Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bonn Music Archives 1784-1794

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Bonn Music Archives 1784-1794

    Bonn Music Archives 1784-1794

    1/3

    Preliminary Information

    I offer this section first because it puts the subject of Catalogue C.53.1 in to some sort of context and because it makes it possible for general readers to have some idea of Bonn's music archives during the last 10 years of its existence - years just prior to the departure of Beethoven for Vienna.

    It is not principally intended to be controversial but as a general guide. If points are made on which there is disagreement or on which clarification is required, I will do my best to resolve these to the best of my ability. Most of all, it is an attempt to share information, to have it discussed, and for all readers to profit by respectful dialogue about the history of the music archives at Bonn during this vital time. Some of this preliminary material will already be available in posts on this forum but it is here brought together in a more concise form.

    1. 12 days after the death of the death of the Elector Max Friedrich (27th April 1784) the new Elector, Max Franz, made his entry in to the Cologne Principality.

    2. One of Max Franz's first instructions (he being an avid lover of music) was to give instructions to a board of officials at the Bonn Kapelle, presided over by Fries, acting as Court Notary and checked in his work by the then court organist, CG Neefe (who also directed the court orchestra at this time as a substitute for Kapellmeister Luchesi, then on leave in Italy) to conduct an Inventory of the musical assets of the Bonn Kapelle.

    3. The return from Italy of Luchesi (together with his Konzertmeister Gaetano Mattioli (1st violin) was expected in time for solemn service for the late Max Friedrich (30 days afer his death) on 15th May that same year of 1784.

    4. Max Franz did not wish to wait for Luchesi's return and instructed that the Inventory would begin in his absence.

    5. The work of the Inventory was completed on 8th May 1784 and its results were submitted in written form to Max Franz by the Court Notary, Fries.

    6. In terms of music, the inventory covers that for the chapel (Kapelle), for the Court (Hofmusik) as well as theatrical and orchestral music. It does NOT include a listing of chamber works (Kabinett).

    7. There are good reasons for believing that almost the whole of the instrumental music and of the sacred music that was inventoried by Neefe was either purchased or composed after 1771, most of it at Bonn. The notable exceptions being for the most part acquisitions made in Bologna by Gaetaneo Mattioli in 1775. (A letter still exists from Mattioli in Bolgona at the time informing the Prime Minister Belderbusch of these Italian acquisitions).

    8. Many comic works (more than 20) of those inventoried at that time had arrived in Bonn with Luchesi himself in 1771, these intended as teaching aids.

    Note - One obvious fact that emerges from the 1784 is of course that all works contained within the Neefe/Freis inventory were composed before that date.

    9. The Neefe/Fries inventory of that May 1784 records not a single work of any kind in the Bonn archives by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Nor any theatrical works by Haydn. But of church music there were 6 Masses of 'Haydn' (n.24-9), and of symphonies 8 (n.21-28) to 'Haydn', while another 11 symphonies are listed under the slightly different spelling of 'Heyde'.

    10. In addition to the above symphonies there were two groupings of un-named symphonies, one of these listed as being by 'differents auteurs' (28 in number) and another described separately later in the same inventory also as by 'different auteurs' (10 in number) which, of course, were not there attributed to any specific composer.

    After this Inventory of May 1784 Max Franz oversaw the creation of not one but two simulataneous music catalogues, one of these intended for Sacred Music (but now lost) and the other for Instrumental Music (still surviving minus its title page) and today found at Modena with some of the still surviving manuscripts from Bonn.

    The first person to study the Bonn material at Modena was the Modenese librarian Angelo Catelani, in 1851.

    That this Bonn material was in Modena long before 1851 is stated by S.Brandenburg in 'Die Kurfuerstliche Musikbibliothek in Bonn - Beethoven Yearbook - 1978 - p.43', who says it was certainly there by 1831, 20 years before.

