Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 392
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: The Controversy over the true musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart

  1. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Hexameron,

    Well, I am more than happy to discuss invididual works if I can first set out the general overview of the situation. As far as symphonies are concerned musicologists agree that of the first 22 or so 'Mozart' symphonies virtually none of them support their automatic attribution to Mozart. In other cases the dates have been falsified (as has been shown by detailed study). The Clarinet Concerto KV622 does not even have a manuscript and early references to it say that it was not written by Mozart at all. As for the late symphonies (e.g. 39,40, and 41) these are claimed (traditionally) to have been composed by him in 6 weeks during the summer of 1788. In point of fact none of them are by Mozart as can be shown if a special discussion was to be made of them. Mozart did not even keep a thematic catalogue until 1784 - the very year when his musical output suddenly receives a quantum boost in terms of his (supposed) compositions. Hardly surprising - this is the same year when Luchesi (now Kapellmeister at Bonn and the employee of Max Franz in Bonn) starts supply a stream of compositions to Mozart which Mozart enters in to his thematic catalogue as his. The only 'deal' was that a work had to be 5 years old before Mozart would claim it as his. (Thus, these 3 symphonies were actually composed in around 1783, though Mozart claims them as his in the summer of 1788).

    Chamber music we could discuss also separately. The score of the 'Magic Flute' was in the hands of Luchesi even before its first performance in Vienna - a fact confirmed by the Bonn publisher Simrock and recorded in 'La Jeunnese de Beethoven' by Prodhomme.

    On Mozart's death his widow Constanze had meetings with the tenor at Bonn (in Vienna) and the letter still survives. The 'arrangement' was concealed for all time (supposedly) and Luchesi (whose works have entirely disappeared for the 20 years he was Kapellmeister at Bonn) is not attributed with the very works he sold to Mozart. The same was happening with Haydn in his later years. In fact, Haydn stopped off in Bonn to receive his London symphonies, from Luchesi.

    The '7 Last Words' of Haydn was in actual fact a work by Luchesi and was composed years before Haydn claimed to have composed it. (It' s refered to by name in the Bonn inventory of 1784).

    As for the piano concertos, these all came via Salzburg to Mozart. Of this there is simply not doubt. Nannerl Mozart (at least as accomplished a pianist as Mozart himself) has never received the credit for what she, beyond reasonable doubt, provided to the fame of her far more celebrated brother in Vienna).

    And just who DID commission the last 3 symphonies of Mozart. Nobody at all.

    The set of 6 quartets by 'Mozart' dedicated to Haydn were, in point of fact, not by Mozart.

    But we can discuss all of these things at length once we have agreed about the scale and context of such a discussion. That Mozart's father was involved in grossly exaggerating the supposed compositional achievements of his son (in his childhood and in his youth) is, to my view, beyond question. That Mozart was accused of blatant falsehood in his works (e.g. in his supposed writing of 'La Finta Semplice' and other works such as 'Idomeneo' is also a plain fact.

    So, in a short email, may I say that all these issues are well within our ability to discuss - and why not ?

    Regards

  2. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Dear Hexameron,

    The 5 Violin Concertos (or is it 8 ??) were not by Mozart. If you consult 'Groves' you will see that J. Myslivececk (colleague and 'helper' of Mozart) was the most celebrated composer of violin concertos in Europe. It was he who supplied them to Mozart - and yet Myslivecek died in poverty and obscurity in Rome. Run a quick search engine on Mysliveck/Mozart and you will no doubt have further clues to the one-sided nature of their musical relationship. The career of Mozart was manufactured.

    Regards

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Robert


    Thanks for your reply.

    When I said that I was “of course” familiar with the Wikepedia reference I meant that I had looked at that source before replying to you, as that seemed to be the sensible thing to do. I was not suggesting that my knowledge in this area was any more long-standing than that. Indeed, I had not heard about it except only very vaguely from another source quite recently.

    From your reply, could I please ask you to list the most important works (say the top 5 but more if you like) which in your opinion:

    1. Mozart definitely did write, with at least 95% certainty.

    2. Although credited to Mozart, you consider are definitely not by Mozart, with at least 95% certainty, together with the names of the genuine composer, if not Luchesi.

    3. Although credited to Mozart, you aren’t sure either way whether Mozart was the genuine composer but he might not be, with 40-60% probability, again listing the names of the genuine composer.

