Beethoven and his early works at Bonn

[Nightklavier]

Originally posted by Rod:
Just give me any recording, even a bad one, and I can tell you if Beethoven wrote it or not.

I wish I could do that =(

I've only discovered Beethoven and classical music two years ago, so I'm obviously still on a long road of musical education and experience.

I envy that power, Rod.

[robert newman]

Rod, I am certainly not relying solely on circumstantial evidence (though it is almost entirely stacked against the notion that the Bonn Literary Society was the stimulus for the cantatas performed at Frankfurt). It is an unsigned memo and one that tells us of a sonata - a word that Peter says may actually be wrong. Fine, then it is a cantata.

You clearly believe this is a waste of time. Fine. I do not. WoO87 and WoO88 are not emphatically works by Beethoven. They are disputed works. Let us not forget this. And now we have examined why this is so. We have an alternative composer for them - and we have too the certainty that Beethoven wrote a piece that was almost certainly (in my view) not either of those two works. That is my considered view and I base it on contemporary evidence. It is supported by other evidence. And though the case has not yet been resolved I remain of the view that something substantial will come of this.

I respect your view that this is not correct.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-22-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Rod, I am certainly not relying solely on circumstantial evidence (though it is almost entirely stacked against the notion that the Bonn Literary Society was the stimulus for the cantatas performed at Frankfurt). It is an unsigned memo and one that tells us of a sonata - a word that Peter says may actually be wrong. Fine, then it is a cantata.

You clearly believe this is a waste of time. Fine. I do not. WoO87 and WoO88 are not emphatically works by Beethoven. They are disputed works. Let us not forget this. And now we have examined why this is so. We have an alternative composer for them - and we have too the certainty that Beethoven wrote a piece that was almost certainly (in my view) not either of those two works. That is my considered view and I base it on contemporary evidence. It is supported by other evidence. And though the case has not yet been resolved I remain of the view that something substantial will come of this.

I respect your view that this is not correct.

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-22-2006).]

I never considered the cantatas as dubious before you mentioned it! I'm sure Beethoven wrote a lot of pieces at this time that are now lost, if you find a new piece and can get someone to play it invite me along. But will you know it is Beethoven, will you ever be sure..?

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
I wish I could do that =(

I've only discovered Beethoven and classical music two years ago, so I'm obviously still on a long road of musical education and experience.

I envy that power, Rod.

With power comes great responsibilty. One has to be careful how one uses it. It must not be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. But be patient, I have almost 20 years more hard core Beethoven listening experience than you. But I don't think it takes a genius to tell a good apple from a bad one.

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

[robert newman]

Dear Mr Zimmerman,

Well, we agree there was the hope of a projected performance in 1791 of a piece that would have used the Biamonti material.

Do we agree on at least these points -

1. Beethoven (according to several sources) wrote a piece that was a cantata on the death of Joseph 2nd.

2. He showed this piece to Joseph Haydn.

3. He tried to have this same piece played at Mergentheim (?)

4. Beethoven wrote this same piece at the request of the Bonn Reading Society.

5. It is generally believed till this day that this same piece was WoO87

6. It is generally believed that WoO87 was performed at official ceremonies held at Frakfurt in 1790.

7. We have a statement by Simrock saying that he did not know what happened to the piece that Beethoven wanted to try out at Mergentheim.

8. We have muliple witnesses to the technical challenges of the material that Beethoven wrote - these so great that these contemporary individuals all comment on it.

9. We have in the Biamonti material work that is of a virtuoso kind and which clearly did not feature in the first performance of WoO88 in 1790.

Do we agree on all these points ?

Thanks



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-22-2006).]

[gardibolt]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Mr Zimmerman,

Well, we agree there was the hope of a projected performance in 1791 of a piece that would have used the Biamonti material.

Do we agree on at least these points -

1. Beethoven (according to several sources) wrote a piece that was a cantata on the death of Joseph 2nd.

2. He showed this piece to Joseph Haydn.

3. He tried to have this same piece played at Mergentheim (?)

4. Beethoven wrote this same piece at the request of the Bonn Reading Society.

5. It is generally believed till this day that this same piece was WoO87

6. It is generally believed that WoO87 was performed at official ceremonies held at Frakfurt in 1790.

7. We have a statement by Simrock saying that he did not know what happened to the piece that Beethoven wanted to try out at Mergentheim.