    The librarian Catelani was able to determine by close study that red ink was used to list works at Bonn entered after 1784. He was also able to compile (though not completely) an 'Index of Ecclesiastical Music of the Royal Court of Modena' that same year of 1851, adding that till that time 'these archives were never touched here by any regulatory hand'

    So these two catalogues (one of them still missing) are known to have been used at Bonn during the last decade of its musical life. They abandoned the previous classification system into genres used during the Neefe/Fries inventory (masses, motets, symphonies etc) and used instead an alphabetical index by composer's names with a number next to each piece, starting, obviously, with the number 1.

    The Catalogue C.53.1 was begun, therefore, after May of 1784 by the Kapellmeister and it can be shown to have been in used up to at least 1791 (perhaps even as late as early 1793). Various works noted within it show such dates are entirely reasonable.

    Almost all covers and title pages from surviving Bonn material at Modena have disappeared, having been torn off and in many cases with the title page destroyed or mutilated.

    A striking correlation was noted early in terms of the results of the Neefe/Fries inventory and those symphonies today found at Modena in the following respect -

    At Modena in 1784 a total of 58 symphonies feature in the Inventory -

    8 'Heyde'
    11 'Haydn'
    28 'de differents auteurs'
    10 'de differents auteurs'
    1 '7 Last Words'

    Total 58

    and at Modena we find the following symphonies -

    34 'Haydn'
    4 anon (either attributed today to Haydn or Mozart elsewhere)
    6 'Haydn'
    9 'Mozart'
    1 '7 Last Words'

    Total 58

    Also curious is the fact that despite Mozart not being named in the 1784 Inventory we have at Modena manuscripts of the following 'Mozart' works. Given first is the normal Koechel number followed by its current Modena library reference, the 'traditional' date when Mozart is said to have composed them and the type of paper on which these works are each written -

    KV320 (E-55) date 1779 Swabian paper
    KV203 (E-158)date 1774 NicHeisler paper
    KV200 (E-154)date 1774 Swabian paper
    KV385 (E-159)date 1782 Italian paper
    KV319 (E-161)date 1779 NicHeisler paper
    KV201 (E-157)date 1774 Italian paper
    KV297 (E-160)date 1778 NicHeisler paper
    KV504 (E-162)date 1786 NicHeisler paper
    KV551 (D-640)date 1788 Dutch/Swabian paper
    KV182 (E-156)date 1775 Swabian paper

    Bear in mind too that, as at May 1784 not a single Mozart work was recorded at Bonn.

    Of 'Haydn' works from Bonn at Modena, I will provide a list of symphonies attributed to him in Part 2. And of church works (Masses), these attributed also to Haydn and now at Modena from Bonn, I will provide a list of these in Part 3.

    A final note - the Koechel Catalogue of Mozart's works (6th edition of 1964) recognises 8 of the above symphonies now existing at Modena. But, very strangely, they seem to have overlooked KV504 ('The Prague' Symphony) shown above and also the anonymous copy of KV551 'The Jupiter'). One must whether they are conscious that the presence of these 2 symphonies at Modena was the consequence of them being in Bonn in May of 1784 with all the implications that has for their attribution to Mozart. In addition, KV551 comes from Bonn -the Dutch/Swabian watermarks show this. It is already clear that the symphonies and other works we find inscribed to Mozart in the Catalogue C.53.1 presuppose a series of Mozart/Bonn relationships and Bonn/Mozart relationships of which almost every trace has been purposely erased. And, of course, it is precisely from the time of the Bonn Inventory of 1784 that we note a qualitative jump in Mozart's works - the very same time, in fact, when Mozart, remarkably and finally, begins to keep a thematic catalogue of his compositions.

    (The total list of works entered in to the Catalogue C.53.1 under the heading of 'Mozart' at Bonn are 14 symphonies, 2 cassations, 5 piano concertos, 4 sonatas for piano and violin, 9 string quartets, 3 string quintets and a string trio).


    RN


    [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-12-2006).]

    #2
    Robert, I suggest that you are as prolific a typist as any prolific, forgotten Italian composer. Your fingers must ache.....

    Comment


      #3
      Thank you for that Robert - No doubt your future posts will clarify this, but on first glance it occurs to me that if the number of symphonies at Modena corresponds with the number in the 1784 inventory (58) were no more added after 1784 in C.53.1?