    4. Luchesi wrote which are conventionally credited to Luchesi.

    In respect of categories 2 and 3, can you please describe any strictly musicological evidence - in terms of music analysis, style, composition, technique etc - which you may have to support these allegations? Would you be prepared to furnish details of this evidence for independent assessment by a panel of recognized experts drawn from well-established, reputable musicology departments? If so, and if they firmly rejected your arguments on musicological grounds, would you cease to believe your allegations, or would you still adhere to your beliefs based solely on the other evidence you believe you have collected?

    In respect of category 4, how would you react if a panel of musicology experts concluded that the works are significantly different - in the sense of being unlikely to have been penned by the same hand - from those they regard as genuine Mozart.

    I see that you are preparing for a two 2 part televised documentary on the 'Real life and work of Mozart'. If you manage to pull this off on a major TV network (would it be a UK network?) it should stimulate a much better public debate on the issues than the very limited exposure hitherto. Can you give any idea of the likely future timescale of this documentary? Are you planning a book in advance of such a programme, and if so you can you indicate when this is likely to appear? If not a book, can you say whether you envisage producing any further preparatory learned articles on this subject, and if so in which publication(s) they might appear?

    These inquiries in no way indicate that I accept any of your allegations. They are solely aimed at eliciting further information. I trust you will appreciate that these queries are merely examples of the kind of questions - there could be many others - you will very likely face at some stage in the future if you really do plan to pursue your endeavours as far as you indicate.

    Regards


    Topaz
    Last edited by Topaz; Nov-06-2006 at 22:30.

  4. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Topaz,

    Thanks for your reply.

    You explanation for saying 'of course' is fine enough though I trust you will agree that it needed clarification - so thanks for that.

    In reply to your suggestion that I provide a list of 'Mozart' works that fall in to categories that can be judged fairly on this issue by the way you suggest, I must decline. First, you will surely agree that we would not be, in such a situation, measuring relative salinity of water or, say, the sugar content of a bar of chocolate (things on which we are able to be extremely accurate) but would be (if your method was to be accepted) reliant on the opinions of musicians whose subjective opinion would be, by definition, little more than their own personal view. Would it not be better if such matters were resolved by a more fair, straightforward and scientific method ?

    You certainly raise a very interesting point - that of 'Mozart's style'. But so universally known is 'Mozart's style' that it would surely work against your suggested method also. We think a work is 'Mozart' because it has certain stylistic characteristics - but the devil is in the detail of proving that such a work is by Mozart. (The same is true of composers as a whole). Add to this the fact that quite a few composers of the 18th century wrote in remarkably 'Mozartean' style though they are far less well known than W.A. Mozart. The minuets of Michael Haydn, for example, remain stubbornly in the Koechel catalogue as works by Mozart, but they were not written by him at all. In addition, the form of the work in question is surely important - what of opera seria, for example. Is 'Mozartean style' more prominent in, say, 'Idomeneo' and in 'La Clemenza di Tito' than in, say, the one act singspiel, 'The Impressario' ?

    Finally, what are we to make of perhaps the most striking similarity of all - the music of late Haydn and that of late Mozart - this so often commented on that it used to be a joke in 19th century Vienna that on Monday Mozart wrote like Haydn and on Tuesday the opposite was true.

    I think it would a far fairer test if I was to suggest that internationally acclaimed musicologists study a series of works in manuscript (all traditionally attributed to Mozart) which, on documentary, watermark, and other evidence can be shown to have been composed beyond reasoanable doubt by composers other than Mozart. So that the arguments for and against traditional Mozartean attribution can be considered fairly by these same experts, bringing to bear ALL the evidence on which they can impartially arrive at their verdict.

    I can think of 10 candidates straight away. The 'Mozart' symphonies in manuscript at Estense Library, Modena, Italy as follows (Koechel number and Modena Reference Number) -

    KV 320 (E-55)
    KV 203 (E-158)
    KV 200 (E-154)
    KV 385 (E-159) 'Haffner'
    KV319 (E-161)
    KV201 (E-157)
    KV297 (E-160) 'Pariser'
    KV504 (E-162) 'Prager'
    KV551 (D-640) 'Jupiter'
    KV182 (E-156)

    These works were untouched at Modena until the mid-19th century (at which time they were catalogued for the first time). They are a part of the Bonn music archives which were removed from the music chapel at the time of the Napoleonic invasion of the Bonn area in 1794.