8. We have muliple witnesses to the technical challenges of the material that Beethoven wrote - these so great that these contemporary individuals all comment on it.

9. We have in the Biamonti material work that is of a virtuoso kind and which clearly did not feature in the first performance of WoO88 in 1790.

Do we agree on all these points ?

Thanks

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-22-2006).]

We agree on some of it. #3- the cantata that was to be performed at Mergentheim could have been 87 or 88 or both of them together as a single unit. The testimony on this point is frustratingly less than clear. I don't believe #6 is true and have no idea where you're getting this assertion from. #8 needs to be tempered by the notion that the testimony is that the technical challenges were beyond the skills of the musicians assembled at Mergentheim, the exact extent of which remain an open question. #9 is partially true, but the contemporary witnesses indicate that the cantatas were never performed at all, not that they were performed in 1790. The balance seems accurate enough.

I have some for you.

A. Do you agree that the Biamonti 16 material is in the form of a cadenza? If not, what form do you believe it takes?
B. Do you agree that from SBH 705 the Biamonti 16 material appears to have been completed?
C. Do you agree that Beethoven was not in the habit of preparing parts to a composition that was unfinished?
D. Do you agree that the technical difficulty of the Biamonti 16 material (including the Kafka Miscellany material) is comparable to the difficulty of the aria to WoO 88? If not, explain the differences in difficulty.
E. Do you agree that the Biamonti 16 material uses the theme of the aria to WoO 88?

---Mark Zimmer (not Zimmerman)

[robert newman]

Dear Mark,

Thanks for this. I have considered your questions very carefully but must explain before I answer that I have come at this material from an entirely different perspective. From a historical rather than a musical perspective.

Firstly (contrary to those who hold the traditional view) I am not principally interested in proving Luchesi was the true composer of both WoO87 and also WoO88, though I think, on balance, this is almost certainly true.

Secondly, I am personally convinced the material we have left in Beethoven's hand from Beethoven himself would justify considering that he attempted (by 1791) to write a cantata that was both a commemoration of Joseph 2nd and also (within the same piece) a celebration of the acccession of Leopold 2nd.

In answer to your own questions -

Q1. Do you agree that the Biamonti 16 material is in the form of a cadenza? If not, what form do you believe it takes?

A. This is a crucially important question. I regret that I cannot answer this at this time. I have not studied this material in anything like the depth of your goodself. I can only give you my 'gut instinct' on the remarkable fact that this material has survived iand was found in Beethoven's own possession at the time of his death. These things mattered a great deal to him. I am sure of it.

I suggest this material in Biamonti 16 is not a 'cadenza' in the normal sense of the word. It is more likely a musical representation of the architecture of a finale - the section that Beethoven wrote after Frankfurt as his own version of WoO88.

I know this sounds unusual but consider it from Beethoven's own perspective. Consider for a moment that he wrote neither WoO87 nor WoO88. Now, if he wrote neither cantata he was nevertheless fully aware of both. He stood in relation to their true composer as a finished student stands to his teacher of almost a decade. He did so only at the time when he was leaving Bonn.

Shortly before he wrote the Biamonti material he had undoubtedly written a cantata for Joseph 2nd. The one he showed Haydn. He had no thought at that time (i.e. at the time when he met Haydn) of a double cantata. Nor was an expanded piece in his mind when that memo of the Bonn Reading Society was written.

By the time of Mergentheim things had changed. He saw the sense of a expanding his earlier cantata. First, because his original cantata (for Joseph) was still unperformed as an orchestral/choral piece, and second because Joseph was of course now long dead, Leopold already ruled and the piece could hardly attract much attention. So Beethoven figured on the idea of reviving his cantata by linking it structurally to material he would obtain from WoO88 - this in deference to his teacher and to the festivities that had occurred months before in Frankfurt. The net result was virtually a single piece which the Biamonti material must, in some way, make such a scheme possible. This plus another work as yet unidentified.

B. Do you agree that from SBH 705 the Biamonti 16 material appears to have been completed?

I do not know. I assume so. I have not studied this material in any depth. But I believe it makes sense within the context of a cantata rewritten in 1791 and that the Biamonti 16 material was intended to describe Beethoven's use of material previously performed as WoO88 at Frankfurt.

