-On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period and other Matters –

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Sorrano,

You raise some very interesting points. I think there is no doubt the work was definitely first performed in Cadiz in 1787. Not before. In Rosemary Hughes's 'Haydn' she writes -

'In 1786 the Cadiz cathedral chapter commissioned from him (Haydn) 'The Seven Words of the Saviour on the Cross' ' (p.49)

(The oratorio version first appeared in 1796 and it was first performed in that same year).

By the way, Haydn got into real trouble over his attempt to get two publishers for this same (orchestral) work. He sold the sole publishing rights to both Artaria in Vienna and also to the Forster company in England ! (including rights to make copies or arrangements of it). But when the Forster company learned what Haydn had done with Artaria in Vienna they were disgusted and immediately broke of relations with Haydn. Things got even worse when Haydn finally came up with a crude quartet version of the piece which he sold to another English publisher Longman and Broderip - and this news got back to Forster (yet again) who now threatened Haydn with a court case on twice conducting unethical business towards them and with breaking their original contract.

In answer to your question whether these parts were definitely inventoried in 1784 at Bonn, the answer is yes, they were. That inventory (made in the absence of the Kapellmeister Luchesi) was, as it happened, the last the Bonn chapel had before its closure at the time of the French invasion of the Rhineland. The date of May 1784 for the inventory is absolutely certain, as is the fact the orchestral parts are in Modena from Bonn. This complete inventory at Bonn was made because the old elector had just died and the new one, Max Franz, had just come to take over. So there is no doubt about the dates. I do not think there is any doubt about the dates in this case.

Regards


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

Robert firstly the publishing issue is of no importance as you well know that it was common practice for 18th century composers to submit works to several publishers in the absence of copy writing laws in an attempt to prevent the all too prevalent practice of pirated editions. Beethoven was hardly innocent of the practice either.

Now back to this Modena file which is constantly being quoted at us and yet no one here, not even you have actually seen it. It is further complicated by the existence of two files, Neefe's inventory of 1784 and Luchesi's file of 1784-94. Now let's try to clarify the situation. Presumably both files are lists of the works contained in the Bonn archives, and the presence of manuscripts in Modena is actually a separate issue because they could have been added anytime between 1784-1794.

How can we be certain of Taboga's claim that the 28 symphonies by different composers listed by Neefe are the same as those attributed to Haydn in Luchesi's file? Or that the 10 symphonies listed by Neefe as by different composers are those attributed to Mozart in Luchesi's file? Why would Luchesi list works that Neefe had already listed? Surely it made more sense to simply continure where Neefe left off on May 8th 1784?

Now if Luchesi's file was for his own private records, how did it end up in Modena? Why was it in the Bonn archives at all? Why did Luchesi list Haydn and Mozart as the composer of these works in his own private file, if he had written them? Why were the works themselves first placed in the Bonn archives if they were part of a secret plot? How come if this file is so accurate there is no mention of Beethoven's 2 Imperial Cantatas regardless of who you think wrote them?

With regard to Haydn's 7 last words, can you tell us exactly how the parts are listed in the Neefe 1784 Inventory.

How does your comment "The likelihood is that the G Minor, KV550, was obtained by Mozart from Luchesi and was written for Mozart around the summer of 1783" square with Taboga's statement that it was from 1784 onwards that Luchesi wrote for Mozart?

Concerning the manusripts - you have suggested that Mozart arranged the works 'written for him'. So are the copies in Modena the same as Mozart's or are they different? If they are the same, then are you suggesting Mozart sent his rearranged copies back to Bonn and they were then copied out again?

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



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

[robert newman]

Peter,

You are quite right that the catalogue C53.1 from Bonn (now at Modena) is puzzling in more than a few respects. We know it was drawn up after the inventory of 1784 by the Kapellmeister (who was of course responsible for musical material and acquisitions of the Bonn Chapel). We know it was consulted from time to time by the Elector. Luchesi's nvolvement in C.53.1 is not in doubt – it is of course logical and can be easily proved – e.g. by two handwritten notes on page 103 of that document, the first dated 4th January 1787 (of which I have a photocopy) and the second of 3rd June the same year (of which I also have a photocopy). Handwriting of those notes has been shown beyond reasonable doubt by comparison with that found in various letters of Luchesi held at the Civic Library of Udine and other places. There are written entries in C53.1 by other hands, for sure.