    We also have (still surviving) the manuscript of the 1784 Inventory held at Bonn (during a 1 year absence in Italy of the Kapellmeister) - an inventory poorly done by others - since it was normal practice to attribute unsigned music to the Kapellmeister as a matter of course. But this never happened.

    Yes, such a list of 10 'Mozart' works would seem to be an ideal test. These are, after all, traditionally 'Mozart' symphonies. He certainly claimed to be the composer of most of them. In fact, Mozart claims to have written the 'Jupiter' with two others (39 and 40) in that 6 week period during the summer of 1788, as you surely know.

    I have to hand hundreds of pages on this issue and could very easily produce dozens of other works if you prefer.

    So, yes, I think we can and should have expertise at hand on such questions. You may agree that the totality of the evidence should be presented for and against before the verdict is given (?).

    I would be happy to let you have more information on this issue if this subject is of interest, since it's only fair that you have to hand a detailed argument. Such material is now available in English though it would take me a week or so to put together. I could email it to you if you like - an essay on works falsely attributed to Mozart and Haydn.

    Regards









    Regards

    Robert

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Robert


    Thanks for the above.

    In reply, first let me be clear that I do not wish to be involved in any way in the development of your evidence. I am not trying to be “honest broker” or anything like that. I certainly do not have the resources to be able to disprove any of your allegations about discrepancies in watermarks etc. In addition, I most certainly do not intend to go off to libraries in Modena or elsewhere to do any primary research to validate or refute any of your arguments. Nor do I have any suggestions or contacts in the musicology profession.

    All I am doing is posing some questions about the evidence you have presented so far from a critical perspective so that I, and possibly others reading these exchanges, may have an improved understanding of what it amounts to, and where to go next with it.

    In very brief summary, you believe that there is clear evidence that many important works credited to W A Mozart were not in fact penned by him but by various others, notably Luchesi who was Kapellmeister at Bonn at the relevant time. The main/sole evidence you have for this are discrepancies in things like watermarks and dodgy-looking signatures and other normal identifiers in the original scores. You believe that it looks like these attributes have been forged in some way to hide their true authorship. You reckon this possibility of forgery was facilitated because in those days it was not normal for works of a Kapellmeister (like Luchesi) actually to sign originals of their works, so that it was possible for them to be purloined by unscrupulous others for devious purposes. You reckon that many such works fell into Mozart’s hands this way, because he was on the “up” and needed such sources (there may be other types of source) in order to sustain his career because he was not capable of writing this high quality work himself.

    I suggested that a possible way of assessing this thesis would be to solicit the opinion of a body of distinguished musicologists to give a purely musicological opinion. Basically, I suggested that two control samples be formed, one (call it sample X) comprising works you agree are very likely to be by Mozart, and another (call it sample Y) where you contend watermark and other such evidence suggests otherwise, and to ask a distinguished musicology panel to see whether there is any purely musicological evidence to support the alleged differences.

    However, you say that this would not be fair because (i) it is difficult to form a control sample for X since there was much copying of the Mozart style by others, and (ii) that musicology evidence is only part of the totality of evidence that should be considered, in particular that watermark discrepancies etc themselves should form part of the overall assessment.

    On reflection, I agree with what you say here on methodological grounds. There is indeed a “chicken and egg” problem in identifying a suitable sample X, and I agree there are wider issues to be looked at apart from purely musicological issues, however important the latter may be. It seems fairly clear now that what is required is not to hand over the task of assessment to a bunch of musicology experts but to try to get some kind of neutral panel to review all the evidence, almost like a tribumal or "court" to reach a "verdict" based on all relevant considerations. However, that is clearly easier said than done. Who would take on the task? The issues are monumental. Would it be possible to get a distinguished group of musicologists who are prepared to have their views tested in “court” as it were, with the risk of rejection of their opinion?

    In answer to my own questions in the last sentence above, I do not think so. So I am stuck, I am afraid, pro tem. At this stage, I cannot offer much more on this but I will think about it. Meanwhile if any others reading this have any views please do not leave it to me to guess what they may be. I am sure Robert will not mind further opinion. All I would say is that I have come across cranks before and I am sure Robert is certainly not in that bracket. On the contrary, I think Robert deserves to be treated with respect because he is obviously highly intelligent and a very knowledgeable person. In saying this, I do not in any way accept on the evidence so far the validity of any of his assertions. I am only intrigued by them and I think they need to be tested more fully.