C. Do you agree that Beethoven was not in the habit of preparing parts to a composition that was unfinished?

Yes, I entirely agree.

D. Do you agree that the technical difficulty of the Biamonti 16 material (including the Kafka Miscellany material) is comparable to the difficulty of the aria to WoO 88? If not, explain the differences in difficulty.

I agree. But none of this material is formidably difficult to professional musicians.

E. Do you agree that the Biamonti 16 material uses the theme of the aria to WoO 88?

Yes, absolutely. This was the most prominent feature of his 'double' cantata.

How I wish I could help you more. I cannot. I know my limitations. If these comments are of any help whatsoever I would be glad to know of it.

Sincere regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-23-2006).]

[Rod]

I look forward to you guy's assessment of the Flute Sonata track I have posted. I'm afraid you will have to rely on the music alone here, not historical research..

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

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Firstly (contrary to those who hold the traditional view) I am not principally interested in proving Luchesi was the true composer of both WoO87 and also WoO88, though I think, on balance, this is almost certainly true.

Consider the supporting case for Beethoven:

Sketches and some completed parts using the same material found in WoO87 and WoO88 exist and were in Beethoven's possession when he died. He later used some of the material in Leonore. It is stated that Beethoven set the text of Averdonk - WoO87 sets this text which includes a line from Schiller's 'An die freude'. There are contemporary References to Beethoven having written a cantata for the death of Joseph. Many later Beethoven stylistic features are present in these works.

Consider the case for Luchesi: 'It was the kapellmeister's duty to write such music.'

There is not a shred of evidence for Luchesi authorship of WoO87 and WoO88 - no jury on earth considering the available facts would find in his favour. I don't see how any fair-minded person would claim 'on balance Luchesi is the composer' of WoO87 and WoO88.


Your whole argument for Luchesi rests solely on the fact that the kapellmeister wrote such music. What evidence is there that Luchesi was chosen out of all the Holy Roman Empire Kapellmeisters to compose the official cantatas for Frankfurt? Did they all provide cantatas on the death of Joseph for Frankfurt?

Well you have acknowledged that Beethoven wrote music for the deaths of Joseph and accession of leopold, so giving you the benefit of the doubt is it not entirely possible that any wotk Luchesi may have written has been lost and that the works we have are Beethoven's? In which case having made such a big thing in the past about the Bonn records, you have yet to explain the absence of 2 cantatas in 1790 - as Mark said, such works by the Kapellmeister for a state occasion would surely not have been omitted?


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-23-2006).]

[robert newman]

All right Peter. I respect your opinion (very well put) that Beethoven is the true composer of WoO87 and WoO88. And I understand why the evidence you submit in favour of Beethoven's authorship is so attractive to neutrals who have not yet voted. In reply -

You, Peter, seem willing to allow no place in your argument for a description of the context within which this debate is occurring or should be - that of Andrea Luchesi, rival claimant to these two cantatas, being not simply the true composer of WoO87 and WoO88, but also (as he certainly was in his lifetime) one of the most acknowledged and admired theorists and composers of Europe - a man who was, in point of fact and beyond reasonable doubt Beethoven's Kapellmeister for virtually 10 years and leader of the music chapel at Bonn for a remarkable 25 years in all, having arrived for this virtual quarter century of service by accepting the specially written invitation of the Elector of Cologne himself, to put right a music chapel badly declined in status for years under the wayward leadership of Beethoven's grandfather and which had slipped so badly, in fact, that talented men such as Neefe and others were not appointed to fill such a vital post. (The very same rescue job had just been done to the musical regime of St Petersburg by Galuppi, a teacher of Luchesi himself, by the way).

To counter your claim I can and must remind readers how you choose (no doubt unconsciously) to overlook the life and real career of such a talent. I must point out that before Professor Giorgio Taboga of Italy first started intensive and pioneering research and publication on the life and career of this virtually 'anonymous' and much supressed composer virtually no Beethoven admirer even knew the name of Andrea Luchesi.

You would not be alone in an empty stadium - you would be comforted by tens of thousands of Beethoven admirers from over the past 150 years or so in your views - all of them blissfully ignorant of Luchesi and his true significance. And I myself would be in such a crowd were it not for the fact, Peter, that, on balance, and after having read of him and his works, I must cast my own vote the same as you. Against Beethoven in this particular case of the 2 cantatas.