That catalogue is certainly maintained up to the year 1791 (and even, perhaps up until the beginning of 1793) as is the list of ‘Joseph Haydn’ symphonies contained within it up to Hob.92 (which we know was published in Haydn’s name during 1790) and of course it contains reference to 3 of 5 works by the young Beethoven which we know Haydn sent to Max Franz from Vienna on 23rd November 1793, trying to pass them off to the Elector as all having been written in Vienna. (Reference to these three Beethoven works show Beethoven had concluded his studies with Luchesi and that Luchesi considered them worthy of being included within the music archives of Bonn even before Beethoven went to Vienna with Haydn in November 1792). So we are quite sure C.53.1 was a catalogue in use at Bonn right up to around the time of closure of the chapel.

Having said this, yes, there are puzzles about catalogue C.53.1 There are no ‘anonymous’ symphonies there, for example. The catalogue is divided, alphabetically according to named composers.

But, as to your fair and reasonable question why we assume works said by the 1784 inventory to be ‘anonymous’ or ‘by different authors’ should (other than for numerical reasons) be made to correspond with those found today at Modena in Haydn and Mozart’s names. Or why it should do so to a degree that makes the theory compelling. This crucial question (and its answer) is obtained only by study of the characteristics of each piece now at Modena – many of them containing indications in pen of attempts to number them at various times in their history. Others have had covers deliberately ripped off or mutilated so that information once available on them has been deliberately lost. In other cases watermarks have shown their origin. Sometimes a combination of both.

For example, watermarks on ‘Haydn’ symphonies now at Modena is a further remarkable evidence of their true (Luchesi) origin in the following –

Hob.13 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D-142), Hob.31 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D-143, Hob.35 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D-144), Hob.22 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D.145), Hob.70 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D-147), Hob.22 -other copy (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D-149), Hob.28 (catalogued at Modena as Mus-D-154) etc. - all written on Venetian paper and corresponding to the years 1763-5 when Luchesi was living in Venice. (These works most probably came to Bonn with Luchesi himself in 1771).

I do not think that anyone (least of all Taboga) is claiming a precise ‘fit’ in reconciling the Bonn material with that now at Modena. But there exists (on all sorts of grounds, a compelling case for saying that in respect of many works these came from the Bonn chapel and were not, in the 1784 inventory, attributed to either Haydn or Mozart despite now, at Modena and elsewhere ‘officially’ being so).

Other remarkable correlations include a whole series of ‘Haydn’ symphonies on paper with watermarks known to have been commonly used at Bonn (Hob.75, Hob.42, Hob.74, Hob.50, Hob.55, Hob.24, Hob.44, Hob.71 etc).

So the ‘7 Last Words’ is just a small part of a very large case. By itself it can be argued about. But seen within the overall context of ‘Haydn’ material it is not exceptional. There is, though, the puzzle of why this piece should ever, at Bonn, have had ‘Haydn’s’ name on it if the aim was to keep it privately for Haydn. One can only suppose that it was purchased by Haydn prior to 1784 (perhaps as early as 1782) so that it became available for Haydn in 1787. That is, that it was earmarked for Haydn by its composer in Bonn till it was released in 1787 – 3 years after the inventory.

The same 5 year system appears to have been in operation with various ‘Mozart’ works, at least with those to which Bonn has a connection.

Hope this helps.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hope this helps.

Well to an extent it helps, though much is repetition of earlier points. I don't doubt the files but I do question the interpretation - it is here that the real debate lies and as I've mentioned before it is impossible for me or others to take this further as we don't have access to the documents, nor do we have the expertise to analyse them. As to the manuscripts, well aren't we dealing with copies at Bonn, not autographs? So what is so strange about the watermarks? Copies made on older manuscript prove nothing. Even with autographs surely the fires at Eisenstadt which destroyed many Haydn autographs would explain later copies?

As to the 5 year system, all I can say is Haydn would have been taking an enormous gamble that he would live that long at his age!

You haven't addressed several points - why are the Beethoven cantatas absent from the Luchesi file? How did Luchesi's private file come to be at Modena - surely works written for this deception should never have even been in the Bonn Library? How could such a thing have been maintained without anyone noticing when it was so openly displayed?

I cannot accept your conclusion about Beethoven as Luchesi's pupil - there simply is no evidence other than your assertion that it was the kapellmeister's duty, the same and only argument you had that he was the composer of the cantatas. Try to look at it fairly without that and consider the circumstantial evidence which you claimed in an earlier post could be so telling:
Is it not extraordinary that not one contemporary reference exists to back your claim? Is it not extraordinary that Beethoven never mentioned Luchesi - the man Taboga claims Beethoven owed more to than any other, yet he praises Neefe? Is it not extraordinary that Beethoven should arrive in Vienna deficient in strict counterpoint? Is it not extraordinary that Beethoven should have been sent first to Mozart, then Haydn to study if your claims about these men were true?

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



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

[robert newman]

It’s true I have repeated earlier points. I've little time free to write a great deal more.