    Topaz
    Last edited by Topaz; Nov-08-2006 at 07:26.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Saturnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    283

    Default

    This is highly interesting debate, even if I am not a great fan of Mozart and for an example don't own a single record of his work.

    Currently I am in a orchestra who is rehearsing Mozart's 40th symphony and I have to say that the symphony is clearly greatly influenced by baroque music. I noticed one thing in the wikipedia article; Luchesi wrote harpsichord concertos. I have never heard of Mozart being a fan of baroque so this theory Newman is introducing doesn't sound completely absurd to me.

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Given the number of “views” on this thread, there has not been much reaction to recent posts on this subject. I guess many people may find the allegations by Robert Newman so monumental that they are rather dumb-founded. I admit that was my first reaction. However, without accepting any of the allegations I concede that there is a possibility that at least some of them may be valid, and there seems to be a case to answer. I do not pretend to have the ability to make a considered assessment. Frankly, I know that I would not get anywhere even if I tried. My expertise is not in musicology!

    As I alluded to previously, what seems to be required in order to take this forward is a proper investigation without any pre-conceptions either way (rather like a court would proceed where all relevant evidence is assessed impartially). I am not so naïve as to think that anything like this could be easily set up. After all, there would seem to be enormous reluctance to probe into these hallowed shrines of musical history. Were it not for the type and scale of evidence which Robert Newman and his co-researchers have come up with, I would say it is not worth giving it a moment’s further attention. However, it does seem to me that there is a case to be answered, at least as regards some of these watermark/signature discrepancies. It is also rather suspicious to my mind that no one (at least to my knowledge) has yet seen fit to produce and publish any counter-evidence concerning these discrepancies.

    Regarding the general paucity of response so far, I am wondering if it might help to provide a list of possible answers/views that people may have, more or less spanning the spectrum from total rejection to (partial) acceptance. At least, it might help generate some consistent responses to all this. Here goes anyway:

    1. Allegations too ludicrous for words; not worth wasting any more time on. There is clear and cast-iron evidence to show all the disputed works are genuine W A Mozart.

    2. Don’t know enough; would like more details of the evidence before reaching any final view, but must admit I find it rather unbelieable.

    3. Allegations unlikely to be valid because any such doubts about authenticy would have surfaced well before now, if only on musicological grounds (forget about watermark discrepancies etc). Still, am not ruling it out and accept the possibility of some truth, but would require much more wide-ranging evidence to be examined by competent authorities before finally deciding. Would not be satisfied with a mere categoric refutation by the "Mozart crowd"; instead would like to see express arguments and counter-evidence to support the view that it's all genuine W A Mozart, and why these watermark discrepancies are irrelevant or wrongly interpreted.

    4. Possibly some validity in the allegations but I don’t care; I just like the music.

    5. Accept there could possibly be some validity, and can see that some kind of long-running plot to obscure the true identity of ownership is possible, but not too sure about the validity of the evidence summarily presented above. Mainly confused but quite happy to accept it if necessary given more evidence.

    6. Given this watermark/signature evidence, I agree that indeed it all begins to look fishy and think there could well be something in it, at least for some of the allegations about true ownership. Not sure exactly what should be done next to pursue the evidence. Am interested to keep in touch with the debate.

    7. I have seen enough to think it is about time there was a proper wide-ranging review of all this to sort it out. Until then I shall just hope it's genuine Mozart, but will definitely be more agnostic about the true authorship of these works until it's cleared up beyond doubt.

    ........

    Without trying to prejudice the choice, my view is somehere around 3 above. What's yours? Variants are obviously possible.



    Topaz
    Last edited by Topaz; Nov-09-2006 at 13:57.

  8. #23
    Junior Member sinfonia espansiva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Louveciennes, France
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I know that publishers attributed many works to Haydn in order to sell them at a higher price.
    but many inquiries were made before the current 104 Symphonies list was made.
    Furthermore, there is an obvious unity in all the symphonies I've got.
    Maybe I'll change my mind when I've got all the earlier symphonies.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Hexameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Good post there Topaz. I would pick a combination of 2 and 3.

