Bonn Music Archives 1784-1794

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

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 ?

Robert I think your next part will raise a whole new load of questions and I am willing to discuss your points (though I expect they will be a repeat - do the names Giacomo Durazzo, Bernhard von Kees, Sammartini, Johann Peter Salomon feature by any chance?).

I am trying to be fair here by going over this whole ground in more detail and therefore I think it only reasonable and far less confusing if we deal with the issues as they arise. I am as keen as you to establish the facts concerning this, but as I said before I am not convinced by the interpretation being put on it by Taboga - the questions I have raised are important and cannot be overlooked if we are going to have a balanced debate since we are unable to see the documents concerned.

I suggest when we have dealt with part 1 you start a new thread for part 2.

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

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

[robert newman]

It is generally agreed that the Neefe/Ries inventory of 1784 (made in the absence of the Kapellmeister Luchesi and his Konzertmeister) was seriously deficient in many respects. In the specific case of works today attributed to 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' it was disastrous.

1. The Neefe/Ries inventory does not even record the name of Mozart. He, Mozart had no work at Bonn, according to their official report. It is fair to say, therefore, that the name of 'Mozart' was not found in May 1784 against any musical work in the Bonn Kapelle.

2. The Neefe/Fries inventory lumped together dozens of symphonies and simply labelled them as anonymous or 'by different authors', making no attempt to attribute them to any specific composer. (Surely, at the very least, an incompetent way to conduct an inventory). Let it be granted that Neefe/Ries did so on the grounds that these individual works lacked a named composer. But if they lacked a named composer such works should, according to convention, have first been automatically attributed to the existing Kapellmeister, Andrea Luchesi. This Neefe/Fries did not do. And thus these works, these symphonies, were in limbo.

The creation, therefore, of two catalogues, one for Sacred Music (now lost) and the other for Instrumental Music (still extant) must surely have been an attempt made by Luchesi on his return to restore order to a confused situation.

The catalogue C.53.1 appears to do two things

1. Attribute works to named composers
2. Record new music arriving at Bonn Kapelle in the period from May 1784 virtually up until the time when the Kapelle closed in 1794.

The final piece in this puzzle is found in the fact that, today, at Modena works from the Bonn Kapelle that are today attributed to Mozart and Haydn are far greater in number than appeared in the 1784 Inventory.

The issue is therefore reduced to this - whether the works attributed to Mozart in C.53.1 arrived in Bonn after May 1784 and whether the same is true of many works of Haydn.

If we decide that 14 Mozart symphonies from C.53.1 arrived at Bonn later than the Neefe/Ries inventory we are forced to consider another problem - the attribution of those works which they, in May 1784, attributed to nobody. For, at Modena today, there is no symphony that lacks an attribution.

Common sense suggests that the unattributed works of the Neefe/Fries inventory of May 1784 have become attributed works, some of them today at Modena.

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

It is generally agreed that the Neefe/Ries inventory of 1784 (made in the absence of the Kapellmeister Luchesi and his Konzertmeister) was seriously deficient in many respects. In the specific case of works today attributed to 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' it was disastrous.

1. The Neefe/Ries inventory does not even record the name of Mozart. He, Mozart had no work at Bonn, according to their official report. It is fair to say, therefore, that the name of 'Mozart' was not found in May 1784 against any musical work in the Bonn Kapelle.

2. The Neefe/Fries inventory lumped together dozens of symphonies and simply labelled them as anonymous or 'by different authors', making no attempt to attribute them to any specific composer. (Surely, at the very least, an incompetent way to conduct an inventory). Let it be granted that Neefe/Ries did so on the grounds that these individual works lacked a named composer. But if they lacked a named composer such works should, according to convention, have first been automatically attributed to the existing Kapellmeister, Andrea Luchesi. This Neefe/Fries did not do. And thus these works, these symphonies, were in limbo.


Basically I agree with this assessment - however regarding point 1 it is of course feasable that chamber music by Mozart was present at Bonn at this time.


The issue is therefore reduced to this - whether the works attributed to Mozart in C.53.1 arrived in Bonn after May 1784 and whether the same is true of many works of Haydn.

If we decide that 14 Mozart symphonies from C.53.1 arrived at Bonn later than the Neefe/Ries inventory we are forced to consider another problem - the attribution of those works which they, in May 1784, attributed to nobody. For, at Modena today, there is no symphony that lacks an attribution.
Common sense suggests that the unattributed works of the Neefe/Fries inventory of May 1784 have become attributed works, some of them today at Modena.



It is entirely possible that some of the 14 were part of the Neefe inventory - indeed I think it highly likely. It is also entirely possible that none of them were, in which case the 10 'de differents auteurs' could be missing. Is it not true that the greater part of the Bonn library was dispersed? At least 4 Mozart symphonies must have been added after Neefe's inventory - I suspect that a few Mozart symphonies were listed by Neefe and that there were some by other composers which is why in haste they were put under that general heading.

I think we need to look at C.53.1 in more detail and my previous point is important here - We need 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?


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



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

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

I think this will help. (I can't make a second thread at this time due to workload) although I will post on some truly remarkable material just received on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' today.

You know that Neefe in 1784 lists two groups of symphonies 'de differents auteurs' (i.e. 28 in total) whose vague description would normally make it impossible for us to proceed further in their identification. But, crucially, the very act of Neefe quantifying these works meant that each of them bears or once bore Neefe's inventory number. That number has in some cases survived and is today found on some symphonies attributed to Haydn in Modena. How many of these symphonies still have such a number in Modena and whether a number was also given to the 10 from 1784 which are today attributed to Mozart at Modena remains to be discussed in Part 2. So too other lines of evidence such as watermarks etc.

Regards




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