Even if the highly convenient fire at Eisenstadt destroyed many of Haydn’s works they certainly did not do so for works supposedly composed after November 1779. A post on that subject alone (of the content of Haydn’s autographs) would show just how absurd the situation with them really is.
The relevance of watermarks is, of course, that they can often tell us in which area of Europe autographs/copies were made. It just so happens early symphonies by ‘Haydn’ include a group written on paper that was in use during the years Luchesi was himself in Venice. Still another coincidence of so many.

You ask why the ‘Beethoven cantatas’ are absent from the Luchesi file. (I assume you are talking here of Catalogue C.53.1 ?) Good question. One reason could be these ‘Beethoven cantatas’ were never written for the Bonn chapel and were never offered to it.
As to why works written for this deception should have been in the Bonn Library, well, of course, Luchesi had no way of knowing, during his stay in Italy, that the Elector of Bonn would die. Nor that he would need to rush back for the succession of the new Elector Max Franz. But there is a work in Bonn inventoried in 1784, ‘The 7 Last Words’, at Modena today - the orchestral parts from Bonn of that same work.

You repeat that you cannot accept my assertion (and that of others) that Beethoven was Luchesi’s pupil. You say there is no evidence other than ‘assertion’ that he was so. Well, of course, Peter, you and I have spoken on this before. It is self-evidently true that the true teacher of a student at Bonn chapel was principally the Kapellmeister and not others who, undoubtedly, assisted in that process. If you grant Luchesi with nothing in this respect over virtually a decade(which is of course the way it has always been portrayed) I think you are being disingenuous. Had you suggested this in the late 18th century I think people would see it as slightly amusing. It was standard practice for teaching to be the responsibility of the Kapellmeister and not standard practice otherwise. Even brief reference in Beethoven textbooks to the (missing) cantata on the death of George Cressner refers to Luchesi 'correcting' the work which (allegedly) the teenager composed. Is that not true ? It is also Luchesi who has authority over Catalogue C.53.1 and who, beyond reasonable doubt, had responsibility for acquisitions and attributions at Bonn chapel – again, something we reasonably assume he did. It would be unreasonable to assume otherwise, I suggest. And C.53.1 does record and attribute to Beethoven 3 works. So I think it can hardly be denied Luchesi does regard Beethoven, even at Bonn, as having composed music worthy of admission in to the archives of Bonn.

Yes, I agree it's extraordinary, even bizarre, that Beethoven (in the material we have of him and by him) never once mentions Kapellmeister Luchesi. Had he done so a few times we might view this matter with rather less suspicion, perhaps ?

Whether it is extraordinary that Beethoven should arrive in Vienna deficient in strict counterpoint begs the question (I suggest) whether, at that time (1792) strict counterpoint was what it had certainly been during, say, the youth of Haydn, his supposed 'teacher'. (Ah yes, the true teacher of Beethoven - isn't it funny how Haydn is credited and yet not the Kappellmeister under whom Beethoven had just finished at Bonn for that 10 years ?). But we know for sure that Beethoven had, before he left Bonn, become proficient in Bach’s 48 Preludes and Fugues and had access to various theoretical works besides that of Fux. He praises Neefe. Fine. Neefe helped, for sure. All the more mysterious why there is not a single reference to Luchesi. The Luchesi who (though you never once acknowledge or comment on it) had published his set of (Op.1) sonatas at Bonn remarkable for their recognised anticipation of Beethoven, though written virtually a decade before Beethoven first composed anything. Is that alone not indicative of Luchesi having had major impact on the young Beethoven ? Let's gloss over that too if you want. So we have several lines of evidence suggesting Luchesi was of major significance to the young Beethoven’s musical education, none of them wild or exaggerated. All of them fair and reasonable. Yet the records are silent. It is indeed very odd.

Perhaps some of the lost conversation books dealt with questions raised on Beethoven’s early career (?). Perhaps we shall never know. As far as Beethoven having been first sent to Mozart and then to Haydn to study (in Vienna) is concerned, yes, but the young Beethoven was, as mentioned several times, nurtured by ‘establishment’ figures and it was not unusual he should therefore have come ‘under the wing of both Mozart and Haydn’, that he should have enjoyed patronage enjoyed by both Mozart and Haydn, until, that is, he found his own way and was more in control of his own destiny. Such a thing is not too surprising. (Incidentally, the anecdote that he studied with Mozart is strangely lacking in real evidence. At best, it seems he saw Mozart only once, at that briefly). So, if Beethoven was supposed to have been a ‘student’ of Mozart it’s feeble evidence isn’t it ? I personally think Beethoven would almost certainly have seen Mozart. But the contact between them would have been minimal. Beethoven would have regarded him only as a good pianist, and even then there's no great evidence he (Beethoven)thought of him as a musical genius during those years. (Do you know the source of the anecdote that they met and that Mozart said 'Watch him - he will make a noise in the world' etc. ? Does Beethoven clearly speak of their meeting ? And from what source does the anecdote of their meeting first come ?