    This issue is a little over my head and I don't know enough about Mozart to properly debate the evidence with Robert. However, I trust my aural skills and believe that some of the works I listed, which Robert made a case against, are clearly imprinted with Mozart's style. Just listening to the Piano Sonatas and then those Symphonies, or the Serenades/Divertimenti and The Magic Flute seems to provide enough connection to distinguish falsehoods on the case of any of his works. And I'm just not hearing any falsehoods in those Violin Concertos or Piano Concertos. This is an amateur talking, though, and I'd much rather hear a thorough evaluation from qualified specialists.

    I've read Robert's posts at the Beethoven reference forum and the Mozart Forum for a long time, and I've found him incredibly knowledgeable. He knows a lot about Mozart, but I just don't think there will be any success at convincing skeptics unless adequate musical evidence is provided. When a good dozen or so musicologists confirm Robert's theories by dissecting the Violin Concertos or those last three symphonies and pick out the alien or peculiar harmonies, rhythms, and phrases that do not match with most of Mozart's other works, then I think I'll be persuaded. Sure, archival research is necessary, but if someone found an old Renaissance sonnet and wanted to determine if it was Spenser or Shakespeare, the best method is getting highly trained experts (hopefully unbiased and professional) to study them and make an educated analysis based on comparison of content, style, language etc. Certainly, the same must apply to Mozart.

    One or two hot-headed musicologists doesn't cut it, though. I'd like to see a general concensus from conductors, music historians, all types of musicologists, and even, like Saturnus there, some professional musicians.

    Unlike other sensitives out there, I'm not offended and threatened by Robert's theories. The statement that Mozart was not a great composer is a little hard to chew, but to Robert, I say keep on it... just realize that it's going to take more than documented evidence to impress: the truth is in the music.

  10. #25
    Senior Member Oneiros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    160

    Default

    This is all very interesting. This may be a bit naive, but wouldn't it be fairly obvious from the writing style of the original manuscripts, as to who wrote them? In the same way that handwritten letters and signatures can be seen as 'authentic', since each person writes in a different way.

    This aside though, what DID Mozart actually compose, as far as you can tell, Robert?

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Phatic

    If you look back at the earlier posts, you will see that part of the conjecture is that it is difficult to be certain exactly what W A Mozart wrote. Allegedly, much was written by other composers (mainly Luchesi). In addition, even supposing there was a work which is beyond doubt the work of Mozart it does not mean that this would necessarily allow identification of other works merely because they looked similar in style. This is because other composers were copying the Mozart style. Therefore, another piece, which looked like the work of W A Mozart, could in fact have been the work of someone else, by virtue of this copying problem. At least, that is the way I understand the main allegations.

    Hexameron's very useful contribution stresses the point I made of the importance of the need for further testing using musicalogical analysis. However, the more I think about this the more it seems to be a methodological minefield. I am beginning to think that musicological analysis, although highly desirable, might be difficult to pursue very far given the problems referred to above about identifying suitable benchmark material of what is conjectured to be genuine/non-genuine. I think we need a clearer steer on this aspect , i.e. how difficult it is to form this separation, albeit with the possibility of a grey area of indeterminate authorship.



    Topaz

  12. #27
    Senior Member Oneiros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Hehe, I meant the style of writing, i.e. how the musical notation appears on the manuscript paper.

    I can see how it would be hard to prove anything... So I won't form any judgements. The debate will probably turn into one of those scholarly arguments that goes on forever... :P

  13. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348

    Default

    I do not wish to imply that Mozart was without musical talent. On the contrary - he was a gifted musician, a formidable pianist, a highly talented arranger. But I think questions can and should be raised on every stage of his career. The alternative is carry on with a version of this man's life and work that is largely false.

    Here is an excerpt from a letter by Leopold Mozart to his son (then in Paris) on the subject of 'Mozart's' symphonies thus far. The year is 1778 -

    'What does you no credit is better to remain unknown - for this reason I did not give away any of your symphonies, as I forsee that in a riper age, when the critical capacity grows, you yourself will be very happy they don't belong to anybody, even though, when you wrote them, you were satisfied. One grows more and more exigent'
    (Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart - 24th September 1778) - Mozart then aged 22

    Here is Mozart speaking to his father about the 'Haffner' Symphony (KV385). Set aside our usual version of Mozart's incredible musical memory for a moment. Letter to his father of 15th February 1783 he says of the piece -

    'I had truly worked in a great hurry and did not remember even one note of this. It must certainly have a good effect'

    (Mozart to Leopold Mozart on the 'Haffner' Symphony - No.35, KV385)

    I'd like to focus on this particular symphony as a case in point.