      When you list the symphonies found at Modena why do you list 34 Haydn then 6 Haydn - why not just 40 Haydn - I make this point because I'm not clear if you mean C.53.1 or if you are talking about the manuscript copies themselves?

      I know we have discussed this before but you don't mention the initials of the two men who helped Neefe compile the 1784 inventory, A. F. and A. R.
      Fries could well be the first, but who was A.R?

      Concerning the Mozart manuscripts why is the type of paper so significant since they are copies not originals? I suggest one reason for Mozart not being named in the 1784 inventory is the haste in which it was compiled (10 days) and that Neefe was more concerned with listing by category than composer. The fact that Luchesi redid the whole thing implies that either he or Max Franz were not satisfied with Neefe's work -Why else have two lists of the same thing?

      If 14 Mozart symphonies are listed in C.53.1 and 10 in Neefe's inventory and only 9 manuscripts are at Modena, then 5 went elsewhere like much of the Bonn music. Therefore how can you state with any certainty which ones are referred to in the Neefe inventory? How can you know that the Prague or the Jupiter were definitely amongst the symphonies referred to by Neefe as C.53.1 makes it clear that another 4 or 5 Mozart symphonies arrived after that date.


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



      [This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-12-2006).]
      'Man know thyself'

      Comment


        #4
        Dear Peter,

        Thanks for all these questions. I am sure some of them will be quite easy to answer and I will look at them soon in detail. But others are as puzzling to me, partly because I am relying on notes that can be interpreted one way or the other or because the topic seems not to have been looked at. For example, though red pen was used after 1784 was it used exclusively at Bonn ? Things like that.

        But you are right, I should get parts 2 and 3 down first and I think the picture will emerge. If I had one aid it would be a copy of C.53.1

        Another question (of my own) is - what catalogue was actually in use in the days leading up to the inventory in 1784 ? It appears that it was a single catalogue (now lost) spanning the time between the previous catalogue and May of 1784 in which instrumental and church works are in the same document, as per the inventory itself. But no reference to such a book is made in what I have read.

        Anyway, why Mozart has 14 symphonies in C.53.1 but none in 1784 is an obvious question that needs to be examined and answered. Taboga seems to have established that 10 of the Mozart symphonies now at Modena were definitely part of the works inventoried. This on two different grounds - watermarks and ink notes found on several of them showing periodic internal checks of the archives which correspond with works for which we know the composer and which WERE definitely inventoried.

        Given that real attempts have been made to delete or obscure information in thsee manuscripts by ripping off covers and sometimes pages - even sometimes destroying a name or number by ripping a hole in the paper (as I will describe) it will be quite a feat to sort this out. Taboga knows this area very well but, of course, it is not exactly the sort of thing that is easy to settle in posts.

        I will try to get the second post here soon.

        R

        [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-12-2006).]

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by robert newman:
          Anyway, why Mozart has 14 symphonies in C.53.1 but none in 1784 is an obvious question that needs to be examined and answered. Taboga seems to have established that 10 of the Mozart symphonies now at Modena were definitely part of the works inventoried. This on two different grounds - watermarks and ink notes found on several of them showing periodic internal checks of the archives which correspond with works for which we know the composer and which WERE definitely inventoried.

          The point is that since 14 Mozart symphonies are listed in C.53.1 how can Taboga be certain which of the 9 manuscripts remaining at Modena were in the 1784 inventory? Is it not possible that 5 of the symphonies in the Neefe inventory are amongst the ones no longer at Modena? In which case is it not possible that K.504 and K.551 were added later? As to watermarks, I really don't see the relevance - copies could easily have been made on old manuscript stock, I have some here from 30 years ago!
          How does he know when the ink marks were made?


          Incidentally you said there are 9 Mozart symphonies at Modena and then you say Taboga has identified 10 of the symphonies as having been inventoried. Can you clarify the situation more please.