In later years Beethoven was to be presented with published works of ‘Mozart’ and was educated to believe a great many things of the late Mozart – many of them frankly exaggerated and biased. But that was after Mozart’s death, hardly before.

Beethoven came from provincial Bonn. He would have known little of the politics and intrigues of Vienna. And I doubt he was aware of what was really going on as far as Mozart’s reputation was concerned. Huge numbers of ‘Mozart’ works were not even published – 1 symphony in his entire lifetime, for example, the ‘Paris’. Virtually no concertos. The posthumous reputation of Mozart, certainly in meteoric ascendancy during Beethoven’s maturity in Vienna, was relentlessly pushed by those busy creating his modern status. Beethoven, again, had little reason to doubt it’s validity.

Regards



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

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

It’s true I have repeated earlier points. I've little time free to write a great deal more.

Even if the highly convenient fire at Eisenstadt destroyed many of Haydn’s works they certainly did not do so for works supposedly composed after November 1779. A post on that subject alone (of the content of Haydn’s autographs) would show just how absurd the situation with them really is.
The relevance of watermarks is, of course, that they can often tell us in which area of Europe autographs/copies were made. It just so happens early symphonies by ‘Haydn’ include a group written on paper that was in use during the years Luchesi was himself in Venice. Still another coincidence of so many.

What is convenient about the Eisenstadt fires? Don't you mean it is inconvenient as it counters one of your arguments? Luchesi presumably wasn't the only musician to visit Venice? This is another example of taking something out of context and fitting it into the jigsaw simply to further the conclusion already reached.

You ask why the ‘Beethoven cantatas’ are absent from the Luchesi file. (I assume you are talking here of Catalogue C.53.1 ?) Good question. One reason could be these ‘Beethoven cantatas’ were never written for the Bonn chapel and were never offered to it.

Oh really, so all the works listed at Bonn were written specificaly for Bonn were they?

As to why works written for this deception should have been in the Bonn Library, well, of course, Luchesi had no way of knowing, during his stay in Italy, that the Elector of Bonn would die. Nor that he would need to rush back for the succession of the new Elector Max Franz. But there is a work in Bonn inventoried in 1784, ‘The 7 Last Words’, at Modena today - the orchestral parts from Bonn of that same work.

That explains nothing as Luchesi began his file after his return from Italy and maintained it probably up until 1794 - why was this file in the Bonn archives and not Luchesi's private possession as he didn't flee Bonn in 1794, but remained until his death in 1801?

You repeat that you cannot accept my assertion (and that of others) that Beethoven was Luchesi’s pupil. You say there is no evidence other than ‘assertion’ that he was so. Well, of course, Peter, you and I have spoken on this before. It is self-evidently true that the true teacher of a student at Bonn chapel was principally the Kapellmeister and not others who, undoubtedly, assisted in that process. If you grant Luchesi with nothing in this respect over virtually a decade(which is of course the way it has always been portrayed) I think you are being disingenuous. Had you suggested this in the late 18th century I think people would see it as slightly amusing. It was standard practice for teaching to be the responsibility of the Kapellmeister and not standard practice otherwise. Even brief reference in Beethoven textbooks to the (missing) cantata on the death of George Cressner refers to Luchesi 'correcting' the work which (allegedly) the teenager composed. Is that not true ? It is also Luchesi who has authority over Catalogue C.53.1 and who, beyond reasonable doubt, had responsibility for acquisitions and attributions at Bonn chapel – again, something we reasonably assume he did. It would be unreasonable to assume otherwise, I suggest. And C.53.1 does record and attribute to Beethoven 3 works. So I think it can hardly be denied Luchesi does regard Beethoven, even at Bonn, as having composed music worthy of admission in to the archives of Bonn.

The mere fact that C.53.1 only records 3 Beethoven works, omits the 2 cantatas, shows the total unreliabilty of this source. I accept the possibility that Luchesi may at some stage have given lesons to Beethoven - it is not proven by your assertion that it was the kapellmeister's duty, nor can you conclude the length of time any studies may have lasted. Had he been such a major teaching influence on Beethoven, I feel certain we would have some references in contemporary writings. Why doesn't Neefe give credit to Luchesi in Cramer's journal? Surely his article should include "I am at present instructing the pupil of Kapellmeister Luchesi in his absence"?

You also have to explain how the 'teacher' Luchesi was astonished at Beethoven's progress in 1785 when he heard him play publicly?

