Bach's Impact on 18th Century Music

[Agnes Selby]

Robert, I do not owe you an answer.
My answer is in my book, Constanze Mozart Beloved. You can find it in the British Library you so often frequent. I have also published an article on the Requiem in "Quadrant" and offered to send it to Peter. Peter wrote that whatever the article had to say would be rebuked by you and he is absolutely right.

You do not provide evidence for your musings
which are pages upon pages long. I have told you on numerous occasions, and this applies to Mr. Taboga's outbursts against Haydn and Mozart as well; it is of no use
screaming insults at these two great men
and accusing them of forgery without an iota of evidence.

If you want to change history which is based on facts, you will have to do it in a scientific manner by showing point by point how you arrived at your findings.

This also applies to the discoverer of Anna Magdalena Bach's cello sonatas. Perhaps the sun is too hot in Darwin and the English professor is not used to protect his
brain from boiling over by simply using a hat.

Just because you say so, it is far from enough. The same applies to Mr. Taboga no matter for how many years he has been practicing tautology.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

If Johann Sebastian composed these cello sonatas (as we should accept until proof is given to the contrary)

A pity you can't apply the same logic to your own theories! You provide assumption which is not the same thing - an example being rather than accept the evidence Beethoven wrote the piano quartets, it had to be Luchesi as his had gone missing. Then you thought better of that and suggested (without proof) Mysilivcek. Can you provide the proof that Mysilivcek (however you spell it!) wrote the quartets WoO36? Can you prove Luchesi wrote the Cantatas WoO90/91? Can you PROVE Luchesi wrote a single Mozart or Haydn symphony?

If not then apply your own comments "as we should accept until PROOF is given to the contrary".

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

[robert newman]

Dear Luis Mariano,

I honestly appreciate your many good points and I readily admit you already know more of this music in WoO36 than I. For what it's worth I entirely agree also that the Piano Quartet in C, WoO36 No.3 is the finest of these quartets. And also accept that there are similarities in this music to other/later music indisputably by Beethoven. I must however decline from attributing these pieces to Beethoven. Not simply on grounds already discussed (such as the fact that he, Beethoven, never claimed to have written them, nor ever refered to them etc.).

Your points are all very good. They have not 'bounced back'. But there are good points on the other side too. Perhaps I can make a few more ?

These 3 piano quartets (as the liner notes to a CD lent to me by Rod show) tell us that these works are 'based on Mozartean models - all 3 of them show the unmistakable influence of the set of six violin sonatas by 'Mozart' (K296 and K376-380. Fine. Let's agree about that. (I see no reason to doubt it). The finale to the C Major quartet WoO36 No.3 follows, for example, the outline of the rondo in the C Najor violin sontata, K296. (I see no reason to doubt that also). And the material of their central A Minor episode is remarkably similar. It's also agreed that even more striking are examples we can see in WoO36 No.1 (in E Flat). It has amazing similarities to the G Major sonata by 'Mozart' K379. And I entirely accept also that WoO36 No.2 (in D) alludes in its slow movement to that found in 'Mozart's' violin sonata in E Flat K380. All of these things I entirely accept.

This would of course seem to make a compelling case that Beethoven wrote these pieces in homage to Mozart. May I suggest though that all this evidence no more supports Beethoven than it suggests other composers. For, the central issue is already accepted by us both - that these piano sonatas have some sort of relationship to works attributed to Mozart himself. Of this there is simply no doubt.

But why is it that we have not a single reference by Beethoven to these works ? Nor do we have any account of Beethoven giving a copy of them to Mozart when they (supposedly) met in the spring of 1787 ? Nowhere in Beethoven's writings does he refer to them. And yet, indisputably, they, these quartets, were in Bonn.

Let's ask another question. What, exactly, is the evidence that Beethoven met Mozart ? And what is the earliest date when these piano quartets were attributed to Beethoven ? Given the fact that their Beethovenian origin was denied by Reis in the 1830's, on what grounds did he, Reis, do so ?

What links do we have between Bonn and Mozart ? Well, we know from Thayer that Mozart was keen to be appointed Kapellmeister at Bonn in 1784 but was unable to succeed because Luchesi was still there. We know that Mozart's works are said to have inspired them. But if Mozart is being supplied music via Bonn then is it not at least possible that these quartets caused Mozart to write versions of them, rather than vice versa ?