    Mozart's 'Haffner' Symphony has always been presented in a very unfair way. The actual facts indicate this work is NOT by Mozart -

    On 27th July 1782, again on 31st July and on 7th August, Mozart sent to Salzburg some musical movements for a Serenade, this intended to celebrate the title of nobility being confered on Sigmund Haffner, and he recommended to his father in these letters to obtain a March for the serenade from his first 'Haffner' Serenade (KV250) composed 6 years earlier in July 1776.

    But this story does not add up. First because the event celebrating Haffner's nobility was actually held in Salzburg on 29th July 1782 and no other work composed by Mozart (then in Vienna) arrived by that date. (for reference see M. Solomon's 'Mozart' p.490 note 6).

    Leopold Mozart used the music of another composer in Salzburg. This explains why, when his father 'sent back' the work in January 1783 Mozart did not even recognise it as his own. To this same symphony (not by Mozart but actually by Luchesi) Leopold in Salzburg added trumpets and timpani parts, stretching it into a serenade to fit the ceremonies there. On this piece being sent 'back' to Mozart he restored the symphony version adding flutes and clarinets and even performing it in Vienna in a public concert held on 23rd March 1783 as his very own !

    We are able to state such things with certainty because, at Modena's Estense library the version of the same symphony there (which came from the Bonn chapel where Luchesi was Kapellmeister) is seen without trumpets and timpani added in Salzburg by Leopold and without the flutes and clarinets added by Wolfgang !

    Typically, editors of Koechel have suffered yet again from amnesia by failing to mention that the copy of the 'Haffner' in Modena is scored very differently from the 'Haffner' that we are all familiar with. At Modena this work is attributed to 'Mozart' but, in fact, (as already said) is actually a work by Luchesi.

    Here is the great musicologiist JN Forkel writing in the 'Musical Almanac' for 1789 (two years before Mozart's death) and describing Mozart's output -

    'Mozart (JJW) Kapellmeister in Vienna since 1787. The 'Abduction from the Seraglio' has been published since 1785. Since 1784 has been publicly known SEVERAL symphonies, quartets and collections of sonatas, besides concertos for keyboard'.

    (No reference to 'Don Giovanni' or even to 'Le Nozze di Figaro').

    In contrast, here an entry from the Paris musicologist and composer J.B. de La Borde (Paris, 1780), Vol. 3 of his 'Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne' - under the heading of Luchesi, tells us that 'the symphonies of Luchesi are in great demand with German princes for their peculiar and very graceful style'. (Nowhere in this multi-volumed work is any reference given to either Hadyn or Mozart as being writers of symphonies).

    And nowhere, at Bonn (one of the leading centres of music study in 1784) is a single musical work attributed to Mozart in the musical inventory of 1784.

    Each and every symphony attributed to Mozart from the time of his arrival in Vienna till the time of his death almost a decade later (1791) is of dubious 'Mozartean' paternity. The same is even true of the 'Paris' symphony (No.31) - a work that was not, in fact, composed by Mozart.

    I do not want to go on listing such examples (since each deserves a special explanation). I simply say the careers of Haydn and Mozart were hugely exaggerated by composers who are virtually unknown today. Both composers produced 'originals' in their own hand from works given to them by others. In the case of Haydn it became almost ridiculous. Many of his 'autograph' scores are written on paper not made till the late 1780's. (Sammartini and Luchesi were both suppliers of works to Haydn, and they were not alone).

    Haydn near the end of his career (let us say from 1797 onwards) was hardly able to hold a pen in his hand, owing to illness. Yet he is credited with many great works that he did not, in fact, compose. Many found in copies at Modena. But actually composed by Luchesi and others.

    I do understand and appreciate that such things, on such a scale, are a real shock to Mozart and Haydn scholars. Pioneering researchers in this field (such as Prof. Giorgio Taboga) have had to work against a wall of blanket denial from institutes such as the Mozarteum in Salzburg - their reactions to date being denial that a problem exists or of banning talk of such matters on Mozart or Haydn websites.

    The story IS complex. But Mozart (prior to 1784) had several times been promised the job of Kapellmeister in Bonn - a post already occupied since 1774 by Luchesi. The 'deal' was therefore struck for Luchesi to be involved in artificially inflating Mozart's musical prestige. Vienna 'had' to become the 'city of music' even if it involved commerce of this kind. Luchesi conformed. (From 1784 until Mozart's death in 1791 he sold other works publicly using the pen-name of his cousin, 'D'anthoine', all lost today but documented at the time).