If it were always the Kapellmeister's duty, why was Mozart instructed by the vice-kapellmeister - his father? In any case you stated that Haydn and Mozart were largely self taught, yet in Beethoven's case it had to be Luchesi!


Whether it is extraordinary that Beethoven should arrive in Vienna deficient in strict counterpoint begs the question (I suggest) whether, at that time (1792) strict counterpoint was what it had certainly been during, say, the youth of Haydn, his supposed 'teacher'. (Ah yes, the true teacher of Beethoven - isn't it funny how Haydn is credited and yet not the Kappellmeister under whom Beethoven had just finished at Bonn for that 10 years ?). But we know for sure that Beethoven had, before he left Bonn, become proficient in Bach’s 48 Preludes and Fugues and had access to various theoretical works besides that of Fux. He praises Neefe. Fine. Neefe helped, for sure. All the more mysterious why there is not a single reference to Luchesi. The Luchesi who (though you never once acknowledge or comment on it) had published his set of (Op.1) sonatas at Bonn remarkable for their recognised anticipation of Beethoven, though written virtually a decade before Beethoven first composed anything. Is that alone not indicative of Luchesi having had major impact on the young Beethoven ? Let's gloss over that too if you want. So we have several lines of evidence suggesting Luchesi was of major significance to the young Beethoven’s musical education, none of them wild or exaggerated. All of them fair and reasonable. Yet the records are silent. It is indeed very odd.

You go on about Luchesi's op.1 without mentioning yourself the influence of C.P.E.Bach - this is where the true influence on the music of the 1760' and 70's was coming from. Haydn has never been credited as Beethoven's teacher in the sense you imply - the story behind that is so well known that I'm surprised you mention it in your defence! The reason Beethoven was deficient in strict counterpoint was simply because Neefe himself was deficient in this area , a fact he acknowledged. Luchesi by contrast was not. From wikipedia "His knowledge of musical theory was enhanced by the didactic and artistic relationship he had (until his departure from Venice) with two of the most advanced theorists of that time, Padre Francesco Antonio Vallotti (a Franciscan, encoder of the Theory of dissonance) and count Giordano Riccati (a mathematician, acoustics physicist, architect, author of an essay on the laws of counterpoint)"

So why did Beethoven have to go to Schenk and Albrechtsberger? What was Luchesi teaching him? Yes you are right, Neefe helped! By introducing Beethoven to Bach's 48 which Luchesi failed to do, he has far more right to the title of teacher.

Beethoven would have regarded him only as a good pianist, and even then there's no great evidence he (Beethoven)thought of him as a musical genius during those years. (Do you know the source of the anecdote that they met and that Mozart said 'Watch him - he will make a noise in the world' etc. ? Does Beethoven clearly speak of their meeting ? And from what source does the anecdote of their meeting first come ?

I think the sources are Czerny and Ries. Actually Beethoven was not impressed by Mozart's playing which he regarded as 'choppy'. Your assertion that he would not have thought of Mozart as a great composer is ludicrous considering that Max Franz was a great admirer!


Beethoven came from provincial Bonn. He would have known little of the politics and intrigues of Vienna. And I doubt he was aware of what was really going on as far as Mozart’s reputation was concerned.

So all of a sudden you describe Bonn as provincial when it suits you! Previously it was 2nd only in importance to Vienna! So we are to believe that Luchesi was his teacher for all those years at Bonn and Beethoven was totaly unaware of what was going on? All the 'faked' works were in the Bonn library, Beethoven was in the orchestra and he didn't know? That is absurd.


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-10-2006).]

[Joy]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

Professor Newman,

I may be an idiot for asking this (spaghetti brains, no less?)

S. B. Sorrano

You are definitely NOT a spaghetti brain, Ha!



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

[Joy]

Well, after being gone for a while, I see all is the same here!

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

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
... not Joseph Haydn (doing so in co-operation with the Kapellmeister of Passau, Karl Friberth.

You should really try to improve you sources. The Kapellmeister in Passau was Joseph Friberth, Karl's elder brother.

[robert newman]

Peter, I respect you defending the established version of Beethoven’s early life and career. I understand why I and others can be seen as ignoring it or trying to undermine it. I appreciate you saying the alternative is based on little more than circumstantial evidence, conjecture or fortuitous coincidence though I strongly disagree. But I think a bigger picture is developing. One based not on anecdote or any one point but on accumulated, fair and reasonable appeal to all sorts of evidence – much of it marginalised, ignored, or (in some cases) deliberately ‘sanitised’.