I am convinced we are discussing here a quite unique, almost ludicrous, situation, in which musicologists from the time of Thayer onwards have often deliberately and more often innocently suppressed the tremendous musical achievements of this great servant of music - musicologists who have tended to specialise, as it happens, in the Weiner Klassik - headed as it traditionally is by the figures of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and so successfully that, today, it is deemed to be virtually unthinkable that he, Andrea Luchesi, had a status in many forms of musical art that was, in his own day equal to, if not superior in the estimation of music lovers, to that of Haydn and of Mozart themselves.

I base such value on Luchesi not on prejudice but on verifiable fact. It is for example a fact that Luchesi is described in contemporary publications as a much sought after composer of symphonies by German princes, for example - though not a single Luchesi symphony can be produced now of his indisputable authorship from that same quarter century when he was in Bonn. His works in every single form have simply vanished from the Bonn period. But this demand for Luchesi (which was again demonstrated in Italy during his 1 year stay there of 1783 when he wrote an opera for the visiting King of Sweden) was NOT proved for Haydn nor Mozart at this time. Silence reigns over the fate of virtually every work this same Luchesi composed from the time he first arrived in Bonn in 1771 until the day he was buried there, some 25 years later. And this despite him taking Bonn citizenship and marrying locally. Can anyone take us, today, to the graveside of Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi ? Did anyone care ?

The battles that need to be fought just to establish that he, Luchesi, features (let alone played a prominent role) in the life, education and output of Haydn, Mozart, and even Beethoven are of a kind that, at times, one may well suppose this Italian genius never actually existed. It does not matter, I suppose, that with the exception of a single year it was Luchesi who actually ran things at Bonn, or who succeeded in raising the status of the chapel there to become one of the leading music centres in Germany. Nor does it seem to matter that a man can learn in depth of Beethoven and his works from textbooks but never learn the name of he who was his true teacher in theory and composition - since such things can be and always have been airbrushed out of the record and are truths still resisted in our own time.

In my view the modern absurdity of 'Mozart' is chiefly responsible for this, the creation and consumption of a celluloid myth that genius can and does emerge in art (in this case musical history) virtually without education or without the most devoted and protracted application to art. And since the stage-managed and ready made 'miracles' of Haydn and Mozart are presented to us by the media such as it existed from the late 18th century onwards as a virtually defrosted and perfect product so too, we suppose, we are already primed to assume the same of Ludwig van Beethoven having been 'influenced' only marginally, if at all, by his teacher of music theory and composition for virtually a decade, Andrea Luchesi. Beethoven is therefore forced to become the third person in a largely uneducated trinity that makes up such an interpretation of the Weiner Klassik. And if musical archives must be manipulated, spirited away, altered, frozen, stolen, abused, lied about, perverted, hidden, downgraded etc. that is what can and has occurred. This miraculous trinity floats on air. It has been largely self taught. Its genius is almost ready-made, from heaven. And it hardly dirtied its hands.

I do not need to sketch the importance of Andrea Luchesi here in the real careers and profiles of Haydn and Mozart. If I did you would complain that I am taking too long. But nor do I wish to claim of Luchesi that which is unfair or unreasonable. I simply wish to say that in respect of the two cantatas now in dispute (both written at the time when Beethoven was near to leaving Bonn) we find in Beethoven's papers at the time of his death fragments that certainly appear at first reading (or even the hundredth) to confirm a tradition begun by Thayer and others that he, Beethoven, is the true composer of those two cantatas. I do not deny that such an impression is given by this evidence.

When you present us with this evidence - that Beethoven quotes from WoO87 and WoO88 in surviving sketches of his own and is already credited with having written these pieces, you must suppose that I will, just by the fact of them and by reminding us of the huge influence such works had on his career, suppose I will abandon my belief that Luchesi was the true composer of both works.

Let me remind you Peter of the fact that while Beethoven was barely able to walk it was Andrea Luchesi, this same suppressed individual, now in charge of musical affairs in Beethoven's home town, who had published his own Opus 1, (6 sonatas for violin and keyboard), the contents of which (fortunately) have survived to offer at least the beginning of an answer and which you (and all Beethoven lovers including myself) can be and should be startled by in terms of these anticipating Beethoven style that was to surface only some 20 years later when that young man finally set out for Vienna.