    Luchesi, JM Kraus, Myslivececk, Michael Haydn and others were part of a network that supplied Mozart. The choicest works. This whole affair paid for by rich patrons. At the Vienna level finances were managed by the 'friend' of Mozart, Michael Puchberg.

    The whole story is one of twists and turns and is only recently able to be told in a reasonably coherent form. Rivalry between German and Italian composers during the 1780's features. So do intrigues between Jesuit centres of music (banned in 1773). And of course the cultivation of Mozart's iconic status that followed his death in 1792, the creation of myths, and the version of his life and works we traditionally read in most textbooks.

    It is quite sure that one huge debate will occur over these issues. But I think the evidence of many kinds is so large in favour of this version of events that nothing short of a major publication can do it justice.

    In reply to the question of handwriting, the versions of 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' works now at Modena (which came from Bonn) are in the hands of copyists. Not in the hand of either Mozart or Haydn. This is normal.

    Mozart's G Minor Symphony (No.40) KV550 is based on a work written for the stage in Italy and I will end with a short outline on this famous work.

    In 1778 (a decade before Mozart claimed this work as his) a new comic stagework was written for the San Moise, in Italy by Traetta. It was 'Knight Errant' and its libretto was by Bertati. It was, itself, a radical revision of a still earlier work, 'Stordilano, Prince of Grenada', a work written in Parma 18 years before. But 'Knight Errant' has been the subject of great discussion in recent years, (especially in Italy) - not so much for its musical content and dramatic value but for its astonishing similarities to features found in 'Mozart's' G Minor, KV550 symphony, whose 'composition' date was still 10 years ahead !

    Further evidence is in the fact that Traetta was a friend and colleague of Luchesi - was visited by him during Luchesi's 1 year in Italy (1783) and that Luchesi had taken Traetta's place at a performance of 'Antagona' in the Padua New Theatre. So the connections are already clear.

    Add, to this, we know two versions of 'Mozart 40 exist' - one without clarinets (the original that Luchesi wrote) and another that Mozart in Vienna scored with clarinets in his own hand before claiming authorship in his thematic catalogue of summer 1788. The myth that Mozart wrote these last 3 symphonies in 6 weeks is, in fact, false.

    Sorry to be so disjointed in this reply. I hope it gives some idea of the scale on which these issues are able to be discussed.

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Robert


    Thank your for your further clarifications.

    Could I ask you a few further questions about your claims in relation to W A Mozart and Beethoven?

    1. Luchesi died in 1801, i.e. 10 years after W A Mozart. Why do you think that Luchesi did not lay claim to any of the works you allege that he wrote but which are credited to W A Mozart?

    2. Is there evidence of any payment, or any other form of consideration, being paid to Luchesi by Mozart (or the latter’s family) for any of the works you reckon were written by Luchesi? While it is conceivable that the odd one or two works may have been purloined by W A Mozart in the manner you sugest, surely a whole raft of very high quality works could not have fallen into Mozart's hands without some kind of consideration showing up in the records somewhere. If such evidence exists, could you you please present it.

    3. Beethoven was a student at the court chapel of Luchesi in Bonn from 1779-1792. After this, Beethoven moved to Vienna where he continued his studies under Haydn. During his time in Bonn, Beethoven worked primarily under his composition tutor, C. G. Neefe. I understand that there are no records of Beethoven ever attributing any significant tuition to Luchesi, at any stage in Beethoven's career. Is this your understanding too?

    4. Close involvement or not, if Luchesi was that good a composer - so good that he was allegedly the actual composer of many very fine works attributed to W A Mozart - would you not expect Beethoven to have appreciated this greatness while Beethoven was a student at the Bonn court?

    5. If the answer to (4) is “yes,” why did Beethoven decide to go to Vienna in 1792 to seek to devote himself to further study under Haydn, when the obvious thing to have done was to remain in Bonn, under an even better master, Luchesi, if the allegations are valid? Is it not much more likely that Beethoven realised that Luchesi had limited abilities and that is precisely why he went to seek tuition from Haydn, before pursuing his composing career per se?