As a student of Beethoven you’re aware of how stories/fabricated reputations/omissions etc. have even affected Beethoven studies. There are available 3 lengthy publications on Beethoven in Vienna by men who actually knew him. (Anton Schindler’s has turned out to be full of deliberate fabrications based on conscious forgeries in presenting itself as the work of the composer’s longstanding friend). But how many works on Beethoven drew from it? Even with Ferdinand Reis there are still unresolved questions such as when, exactly, he first arrived in Vienna. And so on. In Thayer (the ‘bible’ of so many students and later writers on Beethoven’s life) we have, I believe, deliberate attempts to expunge from the record Beethoven’s early musical education at Bonn and to downplay the significance of Kapellmeister Luchesi. A precedent repeated over and over in the Beethoven in the later 19th century and throughout most of the 20th century Beethoven literature. Loss of various ‘conversation books’ of Beethoven can also be mentioned. What accounts for their destruction ? They may well have helped us on Beethoven’s early life at Bonn – a life, after all, which till recent times has been agreed as poorly documented and on which, today, there are still major questions.
Thayer and others gloss over Kapellmeister Luchesi and wholly ignore the certain fact that he was in charge of music production and music teaching. That makes it a subject of controversy if the subject happens to involve Ludwig van Beethoven. Thayer actually says little about Beethoven’s Bonn career. When evidence is shown of the fairness and reasonableness of the contrary view – that Luchesi was, in fact, Beethoven’s first and principal teacher – this argued on grounds that I think are fair and reasonable what is the reaction ?

Honest, the main issue is not so much that Beethoven was taught by Luchesi. That’s a fascinating and important thing for Beethoven students to appreciate. Even you agree he (Luchesi) may have been a teacher. But the main issue (the one that is not really directly related to Beethoven) is that Luchesi can be shown to have been involved in the manufacture and distribution of music written by others but used to falsify the musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart). It is this which, I believe, explains why Thayer and others had to keep Luchesi hidden from view. It, more than anything, explains a great deal. It makes it hard for us to appreciate the actual Bon situation. So it became tradition to regard Luchesi as little more than a competent composer, a person as grey and unimportant to the history of music as, say, any other little known composer. The protection of the careers of the iconic Haydn and Mozart was the real reason and it’s only incidentally why he, Luchesi, is not a standard part of Beethoven biography.
You credit Beethoven with composing WoO87 and WoO88 while at Bonn and yet in the same breath,you describe him as being lacking in musical knowledge at the time when he arrives in Vienna. In ‘strict counterpoint’. Peter, may I mention in passing that Franz Schubert in the last years of his life was still studying counterpoint. But ‘strict counterpoint’ was beyond Haydn – that you already agree about. Isn’t THAT fact revealing of just how loaded this picture is ?
Haydn invited Beethoven to Vienna, though, in fact, he taught him nothing. Nobody makes a big issue of that fact. Is it not strange? Why did he invite him in the first place ? And yet ‘Haydn is Beethoven’s teacher’. It sounds far safer than to point out Luchesi had been Beethoven’s teacher for a decade before he ever got there. But we must not say so – that is to challenge convention. Though it is entirely fair and reasonable. Though others helped him. For the record is sanitised – and with reasons that require explanation. That’s my position.
In saying that the fire at Einenstadt was ‘convenient’ I am saying that it obscures the truth of Haydn’s musical output up until that time. An output that had been largely faked. The fire began in a ballroom some days before a wedding was to be celebrated. It is said that it was caused by fires being knocked over.
Now Peter, can you imagine a person knocking over a lit coal fire ? Let alone several ? Without them even knowing about it ? And for that coal to have been the cause of that destruction ? Can you imagine in your mind’s eye such a thing actually occurring ? Please describe how that is feasible ? And several of them, so that a harpsichord of Haydn and many, many manuscripts were destroyed ? In November 1779. That a fire occurred at that time is not disputed. But that this explanation would satisfy, say, an insurance investigator, well, I very much doubt it. Manuscripts were destroyed by fire. Yes. But in suspicious circumstances.
I did not say all works listed at Bonn were specifically written for Bonn. That would be absurd. I said (I suggested) the cantatas of Beethoven were not written for the Bonn chapel. In fact, if they were performed at Frankfurt am Main (which is an open question) they would not have been in Bonn’s archives anyway. And I have said these works by Beethoven were his own, private, works. The archives at Bonn contained many works that came there as acquisitions. That is clear. They also contained some works composed by members of the Bonn chapel, as is clearly indicated by the inventory of 1784 and by entries, for example, of 3 Beethoven works in Catalogue C53.1.
You ask why C.53.1 was in the Bonn archives and not in Luchesi’s private possession. Peter, C.53.1 was a document of the Bonn chapel. It was not a private document. It was a document begun after the inventory of 1784. It, together with the archives themselves, was removed from Bonn after the closure of the chapel. There is nothing unusual about that. But C53.1 is unusual in attributing to named composers works that, on closer investigation turn out (in the case of Haydn and Mozart) were not theirs. They ‘became’ Haydn and Mozart’s in C.53.1 – or at least many of them became so.
I have no difficulty accepting that Neefe taught Beethoven.
You say I must explain how Luchesi was ‘astonished’ at Beethoven’s progress in 1785 when he heard him play publicly. Well Peter, let us be reasonable. Are you saying that Luchesi had been at Bonn as Kapellmeister for 14 years (since 1771) and suddenly, in 1785, was astonished by Beethoven ? How absurd – since Luchesi knew of Beethoven more than virtually anyone in Vienna. He was his Kapellmeister !!! You see how these records are ‘bent’ to give such a false impression ? How could Luchesi, reasonably, have been ‘astonished’. It’s astonishing if you can consider this and still believe it. Perhaps you are the one who owes us an explanation here ?