I think also that the formative years of a composer (as is shown clearly in the case of Beethoven) seem to be a time when certain themes embed themselves in the sub-conscious of the composer which he uses sometimes over and over throughout his later career. The fact that the 3 piano sonatas of Beethoven Op.2 (dedicated to Haydn) quote two passages from the C Major Quartet prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Beethoven was familiar with these Quartets. But that too is undeniable. The question nevertheless remains - whether these are quartets by Beethoven.

It must surely be the case that these quartets were at Bonn and that they date earlier (of course) than Beethoven's Op.2

I entirely respect you saying that the evidence is compelling to attribute these quartets to Beethoven. But I believe there are sufficient reasons to be cautious about such an attribution, even despite Beethoven's undoubted association with them at Bonn.
It is curious too that Mozart scholars seem to be so quiet about these works.

Therefore, on balance, and with the greatest respect, I think these pieces are part of perhaps 6 works that first came to Bonn intended for Mozart. They had been written by a third composer and were intended to be offered to Mozart. These 3 were not used by Mozart. But 3 others were. One of them was atributed to Mozart himself until 1910. The other two remain, to this day, attributed to Mozart. And these other 3 remain as WoO36, though widely accepted as being compositions by Beethoven himself.

I cannot so easily overlook the importance of these works and yet I do not wish to be controversial just for it's own sake. These are hugely important works and within the context of Mozart's overall output (which certainly includes a whole number of works that are really not of his creation) I must decline from automatically attributing these to either Beethoven or Mozart.

Very best regards

Robert Newman



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-29-2006).]

[robert newman]

Hello Peter,

You are on good form today ! You write -

A pity you can't apply the same logic to your own theories! You provide assumption which is not the same thing - an example being rather than accept the evidence Beethoven wrote the piano quartets, it had to be Luchesi as his had gone missing. Then you thought better of that and suggested (without proof) Mysilivcek. Can you provide the proof that Mysilivcek (however you spell it!) wrote the quartets WoO36? Can you prove Luchesi wrote the Cantatas WoO90/91? Can you PROVE Luchesi wrote a single Mozart or Haydn symphony?

If not then apply your own comments "as we should accept until PROOF is given to the contrary". ''

Fine Peter. Let's be entirely logical. Let's see where this takes us.

We know for certain that many works attributed to both Haydn and Mozart were not, actually, composed by either of these two men. The evidence is overwhelming. Let me just touch on this for a moment. In Mozart's case the difficulty is knowing exactly where to start. Let's begin then with, say, the fact that the current editor of Koechel has publicly accepted that many works now in the Koechel catalogue are not, in fact, by Mozart. Would it not be logical to accept that this is good reason to remove them ?

But let me go further. If we look at the history of Koechel (and of works being attributed to Mozart over the past 200 years or so) we find that at least double the number of symphonies have, at one time or another, been credited to Mozart - these reduced so considerably that today we have less than half of these still in the Koechel list. It is logical therefore to believe that this pruning of the record (which is indisputable) is moving in one direction and in one direction alone. That is, we see the number of 'Mozart' symphonies in constant decline, even in the official record. Is that not so ?

Let it be further accepted (since this too is indisputable) that NO COMPOSER in the entire history of music (with the exception of Herr Joseph Haydn) has ever been credited falsely with such a massive number of symphonies. It is logical therefore to say that massive misattribution has been a feature of the symphonic achievements of both these composers - a fact that we find nowhere else.

Let it also be agreed (since logic is here our guide) that works falsely attributed to Mozart (for example, in his symphonies) were written by other composers. True ? And that during the time they were falsely credited to Mozart these other composers did not receive the credit for these compositions. This too is indisputable.

You ask me to continue with the attributions until such time as I have evidence to the contrary.

Let me ask you something Peter. If you were a bank manager who had a client who was continually bouncing cheques would you grant to him the same credit and the same trust that you would grant to the rest of your customers ? Would you not say, 'this man, despite being promoted by lots of people as a basically honest man' has a track record in my dealings with him that makes me very wary of doing business with him' ? Would you not say that such a man deserves special care to be taken of his transactions ? Wouldn't such a thing be logical, even necessary ?