          My understanding is Neefe lists 10
          Luchesi lists 14
          Actual Modena Mozart Manuscripts 9

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

          [This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-12-2006).]
          'Man know thyself'

          Comment


            #6
            Yes Peter, it appears the '10 symphonies de differents Auteurs' on page 260 of the Neefe Inventory have become again 10 at Modena - i.e. they are the symphonies Mus-E-154 to Mus-E-162 but also including a separate symphony at Modena described as 'returning anonymous' (Mus-D-640) that corresponds with Mozart's KV551 'Jupiter'.

            This will take some explaining so I will try to deal with it in Part 2 in the next day or so. I also have a note 'Encl.17' in the Taboga report which takes me to a photostatic copy of Mus-D-640 itself - a title page for a 'Sinfonia' scored for Violins, Viola, Flute, 'Clarino in C', Oboes, Horns and Bassoons and various other markings including 'violincello' and with the word 'Mozart' = sinfonia - 'Jupiter' and a seal of the library at Modena.

            Whether most of this description of the 'Jupiter' was written by the Modena librarian or not remains to be seen since i think the title'Jupiter' was only given to that symphony in England circa 1792 (after Mozart's death) by Salomon. It seems this title page was written on at different times so both at Bonn and in Modena but the seal of the library on this page suggests it (the seal) is recent. On this same page the name 'jupiter' has been scored out with 'Jupiter' added on another hand underneath.

            R



            [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-12-2006).]

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by robert newman:
              Yes Peter, it appears the '10 symphonies de differents Auteurs' on page 260 of the Neefe Inventory have become again 10 at Modena - i.e. they are the symphonies Mus-E-154 to Mus-E-162 but also including a separate symphony at Modena described as 'returning anonymous' (Mus-D-640) that corresponds with Mozart's KV551 'Jupiter'.

              Yes Robert but how can you be certain the 10 manuscript copies correspond to the '10 symphonies de differents Auteurs'? How can you be certain the Jupiter was amongst them? The majority of the Bonn music was dispersed and is not at Modena. What if Neefe's 10 did actually contain symphonies by other composers (as well as some by Mozart) that are now elsewhere or lost? Obviously some Mozart symphonies must have been added after the 1784 inventory as Luchesi lists 14 definitely in the name of Mozart.

              Of your manuscript list, K.320 is a serenade, so is K.203. That means Modena actually only have copies of 8 Mozart symphonies not 10.

              Please try to keep your following explanations brief as the great length you post at only adds to the confusion.

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

              Comment


                #8
                I'm glad I'm not a Mozart fan...


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

                [This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-12-2006).]
                http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

                Comment


                  #9
                  I have a headache. Anyone have any aspirin?

                  ------------------
                  'Truth and beauty joined'
                  'Truth and beauty joined'

                  Comment


                    #10

                    I think I've explained that watermarks and writing on these manuscripts shows they were in the 1784 inventory.

                    But I have also said that I would submit far more on this is parts 2 and 3.

                    Regards

                    Comment


                      #11

                      Dear Peter,

                      I said at the start of this thread that this subject is complex. That the catalogue C.53.1 is paradoxical in certain respects. Do not expect one line solutions. It doesn't work like that. First, the Bonn material is fragmentary. Second, deliberate attempts have been made to remove covers and other indications on this music. That in itself is very good reason for suspicion. There are simply no easy answers. We are trying to reconstruct these things using partial evidence to identify works that came to Modena from Bonn and which are now attributed to Mozart - a composer not even attributed once in Bonn in the 1784 inventory. The very existence of some these manuscripts is not acknowledged by mainstream Mozart research in two cases.

                      I would love to roll out a definitive answer. It simply does not work like that. In fact it gets messy. It hinges on things like watermarks, signatures, other lines of evidence, etc etc. It's worl that is simply not everyone's cup of tea. It gives them headaches. But it's the stuff of such research. Nobody is avoiding anything. An effort is being made here to lay on the table (as it were) the facts as we know them, this in 3 parts. So I cannot attempt answers about the 10 'Mozart' symphonies until this is first done. I have however already said several times that the 1784 material is in many cases (I think 7 in all of the 10 'Mozart' works at Modena) able to be shown part of works inventoried in 1784. We are also able to say 4 works never even got to Modena though they were entered in C.53.1

                      Regards

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by robert newman:

                        I think I've explained that watermarks and writing on these manuscripts shows they were in the 1784 inventory.