You ask if it was always the Kapellmeister’s duty to teach music students why Mozart was instructed by Leopold, his father. Well, the answer is surely obvious. His father had cultivated (or at least overseen) Mozart’s career, personally, from the time when he was virtually an infant.

I did NOT state that Haydn and Mozart were largely self-taught. I have argued the very opposite. I have said that Beethoven, logically and in fact was taught, by the Kapellmeister. But popular myth obscures this and it tends to present us with a black hole, as is the case with Mozart. For Mozart, according to popular myth, had no real intensive period of study at any time in his entire life, with the exception of some months in Italy with Padre Martini. It is the ‘genius’ of Mozart that he, lacking any formal academic study of any kind, is nevertheless said to have composed some 20 symphonies etc etc without any such formal education. A claim so preposterous that it begs the question of whether these works were actually written by him. They were not. Nor did Mozart undergo a musical education nearly as comprehensive and dedicated as that taken by Beethoven. It is Beethoven who was the true musical genius, having undergone study under Luchesi, one of the leading musicians of his time, and having also been supplemented in that musical education by Neefe and others,
Far from undermining Beethoven this is saying that he, as an undoubted musical genius, DID undergo study in great detail at Bonn. Unlike Mozart for which there is virtually no evidence of him having done the same.
Yes, I go on about Luchesi’s Op.1
I agree that CPE Bach was a great influence on musicians during the 1760’s and 1770’s. I do not dispute it. But so was the music of JS Bach – a composer that you agree Beethoven knew. The young Beethoven had various influences. Sure.

You ask why Beethoven went to Schenk and Albrechstberger. Easy. He was being ‘nurtured’ by his patrons of the Vienna musical establishment. They needed to give the impression that he, Beethoven, was learning a great deal from them. In fact Beethoven went along with them for a while as we know. It was largely cosmetic and gives us a picture of Beethoven’s musical education that conceals the reality. The same way that ‘Haydn, Beethoven’s teacher’ conceals the reality. In truth, Beethoven was a finished music student who put up with this for a while. It gave the ‘establishment’ reason to claim that they taught him etc etc.
Luchesi taught Beethoven according to the theories that he himself learned in Italy. The influence of Bach (most probably from Neefe) came as a revelation to him. Yet another influence on him. So all these influences on Beethoven were part of his musical education. For him to be portrayed as lacking is, frankly, disingenuous. He was lacking in ‘strict counterpoint’ of the kind that, in 1792 was of little significance to Beethoven anyway.
What evidence have you that Beethoven studied as a pupil under Mozart ? I think you have none. Yet countless books on Beethoven describe that ‘teaching’ as lasting months. That is false. There is not a shred of evidence for it. Mozart (as previously said) would not have dared to teach the young Beethoven. But the myth persists.
If Beethoven was taught that Mozart was a great composer he would naturally have believed it. But he himself saw no evidence of such greatness. They met, perhaps, once.
In saying that Beethoven came from ‘provincial Bonn’ I was of course referring to the fact that he came from a city whose population were largely ignorant of the politics and machinations of Vienna. But in music, yes, Bonn was one of the great musical centres.

In saying that all the faked works were in the Bonn Library (something you say but I do not) I am really saying that in Luchesi’s absence works were there (no doubt under lock and key) which were attributed to Haydn in at least one case (The 7 Last Words) in which the composer is named – showing, I think, it had been paid for by Haydn prior to 1784. But others had no name inscribed on them and were catalogued in 1784 as ‘anonymous’ or as ‘by different authors’ etc.

I certainly do not assume that musicians at Bonn could just stroll in to the archives and take what they wanted. In fact I assume the opposite. Not even during the period when Luchesi was in Italy.

Regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-10-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Cetto,

You are quite right. My sources say of Karl Friberth (1736-1816) that he was a student of Gassmann in Vienna who, in 1759 joined the Esterhazy household under Joseph Haydn (for whom he wrote the libretto of 'L'incontro improviso'. He returned to Vienna as Kapellmeister to the Jesuits and Minorites in 1776 and was chiefly a composer of church music.