So you see Peter, the track record can and must make a difference. It's within this context that we can and must approach the list of works supposedly written by Mozart.
Avoid the track record at your peril. But do not say, please, that we are misguided who point it out to you or who remind you of it.

Can I point to specific examples of Mozart symphonies that are really not by Mozart ? Certainly, if you were to make enquiries of the symphonies attributed to Mozart at Estense Library in Modena, Italy, you will find there 9 of them, every one of which comes from Bonn, and every one of which has become a 'Mozart' symphony despite his name not even appearing in Bonn records during the inventory of 1784. These works are not by Mozart despite the fact that they are traditionally attributed to him. (The same is true of many 'Haydn' works at the same location).

Am I not entitled therefore to prod myself, to remind myself, of the track record of which I have already refered ?

I accept a work to be by Mozart if there is no evidence to the contrary. But here, with tradition and with the sheer weight of tradition we find only contradictions, suppressed facts, and the inability to think that is such a feature of he who is illogical.

The problem is not so much of producing evidence. It is of that evidence being appreciated and digested by those who cannot/will not see it for themselves.

Regards

Robert

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

It's not that you cannot answer the question. It's that you simply refuse to answer it.
This is the point where, in my opinion, you lose the right to have the respect of students. The signature and the text written on the front page of 'Mozart's' Requiem is a FORGERY. You cannot deny it. But you refuse to publicly accept it. This is why you have forfeited the right to claim that you are remotely interested in the truth or in the education of students. Such a fact is denied by NO Mozart scholar. It is accepted by all of them. But it is not accepted by Agnes Selby. She simply refuses to publicly accept the truth. That is a person who is choosing to remain ignorant. Your own attitude is perfectly illustrated in this case - and it is only the latest example of so many. There is no worse ignorance than a person who chooses to remain so. And you believe that you are a model for students ??? They must simply laugh at such stupidity.






[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-29-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hello Peter,

You are on good form today !

Thank you Robert and I see you are also up to scratch, performing well!


We know for certain that many works attributed to both Haydn and Mozart were not, actually, composed by either of these two men. The evidence is overwhelming. Let me just touch on this for a moment. In Mozart's case the difficulty is knowing exactly where to start. Let's begin then with, say, the fact that the current editor of Koechel has publicly accepted that many works now in the Koechel catalogue are not, in fact, by Mozart. Would it not be logical to accept that this is good reason to remove them ?


Fine Robert - and indeed you will surely acknowledge that many efforts have been made in the past to remove works considered spurious? Perhaps you will enlighten us as to the 20 works the editor of Koechel suggests are definitely misattributed, do these include the works you suggest are by others?

But let me go further. If we look at the history of Koechel (and of works being attributed to Mozart over the past 200 years or so) we find that at least double the number of symphonies have, at one time or another, been credited to Mozart - these reduced so considerably that today we have less than half of these still in the Koechel list. It is logical therefore to believe that this pruning of the record (which is indisputable) is moving in one direction and in one direction alone. That is, we see the number of 'Mozart' symphonies in constant decline, even in the official record. Is that not so ?

I'm glad you acknowledge that scholars from the past have worked to achieve these aims.


The problem is not so much of producing evidence. It is of that evidence being appreciated and digested by those who cannot/will not see it for themselves.

Neither you nor I have seen this 'evidence' - you have it entirely from Taboga. Even if we saw the files, I am no expert to dechiper hand writing or to interpret the information correctly, with respect, I doubt you yourself are either. Many scholars have seen the Modena files and pointed out things they are not satisfied with. You have to explain how, scholarship over many decades has been keen to correctly attribute works, yet does not accept the Modena files as sufficient 'evidence'. It is one thing to claim a conspiracy in the 18th century, quite another to maintain it is carrying on into the 21st. No one on this forum is in that position to be able to access the information you keep bombarding us with and this is therefore not a balanced debate - in a court of law, it is the equivalent of being without a legal representative.

This is the reason I have asked you to wait, publish your book and be damned! let us see the critical reaction to it from professional musicologists and then we may have more to argue about.

[/B]

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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:
To state that the life, methods and works of JS Bach had profound (if little publicised) impact on European music as a whole during his maturity and especially in the decades following his death in 1750 is in one sense not a controversial statement. But to suggest musical theorists across Europe first subjected his works to the most detailed analysis (both during his lifetime and afterwards) before developing styles that were really a reaction to him - these intended to obscure or downplay Bach's significance - is quite another thing.

I'd like to open this thread and submit to it from time to time reactions to Bach from the 18th century. Some of these will already be well known but others less so. My aim is to show the huge and positive impact Bach had but also to identify the source of criticisms/negative reactions towards him and his legacy.

I begin positively with a text first written in Latin by W.H. Friedrich from 1765 - this 15 years after the composer's death at Leipzig -

“If you could understand what he [J. S. Bach] really accomplished, an accomplishment not attained by several of your musicians and innumerable flute players - as he paid attention to all of them simultaneously - and from a group of 30 or even 40 musicians nod to one with his head from the keyboard and indicate to another by stamping his foot, or threateningly using a finger, all the time keeping a third on time with the correct rhythm, etc. etc. and in this means regulating and keeping in order this tremendous noise, then, I say, you would marvel...'

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-21-2006).]

So....what does Lucchesi have to do with this?? And here I was expecting a discussion on Bach.

Oh, and while I do respect your right to hijack your own thread, I am a bit dismayed by the current trend.

[This message has been edited by Sorrano (edited 04-29-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

I am sorry you are dissapointed by this current thread, 'Bach's Impact on 18th Century Music'. I started as you can see, and others have posted on other issues that required an answer. On the principle that one must be ready to give information/opinions/replies to the best of one's ability (even if it takes us away from the original topic) I've done so. In fact, if someone asks a straight question I'm committed to do my very best to answer them. If they ask for a 'true or false', or a 'yes or no' I'll do the very same - again, to the best of my ability. The same is expected by me. To me, that's simple courtesy and respect for other people. But I am sorry that you find this hard going.

Best regards

R


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-29-2006).]

[robert newman]

Do I accept that efforts have been made to remove works from the Koechel catalogue that are spurious ? It's a great question. Let me attempt an answer.

A few thousand years ago the Chinese philosopher Confucious shot to fame by confusing everyone. His idea was that the ancient myths of the state were the surest way to unite the whole country. He therefore made detailed studies of Chinese mythology and codified all the ceremonies. He left nothing untouched. So zealous was he that the Chinese emperors knew the routines of their festivals and their ceremonials to a degree of sophistication that might seem to us the height of absurdity. He covered everything from tea ceremonies to the annual worship of the Emperor, the location of dragons, the making of bronze artefacts, etc. etc. The provinces of China, which previously fought with one another (and which differed from one another in these ancient rituals) were therefore, eventually, united - under the super-conservative ideas of this same Confucious. The fact that dragons do not exist and that pagan China and its myths are no more true today than they were in Confucious time was largely ignored.

We have today a body of myth that is called Mozart. He is the musical equivalent of, let us say, Homer. Around him have grown such a body of claims that it's fair to say that the core of this myth boils down to a rather small number of versions, most of these written down decades after they occurred (in the case of Koechel, virtually half a century after Mozart's death) and a number of biographies written/edited/censored etc. before they appeared, also years after the composers death - in some cases decades afterwards. This 'cult of Mozart' has (if you really look at it in detail) all the trappings of a secular religion. It has its pilgrimages, its unsubstantiated miracles, its idols, its priests, its festivals, etc. And Mozart is big business - we still have half a year to go in this BIG Mozart year.

The cracks in the 'official' record were there from the beginning but these were weeded out to a great extent by people like Constanze Mozart, Maximilian Stadler, the earliest biographers, Otto Jahn, and others leading up to Koechel. He, more than half a century after Mozart's death, produced the first version of the catalogue of Mozart's works (so-called) that is today known by his name.

Now, to come to your point - of whether scholarship has been doing a great job in getting us the true story. Judge for yourself. Let's take just two of about 500 cases. (I could add many, many more if you need them).