We are not yet able to describe the feelings of Beethoven towards Luchesi. We can point out however that the young man must, to some extent, have been embarrassed by the money his family was receiving from Luchesi's own salary in the 3 years (1771-4)and must have been keen to put distance between himself and his drunken grandfather. Such things are not difficult for us to imagine. After all,it was Luchesi who had effectively ended the old Beethoven's career at the Bonn chapel.

I believe these two cantatas truly were the work of Luchesi as Kapellmeister of Bonn. They were two works composed as part of musical protocol, from one leading Kapellmeister of Germany to the Emperors.

I further believe the use by Beethoven of material from WoO87 and from WoO88 is understandable in terms of it being a respectful acknowledgement by Beethoven to Luchesi for the musical education he had provided him at Bonn. And I further believe these sketches found in Beethoven's possession at the time of his death are consistent with the view that Beethoven's cantata for the death of Joseph (a work he showed to Joseph Haydn and which is also alluded to at the Bonn Reading Society) became, the following year, an integrated part of a still more ambitious cantata which would have served a double function, quoting from and alluding to both Luchesi's WoO87 and also WoO88 despite Beethoven being the composer of neither of these two pieces. I also believe that, though we cannot predict how musical research will unfold, we can look forward to a time when the Biamonti material will finally be joined together with other (as yet unidentified) Beethoven material to restore to us a work that Beethoven once tried out at Mergentheim in the year 1791.

I am confident of this. And I am sure that when this happens the reputation of Beethoven and of Andrea Luchesi will at last be justly and fairly given true status in respect of these two works.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-23-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
All right Peter. I respect your opinion (very well put) that Beethoven is the true composer of WoO87 and WoO88. And I understand why the evidence you submit in favour of Beethoven's authorship is so attractive to neutrals who have not yet voted. In reply -

I also respect the fact Robert that you are convinced of your case, even if I think you are blinded by Taboga's position. You are obviously passionate in your beliefs and you do present many interesting arguments that have encouraged further research on my part from which I have learnt a great deal. My conclusions are not the same as yours - you do not convince me at all that Luchesi was the author of these cantatas. He remains amongst the MANY forgotten kapellmeisters of above average ability. Your point about Beethoven's relationship to his grandfather is not in accordance with the facts - he was known to have great admiration for him.

One further point, is it likely that both Luchesi and Beethoven would have both written Cantatas on the same text at the same time? Is it likely that Luchesi would have approved of Beethoven composing such works when he was apparently doing exactly the same? We still await an explanation as to why the Cantatas do not feature in the Bonn records. It would also be of value if you or someone could identify for us exactly what music was performed at Frankfurt.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-23-2006).]

[robert newman]

Peter, I regret I do not have the source available but have definitely seen it in the past, i.e. to the performance at Frankfurt in 1790 of a cantata whose German title was that of the opening lines of the poet's text written for WoO87. (I lost some data some 4 months ago and those details were lost at that time). Hopefully an expert in the Frankfurt music exists and can confirm this to be the case.

In the meantime I've no great difficulty in seeing Beethoven working on his own cantata for Joseph (since all sorts of commemorations were made and Beethoven's effort is not disputed in him showing it to both Haydn and the Bonn Reading Society). That this piece was a rival to events held at Frankfurt is not likely, since it was only at Mergentheim the following year that its technical demands were special reason for comment. Simrock and others at Mergentheim write as if its contents came as a real surprise to them in 1791, not before. And by that time, I suggest, Beethoven had worked again on it so as to newly incorporate material from WoO88. (Whether he had already done this for Wo87 at the time he met Haydn is an interesting question). That such work by the 20 year old student was in any way a threat to Luchesi is surely not so. If anything it was the most sincere mark of respect, since, in my view, the final work incorporates material from both WoO87 and WoO88 of the previous year.

Beethoven's work has of course disappeared. Proof of its existence would of course completely turn our understanding upside down on those two cantatas and on Beethoven in Bonn. It had to disappear. And yet the Biamonti material remained with Beethoven - his record of how the work presented at Mergentheim in 1791 was actually achieved.