Yes, Joseph Friberth was, in fact, Karl's elder brother and Kapellmeister at Passau.

(I entirely agree that I should continually try to improve my sources. Thank you for this).

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Peter, I respect you defending the established version of Beethoven’s early life and career...

Rob with respect I have long stated that ideally contributors should focus their points into no more than 3 concise paragraphs at a time for this medium of communication. Did I not say at our last coffee morning re your documentary project, "focus on key fundamental points that you can easily illustrate"? In the past I have been content to write off your huge essays re Beethoven/Luchesi with a single short paragraph. Less is more!

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-11-2006).]

[Peter]

Robert I defend the status quo because you have not presented any evidence to the contrary. You mention Schindler as an example of how the truth can be distorted and I agree with you as do all scholars of Beethoven - for example the introduction to Gerhard Von Breuning's Aus dem Schwarzspanierhaus makes it quite clear that Breuning was mislead by Schindler. I have many times on this forum criticised Schindler for his tampering with the convesation books and goodness knows what else. No one doubts the unreliability of Schindler.

You keep saying it was a fact that Luchesi was Beethoven's teacher, but the only reference is the unreliable Maurer connection with the so-called Cressener cantata. I think you do Thayer a complete disservice in saying he glossed over Beethoven's Bonn years when the truth is quite simply little is known. Yes I do agree it is possible that Luchesi at some time gave lessons to Beethoven, maybe even probable, but it is NOT certain beyond doubt as you keep claiming.

I did not say that strict countepoint was beyond Haydn - I would simply say that he was not a good teacher, but then Beethoven was probably not an easy pupil or person to get along with either. There is absolutely no evidence to back your claims that Beethoven merely went along with his lessons with Schenk and Albrechtsberger for cosmetic reasons - you claimed Beethoven was unaware of all the intrigue and here you are placing him right in the middle of it, actually compliant with the plot! Can you provide a shred of evidence to back this claim?

So if C.53.1 was a document of the Bonn library, why would it list works already listed by Neefe? Would it not make more sense for it to be a continuation of Neefe's work rather than a repetition? This point is particularly valid and I think needs clarification.

The account of Luchesi being astonished in 1785 comes from Franz Ries and refers to a specific event when Max Franz was displeased with Beethoven for some musical prank.

I like the way you excuse Mozart not being taught by the Kapellmeister - in your own words, very convenient!!

Can you give me the name of ONE of 'the countless books' that describes Beethoven as having been Mozart's pupil for months? You claim Beethoven saw no evidence of Mozart as a great composer - so are you saying none of Mozart's music was performed in Bonn prior to 1787?

You say that musicians couldn't just stroll into the archives and look at what was there, possibly not I don't know - but of course Neefe had to, as did those who helped in compiling the inventory. Are you also suggesting that these works sat in the library unperformed by the orchestra? None of this explains why if Luchesi were writing music to be sold on at a later date it was placed in the Bonn library in the first place.

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

[robert newman]

OK Peter, Luchesi was the pupil of Beethoven. This explains the sontatas published at Bonn Op.1 whose style and content so strikingly anticipate those Beethoven also wrote years later. And Beethoven is still teaching Luchesi years later when, according to one source at least, correcting is going on of a cantata for George Cressner. So it wasn't Luchesi correcting Beethoven but vice versa. It was of course part of Beethoven's task to teach music at Bonn - and Luchesi was a willing pupil. It was Beethoven's duty to write 2 cantatas for state at the death of Joseph and the accession of Leopold. Not Luchesi (who was merely Beethoven's pupil).
Etc. etc ! Luchesi knew so little of music that he is not recorded as having written a single musical work of note during his 20 years or so as Kapellmeister at Bonn. He was no more than a second rate pupil of Beethoven. And he became a student within months of Beethoven's birth, in 1770. How else is one to explain it ?

[robert newman]

Luchesi being astonished with Beethoven in Bonn. What evidence do you have that they actually met ? It would be better for us to believe Luchesi never existed. Oops - well, isn't this already the establishment view. He, Luchesi, is nobody. He taught nothing. He wrote nothing. Virtually nothing is known of him and nobody turned up at his funeral, though he married in Bonn and died in Bonn more than 20 years later, as Kapellmeister. That is one of the most astonishing careers in the entire history of music.

Yes, of course he must have been astonished by Beethoven. For, according to you, he was never teaching anyone. It is not proved he did so. Therefore we are fools to assume otherwise.

What a universe !

[Rod]

Even less than three. That's more like it Rob!


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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-10-2006).]