    6. Why were records and scores of works attributed to Mozart - records that finished up in Modena, ex Bonn - kept of works that were reputedly given/sold to Mozart? Does this concept of keeping records and scores of works that were destined to be passed off as works by someone else not seem to contradict the whole notion of wanting to falsify or cover up true authorship of those works? It seems quite incredible to me that W A Mozart, or any agents acting on his behalf, would have gone to the trouble of securing works from Luchesi without ensuring conclusively that all other copies had been destroyed. Indeed, if Luchesi had somehow managed to retain a secret copy of these works, for what purpose did he do so? He evidently had no intention of ever revealing the identity of those works, assuming your allegations are valid, because he failed to do so at any stage in his 10 year life span after the death of W A Mozart.

    7. How do you know that the Modena records, on which you rely so heavily, have not been falsified subsequently? For example, have you or anyone else had any sophisticated, scientific dating tests carried out on any part of the documents you rely upon, to ensure that amendments and anomolies were actually carried at the appropriate times, and not subsequently?

    8. Are there any major areas of this entire research into Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven on which you disagree with Taboga (your Italian co-researcher colleague), and if so can you please clarify the main areas? If these disagreements are significant, does this not cast doubt on the basic allegations that you both adhere to?



    Topaz
    Last edited by Topaz; Nov-17-2006 at 15:13.

  15. #30
    Junior Member sinfonia espansiva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Louveciennes, France
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I'm a fan of Haydn & I read a bit about his life & compositions (& Mozart's).
    I knew there are some dubious things in the works of both composers.
    But, as you can guess, I'm not completely convinced by your post.
    I think both versions of History contain a part of truth. Don't you think so?

    Quote Originally Posted by robert newman View Post
    Both composers produced 'originals' in their own hand from works given to them by others. In the case of Haydn it became almost ridiculous. Many of his 'autograph' scores are written on paper not made till the late 1780's.
    I don't really understand the problem with this. Tell me more
    (Sammartini and Luchesi were both suppliers of works to Haydn, and they were not alone).
    From the biographies I read, he never tried to affirm every works he made his orchestra play were his works. He got many from other composers and never tried to hide it.
    Esterhazy orchestra was not dedicated to his works only.
    Haydn near the end of his career (let us say from 1797 onwards) was hardly able to hold a pen in his hand, owing to illness. Yet he is credited with many great works that he did not, in fact, compose. Many found in copies at Modena. But actually composed by Luchesi and others.
    There are only 17 works he wrote after 1797 :
    3 piano trios (1797)
    6 quartets op.76 (1797)
    The Creation(1798)
    Nelsonmesse(1798)
    Theresienmesse(1799)
    2 quartets op.77 (1799)
    Harmonie-Messe
    Schöpfungmesse(1801)
    The Seasons(1801)

    It's very well-known that it was difficult for him & took him a very long time.
    Regarding the Creation & Seasons, the process of composition was very well followed & documented. Everyone who wanted knew he was making it and also what part of the work he had completed so far.
    After the Schöpfungmesse, he lived 8 more years without giving a name to any piece of music except an unfinished quartet. He could have done it, couldn't he?
    Or someone could have attributed a work to him.
    I do understand and appreciate that such things, on such a scale, are a real shock to Mozart and Haydn scholars. Pioneering researchers in this field (such as Prof. Giorgio Taboga) have had to work against a wall of blanket denial from institutes such as the Mozarteum in Salzburg - their reactions to date being denial that a problem exists or of banning talk of such matters on Mozart or Haydn websites.
    I guess, i confess it does not please me either. Nevertheless, I'd like to find the more information I can. Are there books? Where have you found your information?

    I read in your Wikipedia link that the "London" symphonies were Luchesi's.
    The matter is that there's a strong unity between the "London" & the "Sturm & Drang",
    I'm just listening his symphonies 44 & 95, they're so similar in many points.
    The "London", like the "Parisian", were ordered to Haydn for larger orchestras than ever. Do you think Haydn immediately ordered such works to Luchesi?

    Maybe I'm wrong but, so far, I don't believe all Mozart's last symphonies and the "London" were composed by the same person.
    In Haydn and Mozart's works, there's a real coherence, in term of evolution and improvement. I don't think it's an illusion.

    But don't worry. I consider this problem seriously. I can believe some of their works were in fact Luchesi's. I just think the new hypothesis is exaggerating as well.
    I can change my mind.

Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •