' ! But here is a situation where I am actually arguing the very opposite thing !

It seems to me that the great man would pat one of us on the head and throw soup at the other !

Regards

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Well, Peter, I simply can't agree with this. (Which is itself fascinating if we are willing to look at it fairly). You believe that Beethoven came to Vienna with virtually no idea of counterpoint - this despite claiming that amongst the many works the same Beethoven wrote in Bonn were several important cantatas, much chamber music, etc etc. My suggestion is first this - that we both agree a problem exists here. If we agree that a problem exists we can, between us, perhaps bring some light on the subject so that it can be resolved.

So now, according to your goodself, Beethoven, at 20 years old, had learned virtually nothing of music theory. And I believe very differently.

Is it not possible that an explanation can be found ? What if, for example, these lessons came from Bonn and were brought to Vienna by Beethoven - i.e. that they were years old by the time he placed them before Haydn and others ? That Beethoven simply wanted to show his teachers everything he had ever done on music theory - which Haydn and others corrected ? Not having studied these papers myself I only suggest it as a possible solution.

You see, there are real difficulties with this. Beethoven is recorded by no less than 3 witnesses as having been involved at Bad Mergentheim with the cantata WoO88 - and music derived from it (Biamonti) does not suggest that Beethoven is musically inept at this time. We also have his cantata offered to Joseph Haydn when they first met near Bonn in 1790 - to say nothing of his 'sonata' for the Bonn Literary Society (whatever that finally proves to be). Do you really believe that this evidence (not even talking of other works he is credited with) is consistent with your view that Beethoven knew nothing about consecutive fifths a year and more later in Vienna ?

Instead of smearing the Kapellmeister of Bonn (who, incidentally, was acknowledged to be a master in music theory under Valotti and others, and one of the most talented composers of his time in Italy) by saying he had completely neglected Beethoven - a young man whom you also agree was definitely not taught theory by Neefe ?

You are interpeting these lessons in a traditional way. But by doing so you are also calling in to question Beethoven's entire output up until the time of his arrival in Vienna. This I cannot agree is right.

Best regards

Robert

I am not saying Beethoven was ignorant of music theory, but clearly he was unfamiliar at Bonn with the most significant work in the history of music theory. This does not mean he was incapable of composition as you are mistakingly assuming - it simply means he was unaware of the strict rules governing 16th century counterpoint in the style of Palestrina. Now let me give you some more background to this and perhaps you will realise how extraordinary it was that Luchesi did not teach Beethoven this.

"The Gradus ad Parnassum obviously helped to shape the artistic procedures of some of the central figures of eighteenth-century music, indeed of all music.
By 1773 translations from the original Latin into German, French, Italian, and English had appeared. A brief list of the composers who studied from its pages includes Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Bach owned acopy of the German version published by his pupil Lorenz Mizler in 1742, and the emergence of elementsof the stile antico in late compositions such as the Mass in B minor, Part Three of the Clavier-Übung, and Book Two of the Well-Tempered Clavier clearly manifests his encounter with Fux’s work. As a young man Haydn worked through the lessons in the Gradus with great diligence. Later in his life he drew up an abstract of Fux’s rules of species counterpoint, known as the Elementarbuch, which he used in teaching his pupils. Mozart also learned composition through Fux’s method and adopted the method in training his students; the surviving manuscripts of the so-called Attwood studies attest to the continuing vitality of the distinctive pedagogical approach of the Gradus. Haydn may have included the Elementarbuch among the materials used to instruct Beethoven. In any event, Beethoven himself prepared a similar abstract around 1809, probably for the Archduke Rudolph."

Your argument that the exercises were done at Bonn is not correct. Schenk specifically says that after 6 months of study with Haydn, Beethoven was still on the first exercise and he goes on to say that he asked Beethoven to copy out the corrections in his own hand before presenting them to Haydn.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-25-2006).]

[robert newman]

Just a few notes. I've tried to check what's known of Beethoven's lessons in Vienna. It seems Haydn was using an edition of Fux that was lacking several important chapters. (This was apparently first noticed in 'Elementarbuch dre verschieldtten Garrtungen des Contrapunkts, aus dem grosseren Werke des Kapellmeisters Fux von Joseph Haydn zusammengezogen' (C.F.Pohl 'Joseph Haydn', Vol.1 p.176f)in the 1830's.

Secondly, some 20 years before Beethoven came to Vienna Padre Martini (who used only Fux) had stressed that the greatest difficulties for any young composer were the growing numbers of styles of composition.

Then of course is the fact that Haydn drops out of the situation with the arrival of Albrechtsberger . Albrechtsberger followed the general plan of Fux but added important sections on choral fugues (which Fux hardly even mentions) and notes on canons (again not treated in Fux)- these refering to Marpurg.

Of the surviving notes from his studies under Albrechtsberger it becomes plain that, once again, Beethoven is being faced with rival systems of theory. For example, in Beethoven's studies is a note scribbled which says -

'Albrechtsberger told me today that there are some works by the old master Froberger in which the use of the fourth, even that occurring by inversion of the triad, is completely avoided'.

(You will know of course that even before Beethoven's time there were rival theories about fourths).

Honestly, having looked at what Beethoven wrote with a choral fugue under the nose of Albrechtsberger (in which Beethoven writes an exposition in three parts, introducing the cantus firmus in the fourth (which was his original instruction) and beginning a new exposition which leads to a tenor entry at the tonic - well, this is (with some necessary improvements) quite good work.

Bear in mind that here Beethoven is working within quite strict concepts. And it's in these lessons that we find his own note saying 'Omenia ad majorem Dei gloriam/Patience, diligence, persistence and sincerity will lead to success'.

Surely, surely, this clearly shows that Beethoven, at this time in Vienna, was no dunce. He was in fact remarkably in control of his ideas despite having now had at least 3 different teachers.

Regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-25-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Just a few notes. I've tried to check what's known of Beethoven's lessons in Vienna. It seems Haydn was using an edition of Fux that was lacking several important chapters. (This was apparently first noticed in 'Elementarbuch dre verschieldtten Garrtungen des Contrapunkts, aus dem grosseren Werke des Kapellmeisters Fux von Joseph Haydn zusammengezogen' (C.F.Pohl 'Joseph Haydn', Vol.1 p.176f)in the 1830's.

Secondly, some 20 years before Beethoven came to Vienna Padre Martini (who used only Fux) had stressed that the greatest difficulties for any young composer were the growing numbers of styles of composition.

Then of course is the fact that Haydn drops out of the situation with the arrival of Albrechtsberger . Albrechtsberger followed the general plan of Fux but added important sections on choral fugues (which Fux hardly even mentions) and notes on canons (again not treated in Fux)- these refering to Marpurg.

Of the surviving notes from his studies under Albrechtsberger it becomes plain that, once again, Beethoven is being faced with rival systems of theory. For example, in Beethoven's studies is a note scribbled which says -

'Albrechtsberger told me today that there are some works by the old master Froberger in which the use of the fourth, even that occurring by inversion of the triad, is completely avoided'.

(You will know of course that even before Beethoven's time there were rival theories about fourths).

Honestly, having looked at what Beethoven wrote with a choral fugue under the nose of Albrechtsberger (in which Beethoven writes an exposition in three parts, introducing the cantus firmus in the fourth (which was his original instruction) and beginning a new exposition which leads to a tenor entry at the tonic - well, this is (with some necessary improvements) quite good work.

Bear in mind that here Beethoven is working within quite strict concepts. And it's in these lessons that we find his own note saying 'Omenia ad majorem Dei gloriam/Patience, diligence, persistence and sincerity will lead to success'.

Surely, surely, this clearly shows that Beethoven, at this time in Vienna, was no dunce. He was in fact remarkably in control of his ideas despite having now had at least 3 different teachers.

Regards

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-25-2006).]

Of course Beethoven was no dunce - as if I'd suggest such a thing! I'm equally satisfied he wrote the majority of works attributed to him at Bonn, unlike your good self. All this is missing the point. Regardless of different teaching methods, Beethoven was not familiar with the strict rules of counterpoint when he arrived in Vienna, this is a fact. It doesn't mean that he was deficient in musical ideas or in his study of the music of Bach, Mozart and Haydn amongst many others he would have come into contact with through his participation in Bonn musical life. One simply wonders why if Luchesi was a great teacher, composer, theorist that this was the case? To put it basically, why did Luchesi not provide Beethoven with the grounding he had to travel to Vienna to get from Schenk, Albrechtsberger and Salieri?

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Of course Beethoven was no dunce - as if I'd suggest such a thing! I'm equally satisfied he wrote the majority of works attributed to him at Bonn, unlike your good self. All this is missing the point. Regardless of different teaching methods, Beethoven was not familiar with the strict rules of counterpoint when he arrived in Vienna, this is a fact. It doesn't mean that he was deficient in musical ideas or in his study of the music of Bach, Mozart and Haydn amongst many others he would have come into contact with through his participation in Bonn musical life. One simply wonders why if Luchesi was a great teacher, composer, theorist that this was the case? To put it basically, why did Luchesi not provide Beethoven with the grounding he had to travel to Vienna to get from Schenk, Albrechtsberger and Salieri?

Whatever happened he must have learned quick after arriving in 1792 - by the end of 1794 Beethoven was in a postion to produce the best and most advanced music then being written in Vienna.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-25-2006).]

[robert newman]

'Of course' you are not suggesting that Beethoven was a dunce at the time of his arrival in Vienna. How could I possibly have thought you were saying this ??

But Peter, wasn't it you who wrote less than 24 hours ago that he knew less of counterpoint at the time of his arrival in Vienna than any 14 year old music student ? And you are saying that this was none other than the composer of the two cantatas WoO87 and WoO88, besides a great deal of chamber and other music ?

It seems that once again we have facts whose net effect is to exclude any positive achievement by the Kapellmeister of Bonn - something (I cannot help noting) seems to have been a feature in music history for the past 200 years - whether we are talking about Beethoven's state of musical education or music at Bonn in general.

Well, I don't accept it. The evidence is surely against it. Beethoven DID have a grounding in counterpoint at the time of his arrival in Vienna. He was already an accomplished composer and I can only conclude that these lessons which Beethoven brought with him to the city were his personal records from the beginning of his education at Bonn - which, for some reason, were the starting point for Haydn and others who substituted for him in Vienna.

Regards


p.s. Exactly what Haydn's 'game' was in all this becomes clear if the net effect is to divert attention away from his incompetence.




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-25-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
'Of course' you are not suggesting that Beethoven was a dunce at the time of his arrival in Vienna. How could I possibly have thought you were saying this ??

But Peter, wasn't it you who wrote less than 24 hours ago that he knew less of counterpoint at the time of his arrival in Vienna than any 14 year old music student ? And you are saying that this was none other than the composer of the two cantatas WoO87 and WoO88, besides a great deal of chamber and other music ?

It seems that once again we have facts whose net effect is to exclude any positive achievement by the Kapellmeister of Bonn - something (I cannot help noting) seems to have been a feature in music history for the past 200 years - whether we are talking about Beethoven's state of musical education or music at Bonn in general.

Well, I don't accept it. The evidence is surely against it. Beethoven DID have a grounding in counterpoint at the time of his arrival in Vienna. He was already an accomplished composer and I can only conclude that these lessons which Beethoven brought with him to the city were his personal records from the beginning of his education at Bonn - which, for some reason, were the starting point for Haydn and others who substituted for him in Vienna.

Regards


p.s. Exactly what Haydn's 'game' was in all this becomes clear if the net effect is to divert attention away from his incompetence.


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-25-2006).]

No we musn't criticise Luchesi but calling Haydn incompetent is acceptable by you - utter nonsense! Beethoven who knew Haydn personally had the grace in his dying days to refer to him as a great man and one of the last gestures in this life was when he received with tears in his eyes a portrait of the house Haydn was born in - you should remember this when you so easily denigrate his name.

There is no doubt that Haydn and Beethoven never hit it off, and Haydn probably found the task of teaching basic counterpoint at this stage in his career, irksome. However, before completely damning this great composer, you should remember that without him, Beethoven would have had a much harder time being accepted in Vienna. Haydn opened many doors for him, far more than Luchesi back in Bonn, which is why Beethoven was depressed on returning there the first time in 1787.

And your conclusion that Beethoven's counterpoint exercises were brought forward from Bonn is ludicrous. Why are there no corrections in Luchesi's hand, only Haydn's?

You are willfully misrepresenting what I said - Beethoven was not instructed in STRICT counterpoint at Bonn or else he wouldn't have made those basic errors, nor would he have needed Schenk and Albrechtsberger had Luchesi been thorough in this regard. This does not mean he was incapable of writing music - he was a genius and he had studied the music of Mozart, Haydn and Bach. His study of Bach we can thank Neefe for.

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

[robert newman]

Peter, it's strange how your evidence has become so highly selective. Here is your argument in a nutshell. Despite lacking nothing in talent and despite having an indisputable track record in composition from Bonn that included many works in many forms we are to accept (on the basis of corrected homework notes from his early years in Vienna) your interpretation that Beethoven did not know enough about the basics of music to avoid the most elementary errors in harmony/counterpoint. These you call 'strict counterpoint'.

When it is pointed out to you that, in fact, Beethoven's studies in Vienna include clear evidence of advanced knowledge of choral music under Albrechtsberger (whose system was different from that of 'strict' counterpoint but which you ignore as irrelevant) this nevertheless does not shift you.

You now say that I am completely unjustified in what I say about Haydn in describing him as incompetent.

Before I show you how 'competent' Haydn is at this time let me paint a big sign in your mind's eye in capital letters written by an anonymous witness who has written -

'FROM HAYDN I LEARNED NOTHING'

Perhaps the source was joking ?

No - you must ignore this. You must now tell us that for 10 whole years Beethoven received no musical/theoretical instruction at Bonn from the one man whose duty was to provide it. Is it any wonder that you end up arguing in the same way as German musicologists have been arguing for the last 200 years ?

Haydn was a really BIG figure of the music scene when Beethoven met him. Imagine the scene. Haydn on his way to England. And here is Beethoven at 20 - a man who (according to you) cannot even avoid the most basic mistakes in theory. What does Beethoven in his state of great ignorance do ? Does he remind Haydn that he has written a great deal ? No - he presents the 'great Haydn' with a new composition OF HIS OWN. A cantata that he, Beethoven, had written. So says the evidence. Haydn offers to become his teacher in Vienna on return from England.

Stop and think of that, just for a moment. How moving THAT is Peter. And Beethoven, knowing nothing of the 'show business' world of celebrity must have been so happy that morning. Yes ?

Can you imagine how hard Beethoven must have prepared for his arrival in Vienna ? Can you see beyond the hero worship to appreciate the truth that Beethoven was actually to learn nothing at all from this 'celebrity' ??

Haydn opened doors for Beethoven. Yes, certainly. He (Hadyn) had and continued to have the true appreciation of the younger composer.

None of this changes the fact that Haydn was a fraud and I will post in this on some detail soon.

Haydn, like Mozart, postured, bluffed his way through the last years of his career.

Robert

[robert newman]

I want to show how false this notion is of Beethoven receiving his first significant theoretical lessons in Vienna though Peter I must agree you having the advantage of arguing nothing less than ‘traditonal view’. I also wish to show that what is generally believed of Haydn and his supposed musical greatness at this time is false. You won’t like me speaking in this way since I must again refer to what for me are real truths – the falsely manufactured reputations of both Joseph Haydn and of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But doing seems inevitable and can’t be avoided. Nor can I avoid raising once again the subject of Jesuits in the creation of the ‘Weiner Klassik’.

You will sigh and say this is absurd. But here’s a case where Beethoven is being portrayed (in my view) wrongly and where the competence or otherwise of Haydn can and even must be examined.

I want to do this in two parts. First by this short post on Albrechtsberger and Viennese music of the time, and then by posting on Haydn in the years in question (i.e. in the years from, say, the late 1780’s onwards).

I’ve argued here in the past that the Jesuit Order were really responsible for the creation of what is often called the 1st ‘Vienna School’, the ‘Weiner Klassik’ whose icons are composers such as Gluck, Haydn and, yes, Mozart. And I've said that to a great extent the careers of Haydn and Mozart in particular were largely manufactured by the supply to them of works by other composers, these including, for example, Sammartini, Luchesi, Michael Haydn and others. I’ve also argued that from 1773 onwards (despite the official ban of the Jesuit Order) these things continued, so that Vienna and its reputation (to say nothing of the Austrian Empire) was given great status by the falsely inflated achievements of these two composers in particular. It isn’t really necessary to go through such things here in any real depth since we're concerned only with the matter of Beethoven in his early years in Vienna. But such things certainly have a bearing on Beethoven’s career and they must at least be mentioned. So here's my first of two posts on this subject. Haydn’s (supposed) competence and this post dealing with Albrechtsberger.

Johann George Albrechtsberger (1736-1809) was as we agree called in when the young Beethoven became dissatisfied with the ‘lessons’ being given to him in Vienna by Haydn. In fact, it was Haydn himself who contacted Albrechtsberger. (How, if you think of it, could it have been otherwise ?)

Just who was Albrechtsberger (other than a famous Vienna music theorist) ? Well, it just so happens this Jesuit had been as close to Haydn’s marvellous career as he was to that of Mozart. Beethoven (being touted as the ‘next Mozart’ by time he was leaving Bonn - this despite him not knowing about consecutive fifths)must have been amazed to discover that Haydn, far from being a great teacher, was nothing of the kind. He was in fact something else. Haydn, fearing that his failure could become more widely known, contacted the Jesuits, the same people who had (and who would continue to) further his great reputation. It's exactly why Albrechtsberger became personally involved in Beethoven’s lessons.

This is the same Albrechtsberger who was a fellow Jesuit student at the same school as that most interesting Jesuit composer Michael Haydn of Salzburg (friend of course of the Mozart’s and supplier to them of the falsely attributed ‘Mozart’s Symphony No. 37’ with much else still to this day falsely attributed to Mozart). This is the same Jesuit Albrechtsberger whose work on composition was published in English by the Novello’s (those huge admirers of Mozart). And the same Albrechtsberger whose fugues so fascinated the Jesuit composer Joseph Martin Kraus. Since Albrechtsberger is described as being ‘one of the closest friends of the Mozart family’ and since Haydn was floundering (yet again) best call for Herr Albrechtsberger.

And, speaking of works ‘finished’ for Mozart, Melk Abbey (where Albrechtsberger had been Thurnermeister) had been the same place that provided, eventually, that glorious ‘finisher’ of ‘Mozart’s Requiem’, Abbe Maximilian Stadler, who in 1825 was to defend bitterly the ‘authenticity of Mozart’s Requiem’ against those wicked and sustained attacks from those who did not believe. (Why ? Doesn’t part of Mozart’s KV626 exist in Stadler’s own hand – or is that fact merely splitting hairs) ?

Albrechtsberger was called in. Beethoven, knowing only that his career was for the time being a matter of great interest to the ‘status quo’ must have been puzzled that his life was being so clearly favoured. In 1796 Beethoven, still being ‘groomed’ for future greatness by these new found influential friends in Vienna would even be invited to make a musical tour of Prague, Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin, exactly matching that taken years before by Mozart during his own tour with Prince Lichnowsky of 1789.

Beethoven was of course to burst free from this bubble in a few more years. But at this time, in the early Vienna years, vested interests assumed he would emulate Mozart and would, in time, be as compliant with them as Mozart and Haydn had been. This was not to be. Beethoven’s genius shrugged off these things as he broke free.

Mozart was dead. Beethoven (at least for a few years) was his successor. And since Luchesi was a ‘non-person’ (a person whose life and career hardly feature in the history of music, let alone in Beethoven biography) it's Albrechtsberger who is credited with having rescued such a great talent from his utter musical ignorance. By seeing things in this way the reputations of Haydn (and indeed of Albrechtsberger himself) are secured – whether or not we are provided with a false picture.

It was from Bonn that Haydn (privately) received many of his works for his English tours. It was Bonn where both Haydn and Vogler would both meet their old friend, Kapellmeister Luchesi).

Therefore, in 'official history' Beethoven knows virtually nothing of music theory at the time of his arrival in Vienna. So great is Haydn's reputation that this interpretation remains to this day.




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-25-2006).]