The Requiem. This work, supposedly written by Mozart in the year of his death (1791) has been the subject of more exaggeration, distortion, lying, fraud, forgery and downright falsehood than any other work in the entire history of western music, bar none. Around its genesis are stories which are totally without any support. And yet, despite the fact that this work arrives at a virtual farce by reason of it being signed by the composer with a text saying it is 'by me, Mozart' and with a date of '1792' (a date that Mozart did not live to see), we are nevertheless deemed to be breaking the rules when we suggest (as various early researchers finally did) that the work is a fraud.

Why not ? Well, that is to question the myth. And so we go back to the Confucious syndrome. The conservatism prevails no matter how ludicrous a version it creates.

It took until the early 20th century before a symphony known till then as Mozart's Symphony No. 37 was finally deleted from the official record. Why ? Was this difficult for these experts to do ? No - in fact, anyone who looked at the work could see that with the exception of a few bars of music it is not even in Mozart's handwriting. But, until the 20th century, who would you have been to point out that fact ?

It was, as you say, Mozart scholarship which finally achieved this amazing improvement.

It's like admitting that your good government has completely screwed up - a fact that they will admit half a century and more later, when everyone who has suffered from their incompetence is either deceased or past the age when they can remember the original story. Thus, change is permitted provided that it does not upset the myth itself.

Would you, Peter, grant 20 and more symphonies to a child if there were not really documentary evidence to support such a claim ? Welcome to the Orwellian world of Mozart studies ? Would you, seeing blatant evidence of forgery, and the stonewalling of your questions in fair and open hearings, be happy if the supposed 'experts' refused to accept the truth on issue after issue that concerned Mozart's supposed life and works ?
Surely, there would come a time when you came to the realisation that such myth makers are really a bunch of kids and no more professional in their studies than you or I in these exchanges ?

And thus, a gigantic myth exists today, the main structure of which creaks with its own internal contradictions and which, in defiance of the law of gravity, is nevertheless given a clean bill of health every few years with the arrival of the next version of the Koechel list. And, yet again, we will see a little trimming here, a little trimming there, but no major change.

What began as a crude act of deception in the 18th century - the manufacture of a reputation by vested interests - has become one of the chief icons of western musical civilization. And 'defended' not by fair, open and reasonable debate, but by conservatism, the repetition of propaganda that lacks any real substantiation, and by those who slam the door in your face if you dare to ask the right questions.

The living proof of this crisis in musical study is the attitude of those who know best (or who claim to) whenever you would try to establish what Mozart wrote, and what he actually did NOT write. Any person who decides to pursue this path (and who has not been inducted in to the halls of acceptance) will be viewed as 'diminishing the legacy of Mozart' - of 'attacking what has long ago been proved true' - or 'of trying to profit by inventing falsehoods' etc.

Regarding your claim that nobody has yet seen the archives at, say, Estense Library in Modena (one of the great libraries of Europe), the truth is that those who have studied them most happen to be Giorgio Taboga and one or two German scholars. The group who represent the Mozarteum (or the Koechel list) have not yet favoured the library with their presence. This is proved true by the fact that requests for them to study the 9 'Mozart' symphonies there have gone unanswered for almost as long as others have been asking them. Indeed, the writers of the Koechel edition have failed to tell their readers that copies of these works are even at Modena in more than one case. At Regensburg (where, again a copy of a Mozart symphony is to be seen) this is so damaging to convention (showing the name of 'Mozart' inscribed on top of another name) that Koechel's editors do not even refer to its existence. Such things are fairly typical.

Archive research is fine. It has its place. It should be encouraged. But in a forum, in an informal conversation, are we not best to give a straight answer to a question rather than to throw the enquirer an entire book ?
You must judge for yourself who is being evasive and who is not. Who is respectful to others and who is not.

In view of the fact that many thousands of people study Mozart and have already written about him it ought to be relatively easy to show what is true and what is false, especially on issues as wide as his overall output or on specific questions such as the Requiem. But, in both cases, the system (such as it is) exists within a vacuum that does not allow the weight of criticism to have its true effect.

Such idolatry does not exist in the area of Bach studies. It exists far less too in studies of Beethoven. But it is in many ways the most striking feature of studies of Haydn and Mozart.

I would surrender finishing any book if members of this forum could agree that truth is greater than myth.

Regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-29-2006).]