With so much torn out, removed or lost of the available records (this even including the first page of Catalogue C.53.1 - a document overseen prior to 1794 by the Kapellmeister himself) it does not surprise me that here again Luchesi is made to appear as playing no role in the music for Frankfurt.

We are left with the forgiveable impression that in some way the work written first of all for the Bonn Literary Society is Wo87 and, later, that he, Beethoven, wrote WoO88.

I do not believe Beethoven would, for a single moment, deny the true composer of WoO87 and WoO88 was his own Kapellmeister. Nor would he have had any intention of giving such an impression.

To me, the Biamonti material must be viewed as parts of a puzzle with the main torso still to be identified - the body of a virtuoso type work able to accomodate the texts of both WoO87 and WoO88 once it is supplemented by the Biamonti material.

I agree that the onus is on me and others to identify such a piece since Beethoven either destroyed the original or kept it till the time of his death. If he kept it we must hope that it existed in a still surviving version that has somehow been interpreted as another piece.

The only work of early Beethoven I can presently suggest that may match all the required elements and which could accomodate the relevant Biamonti sketches etc (one which clearly calls for virtuosity in its performance) appears to be the so-called 'Flute Sonata' of 1790/1. That would be my first choice were I to spend time searching further. If this is correct the work Beethoven had in mind must have been a great cantata, perhaps featuring a sopranoist and other soloists which ended with music from WoO88 using the ideas he wrote in Biamonti 16.

I feel I cannot really contribute further to this subject. Perhaps others can take it further. Perhaps not.

Regards

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


Beethoven's work has of course disappeared. Proof of its existence would of course completely turn our understanding upside down on those two cantatas and on Beethoven in Bonn. It had to disappear.

Robert, your arguments would perhaps be indulged more if you didn't claim them as fact but theory. The evidence strongly suggests WoO87 and WoO are the works of Beethoven. This will remain the case unless documentary evidence to the contrary is produced and then I and doubtless the whole musical establishment will accept what you say.


I agree that the onus is on me and others to identify such a piece since Beethoven either destroyed the original or kept it till the time of his death. If he kept it we must hope that it existed in a still surviving version that has somehow been interpreted as another piece.


No, the onus is on you to show that Luchesi was the composer of WoO87 and WoO88. You have not provided one piece of documented evidence, no manuscripts, no letters, no contemporary accounts, not even evidence that Luchesi was the chosen kapellmeister to provide the music that in anycase came under the Electorship of Mainz not Bonn - Zero.

The only work of early Beethoven I can presently suggest that may match all the required elements and which could accomodate the relevant Biamonti sketches etc (one which clearly calls for virtuosity in its performance) appears to be the so-called 'Flute Sonata' of 1790/1. That would be my first choice were I to spend time searching further. If this is correct the work Beethoven had in mind must have been a great cantata, perhaps featuring a sopranoist and other soloists which ended with music from WoO88 using the ideas he wrote in Biamonti 16.

This is I'm afraid complete nonsense. A Sonata is an instrumental work, it is not sung. Beethoven clearly set Averdonk's text, this has no relation whatsoever to any sonata that may or may not be Beethoven's.

It is perhaps a pity that this thread has taken us no further than the last time you raised the matter. Still, if you find anything new Robert, I'm prepared to listen!

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-23-2006).]

[robert newman]

Well Peter, I am aware that a sonata is not a cantata. (You should perhaps have been around at the Bonn Reading Society when they made that error of Beethoven's Joseph Cantata).

The fact that the material suggested is today described as a 'Flute Sonata' (with question mark against it being called such even in the New Groves, by the way) does not rule out the possibility that it is the outline of a quite different work.

As to Bonn (the second musical chapel in importance to Vienna in the whole Empire in 1790) not making any contribution to the musical events in Frankfurt of that year seems, to me, highly unlikely.

Thanks and best wishes

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Well Peter, I am aware that a sonata is not a cantata. (You should perhaps have been around at the Bonn Reading Society when they made that error of Beethoven's Joseph Cantata).

'They' didn't - an individual did! Literary people from my experience are not always up on musical terminology (a terrible generalisation I know that'll probably bring howls of protest!) Seriously Robert you're barking completely up the wrong tree with this sonata idea, finding out for certain about the official music at Frankfurt would be far more productive.




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