                        But I have also said that I would submit far more on this is parts 2 and 3.

                        Regards

                        And I don't agree that watermarks on copies show any such thing - a copy can be made on any batch of manuscript from any date. As to writing well let's hope you are more specific - a simple explanation would be appreciated!

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



                        [This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-13-2006).]
                        'Man know thyself'

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Firstly, I didn't say that watermarks by themselves are conclusive proof of the age a work was written. I said that watermarks plus writings on these documents (i.e. on these 'Mozart' symphonies now in Modena) provide a fair and reasonable basis for saying where this material came from and when it was made. The fact that paper may be used 50 years after it was made does not alter the fact that normally this is not the case.By fair and reasonable evidence these manuscripts can be shown to have come from Bonn. Unlike Bonn this material is attributed to specific composers - in this case Haydn and Mozart. There are no symphonies (unlike the 1784 inventory) which lack an attribution to a specific composer. It is fair and reasonable to say, therefore, the groups of symphonies that lacked attribution to a specific composer at Bonn in 1784 are now attributed in Modena - since, as already said, none are unattributed in Modena. Fairness indicates this is true.

                          You may not care what watermarks tell us about dates. Fine. In many areas of Mozart reseach watermarks have been decisive in determining the date of a composition. Alan Tyson's work in this area has been hugely important.

                          Regards


                          [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-13-2006).]

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by robert newman:
                            Firstly, I didn't say that watermarks by themselves are conclusive proof of the age a work was written. I said that watermarks plus writings on these documents (i.e. on these 'Mozart' symphonies now in Modena) provide a fair and reasonable basis for saying where this material came from and when it was made. The fact that paper may be used 50 years after it was made does not alter the fact that normally this is not the case.By fair and reasonable evidence these manuscripts can be shown to have come from Bonn. Unlike Bonn this material is attributed to specific composers - in this case Haydn and Mozart. There are no symphonies (unlike the 1784 inventory) which lack an attribution to a specific composer. This was not the case in the 1784 Inventory at Bonn. It is fair and reasonable to say, therefore, that groups of symphonies that lacked an atrribution at Bonn in 1784 are those now attributed in Modena - since, as already said, none are now unattributed in Modena. Fairness indicates this is true.

                            You may of course not care what watermarks tell us about dates. Fine.In many areas of Mozart reseach watermarks have actually been decisive in determining the date of a composition. Alan Tyson's work in this area has been hugely important.

                            Regards


                            [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-13-2006).]
                            Watermarks on autographs are of huge importance, on copies much less so. I don't doubt the copies were made at Bonn - the question is when. As to it being highly unusual to use old stock, I don't know especially as the whole point of Max Franz'z inventories and reports was to make economies. In anycase we're not talking 50 years - a few years here is critical to the issue.

                            The Neefe inventory was cobbled together very hastily in a few days which I believe is precisely the reason Luchesi undertook the task again on his return - his file is evidentally far more systematic having being compiled over many years and actually listing works by Composer as opposed to category.


                            It would also be useful to know how Luchesi lists Mozart symphonies - does he just give a number (14), if so is there evidence this number was changed as works were added? Does he list them specifically (by key for example) if so, again is there evidence of addtions and in what order are they presented?

                            I think we should concentrate on these issues before you present us with another tome on Haydn which will doubtless be a repeat of the same points you have already made here many times as is your part 1.

                            You must reasonably expect me to ask these questions Robert because I haven't seen these documents!


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



                            [This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-13-2006).]
                            'Man know thyself'

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Dear Peter,

                              You want me to address specific questions of the sort that you want answering but, at the same time, I am trying to submit a 3 part work on the Bonn Music Archives (1784-1794).

                              Would it not avoid confusion if I just post my article and then answer (or try to answer) your questions ?


                              [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-13-2006).]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X