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

Robert


Thanks. I will read your post in more detail and respond later.

Meanwhile I just couldn’t resist this:

Scene: Vienna Christmas morning 1785, W A Mozart (Wolfie) and J Haydn (Papa)

Wolfie: What did you get from Santa then, Papa? (nudge wink)

Papa: I got a symphony, called “101”, what about you, Wolfie (nudge wink)?

Wolfie: Oh I got one too, mine’s in G Min apparently. What’s that mean, Papa?

Papa: Dunno Wolfie. Don’t worry about it.

Wolfie: Oh god, it’s got “Luchesi” written here, Papa, what am I gonna do?

Papa: Don’t worry, give it, [quick rubbing out sound]; there, Wolfie, fixed.

Wolfie: Great you’re a real mate; have a mince pie.

Papa: Yeah, I know. Thanks. Can’t wait for the turkey.

Wolfie: Sssch, the wife's coming.

.............


Topaz

Robert

I hope you and others did not mind my joke above. It was actually designed to re-focus readers’ minds on the central issue, because much of the material heretofore has been quite dense, and I can imagine many people having lost the plot. I think this little sketch above broadly summarizes the key point of your thesis that Mozart and Haydn knowingly and secretly accepted high quality material from Luchesi and others to further their careers as they themselves were incapable of producing such masterpieces.

Bach to the detail, let me reiterate that all I am aiming to do is to present questions and counter-arguments that you will probably eventually face from a wider audience, if ever this research gets that far. I am sure you already realise many of the problem areas of this whole thesis, but there may be others that have not occurred to you, or if they have you might not have attached too much significance to them. I do not wish to pursue any of this except through this forum. In that spirit, I put further questions to you in the hope that you may be able to clarify some of the key problem areas, at least to my reckoning. Before doing so, I confirm that I am not convinced by your arguments, although I accept there is a possibility of some truth ("some" is deliberately vague).

Luchesi’s character – It is a shame that no further information is available about the man. If it turns out that he was the author of these splendid works it is going to make rather dull reading. At least Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven had interesting lives that forms part of the mystique of a great composer. From what you say, all we know is that Luchesi seems to have been a very meticulous sort of person, not hugely ebullient or extrovert, but highly competent in a practical and academic sense. We do not know about the depth of his religious convictions or the extent of his involvement in church affairs. None of this points either way as to whether he was likely to have complied, in a senior manner, with some grand plot to promote the reputation of Haydn and Mozart. I still put it to you that the behaviour that Luchesi allegedly pursued is a highly exceptional human trait. I can think of no-one in my career who remotely approximates this type of behaviour.

Quality of Genuine Mozart’s works - You say that some of Mozart’s (and Haydn’s) works are poor quality. You refer to Mozarts KV 168-173 as an example. You say you know of very few works of high quality. Can you please name these few high quality works? You say you have not studied the piano concertos, 'Don Giovanni', 'Cosi Fan Tutte' or 'Die Zauberflote'. Why have you or Taboga not studied any of these specified works? Do you intend to do so? Why did you not study all the works before pronouncing on the authenticity of some? If these specified works were genuine Mozart works, would you concede that Mozart was a very great composer who could in principle have created all the other works that you consider were written by others?

Haydn & Mozart knowing about their common supply of material – You say that Haydn and Mozart knew exactly that each of their careers was being artificially 'massaged'. They both realised that they were pawns in some grand game designed to glorify Vienna, German language composers and “pastoral” music as opposed to baroque. They knew that all the clever stuff was being composed elsewhere by a variety of composers. In the case of Haydn it was, principally, Sammartini and then Luchesi. In the case of Mozart, you say his suppliers were mainly Myslivececk, Kraus and Luchesi. You believe there is a strong case for saying that Myslivececk was the true composer of the five Violin Concertos today attributed to W.A. Mozart. What is this case?

Max Franz wish to recruit Mozart as Kapellmeister at Bonn – You say that Max Franz realised that Mozart had little ability but he still wanted to use Mozart as a “tool for Austrian glory”. In what capacity could Mozart have fulfilled this aim if he was no good as a composer, especially in relation to the alleged superiority of Luchesi? Is it not far more likely that Mozart was the true genius, and Luchesi had outstayed his welcome for some reason? Surely, you would agree that this is by far the most logical way of seeing this. If so, it completely ruins your whole thesis of course. Alternatively, is it possible that the new Elector realised that he could not provide a post for Mozart (given Luchesi's entrenched position and job for life status) but nevertheless, as a subsitute, arranged for Mozart to educate/enrich the Bonn court’s musical prowess by providing feedback on initial drafts/sketches of various works of students there? Or possibly Mozart may have produced a first sketch himself of some pieces and got the students (including possibly Luchesi as well) to look at it and comment. These latter alternatives are possible, are they not?

Music production line – Are you saying you accept that a "production line" of sorts was normal, recognized and quite legitimate procedure of producing big works at this time? Or are you saying it happened to be a devious way of working merely to enable Haydn and Mozart to "work the system", given the alleged plot they were involved in? Is it conceivable that these two actually produced the greater part of the value added, rather than the other way round as you suggest? If so can you offer any concrete proof that they added very little to the final products.

Beethoven - I am very glad that Beethoven at least that comes out of all this unscathed. The minor issue of a few disputed WoOs is immaterial to me. It's obviously still bad news though for Mozart and Haydn based on your view.

Modena – Sorry to be a bore but I still do not understand exactly what you think happened to these works from 1784 to the time they reached Modena. I do not understand how Mozart's or Haydn's name ever got on these documents in the first place. Why did Neefe and his other indexers in 1784 put Mozart’s name of anything, or if they didn't but someone else did later who did it, when and why? Mozart wasn’t sending material to Bonn, was he? This is at the heart of your thesis, and I reckon that if I am confused, others may be too. It would be good if you could take us through all this very slowly, in steps, warts and all, not making any assumptions that we know about these arcane procedures for categorizing works of a chapel or how they got to Modena. If you like, take us through the "life" of a typical work you consider was written by Luchesi prior to the 1784 audit and which is now credited to Mozart. What would its front cover have looked like then, how did it get changed, when, who allegedly did the dirty deed, and what does the cover look like now? Can you please plot this history through at each stage, in really simple terms.

Haydn – After earlier doubts, you are saying you now think there is a case for believing that Haydn probably wrote no symphonies at all. How strong do you consider that case to be? Does Taboga think the case to be much stronger than you do? Is it likely that further research will ever clarify this, or will it forever be shrouded in uncertainty given the nature of the historical records?

Jesuit plot – Are you saying that Taboga does not wholly agree with your view that the whole thing was a Jesuit plot? If so, how much credence does he attach to your view? If he disagrees with you to a large extent, what is his view as to the basic rationale of the plot to manufacture the careers of Haydn and Mozart?

Thanks and regards


Topaz[/SIZE][/FONT]

Thanks Topaz,

No, I find your little ‘Christmas sketch’ of Mozart and ‘Papa’ Haydn very amusing. I think anyone who studies in these areas for any period benefits from laughing about the different scenarios that crop up. And why not ? It sounds ridiculous, preposterous, that the life and careers of two of the greatest composers in western musical history were, in fact, products of fakery and of fabrication.

I would just like to explain, briefly, how it came about that Prof. Taboga and myself first got in to contact.

We were (till a few years ago) working completely oblivious of each other. Both of us finding things about Mozart’s career that were strange, challenging, even amazing. Taboga at this time was mainly interested in getting more information on a little known Italian composer (Andrea Luchesi) – someone I had never heard of myself. I was involved in making early sketches for a Mozart biography (something I wanted to tackle from a new perspective, ‘Mozart and Music of the late Holy Roman Empire’). It seemed to me the one angle that had not really been dealt with in detail.

I’d made some postings on ‘Mozart’s Requiem’ which were quite controversial – pointing out that the official story of that piece was filled with falsehoods, false assumptions and even fakery (e;g. the forged signature of ‘Mozart’ on the title page) and pointing out the German musicologist Gottfried Weber had declared the whole work to be a clever forgery in the mid 1820’s. That series of posts drew a response from Prof. Giorgio Taboga in Italy. It was through this that we began detailed correspondence.

He shared a great deal of information with me. I was hugely surprised by the depth of information he had to offer. Luchesi was totally new. And he had the benefit of having actually studied in detail (for perhaps the first time) the musical works from Bonn that are now in the Estense Library at Modena. I received from him (some weeks later) a work of his own entitled ‘Works Falsely Attributed to Haydn and Mozart’ – a work I later rewrote in a new format for him in appreciation.

Ever since then (and despite having been banned from a prominent Mozart forum for ‘stealing the crown jewels of Mozart’s achievement’ etc. we’ve kept in close touch. And our studies have been extended to cover both Haydn and Mozart. Since both composers, personal friends, were involved.

The creation of the ‘Weiner Klassik’ is to a very great extent founded on the supposed achievements of these two composers. But even here it’s possible to see how the Italian contribution to the two careers of these composers has been largely ‘airbrushed’ out of popular textbooks.

We, today, still work independently but keep in close contact with each other. I know for sure that Taboga is working in different areas than myself. But, from time to time, we compare notes on a specific issue. And, meanwhile, there are others who are involved in these areas of study. There is today, for example, a growing interest in these issues within musicology generally. A series of recordings have been made in recent years of Luchesi works but not (I regret) yet on the versions of symphonies attributed to ‘Haydn’ and ‘Mozart’ at Modena.

Regards

Topaz,

I appreciate your more detailed letter asking for justification on various points.

It may be best to answer you in two posts rather than one. The reason is that the basic outline needs to be more strengthened by facts not so far presented on both Haydn and Mozart. This deserves a post of its own. Then I will try to answer the various points you've just made.

It would be logical to show beyond reasonable doubt that there really is a problem worth studying in the life and careers of these two men before suggesting how it might be solved. So two posts, rather than one, seem to be correct. Hope that's OK.

Robert

Thanks for the further explanation of your cooperation with Taboga.

As far as I am concerned, you can take as many posts as you like. I am particularly keen to understand better the facts which I raised under "Modena". I reckon if you could explain this in very clear terms, as an issue on its own, it would be helpful to all readers (there are clearly quite a few judging from the number of "views").

I'm not so much interested in a full listing of all the disputed works, but more in gaining a clear understanding of the processes of indexation at the time of the the inventory in 1784, and details of the type of anomolies found later. Coupled with this, the issue needs to be addressed of why you reckon copies of works written by Luchesi which were allegedly supplied to Haydn & Mozart were retained in Bonn. What do think was the purpose in retaining copies? Might it have been simply to allow Luchesi to know what he had composed, for future reference in creating more symphonies?

Thanks and regards.


Topaz

Topaz,

Thanks for this post. OK I will try my best here to deal with events between 1784 and the arrival at Modena of this 'Haydn'/'Mozart' material (only a small part of the entire Bonn archives) as well as I can within a short space.

First, after the Inventory document of 1784 had been officially completed and handed to the new Elector by Neefe/Fries (with Luchesi hurrying back fast from Italy), we saw the arrival of Max Franz in Bonn. During the following decade (1784-1794) Max Franz is known to have added to these archives by donating his own music collection. In addition, of course, were new, incoming, works. And, thirdly there were new works being added to the Bonn archives composed by various members of the Bonn chapel. So, by 1794 there was a huge collection of music in Bonn. This, by the time the Napoleonic armies were approaching, was deemed too important to fall in to French hands. Secondly, Prussia (the enemy state of the Emperor in Vienna) could easily have claimed these archives as their own had they remained in Bonn. So a plan was made to evacuate them. This took place in 1794.

The first attempt to explain the fate of these huge archives (which ended up being split up) was an article written by Dr S Brandenburg, then Director of the Beethovenhaus in Bonn for the 'Beethoven Yearbook' of 1987 (pp.7-47). Also, of relevance are other articles such as A. Sandberger 'Die Inventaere der Bonner Hofkapelle' in 'Ausgewaelte Aufsatze fuer Musikgeschichte' - Drei Masken - Munich - 1924 - p.109-130). And by A Chiarelli (of the Modena Library) 'The Collection of Archduke Max Franz, Elector of Cologne- outline for an enquiry into the Estense sources' - 1992 p.84.

An important point. The Bonn archives were not, in fact, the personal property of Max Franz. They were property of the state - the Austrian/Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs. As such, they should have been returned to Bonn chapel.

We know that in the early 19th century various attempts were made by the state to get these music archives back to Bonn chapel. (Attempts by the Prince Wittlesbach, for example). This failed but it clearly shows that, legally, these were property of the Principality, but not of Max Franz or his successors. As government property their removal from the chapel in October 1794 was done in expectation that they would soon be restored to Bonn once the French occupation army left. A further reason for their removal was the territorial threat of Prussia. Max Franz definitely did not wish these archives to fall in to Prussian hands.

We have SOME facts. We know that in the last will and testament of Max Franz (dated 24th July 1801) -

'Max Franz, fully conscious, nominates as his sole and universal heir, the third son of his dearest brother, Grand Duke Ferdinand, his beloved nephew Maximilian, the Grand Duke of Austria who had welcomed and accepted him into the Order of the Teutonic Knights and to whom he has given his name. The Grand Duke (Maximilian Joseph) as the son of Ferdinand, from the Hapsburg-Este offshoot of the family, was let his uncle's material property in cash, capital etc AND ALSO HIS RICH COLLECTION OF MUSIC. .....'

Also that when a full inventory was made of Max Franz's estate mention is made of 'nine packages of authenticated music, and one of non-authenticated music, SENT TO VIENNA by order of his Royal Highness'

In short, the music archives of Bonn chapel went first in 1794 from Bonn chapel to the residence of Max Franz. The castle at Bad Mergentheim. There they stayed until they were sent at some unspecified date to Vienna. It was from Vienna, eventually, that the pieces in question went to Modena.

S. Brandenburg suggests in his article of 1987 that the Modena material 'finally reached Modena in around 1836'.

But, unfortunately, S. Brandenburg has been unable to say WHY he believes these musical works arrived so late in Modena. (This despite being asked many times). So a mystery remains. We know this material went first to the castle of Bad Mergentheim. We know it was sent from there to Vienna. Before finally arriving (partially) in Modena.

We also know that between 1784-1794 works coming in to the Bonn chapel were recorded in various catalogues. Only one of these still survives (known as C.53.1 at Modena). Its a catalogue of instrumental/orchestral music. The other catalogues from this period have disappeared. C.53.1 (now at Modena) records several works being officially attributed to Mozart between 1784-1794. In fact it records 14 symphonies - though 10 of these can be shown to have been recorded as 'by different aueters' in 1784. We know, therefore, that the attribution of the 10 symphonies now at Modena to Haydn and Mozart occurred after 1784 and before 1794. That same catalogue records Beethoven's earliest works for Bonn chapel. This document was definitely kept up to date by the Kapellmeister and others and was being used up to at least 1792 and possibly later.

//

Given the fact that many 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' works now at Modena have had their covers removed or have been mutilated in various ways (this to remove various traces of identity) there are grounds for saying that these particular manuscripts were sent to Modena, to a 'backwater', so as to avoid any possibility of their true origins being discovered. Such is the view of Prof Taboga and, on balance, I tend to agree with him.

'Mozart' and 'Haydn' works from the Bonn archives are at Modena for some special reason. (Works by other composers are in various other places). The watermarks on these pieces plus clear evidence of covers being removed, title pages being ripped off, names altered etc etc. - all these things - indicate that this collection of symphonies and masses is worthy of much closer examination. Taboga also points out the curious fact that reference to these particular copies has often been repeatedly and apparently overlooked or marginalised by editors of Haydn and Mozart publications.

So, on balance, I think the case is strong for saying the Modena material deserves fair and impartial study. To date, Taboga has worked almost alone in this field.

//

As to why Luchesi should have retained copies of works at Bonn which he may have made first available to Haydn and Mozart, I can only suggest if such commerce was regular he (Luchesi) would naturally have kept a copy of each for his own reference, or made provision for copies to be made for him by those to whom he sold them.

I am personally not yet convinced that all these 'Haydn'/'Mozart' copies at Modena came exclusively from the Bonn archives. However, this too can, with detailed study, be proved one way or the other.

(I know this is not much but..........)

Regards

This will be my last post on this thread for a while. It's a short article on a few symphonies falsely attributed to Mozart. Focusing mainly on the manuscripts at Modena but also others. (Many similar could be presented).

The very existence, at Modena, of 'Mozart's' Prague symphony KV504 and also 'Jupiter' KV 551 are sufficient reason for questions to be raised about the true origin of these works. Neither had yet been composed ('officially') in 1784.

But it we turn to other symphonies we find the same problems.

For example 'Mozart's' KV 203 is at Modena. It's known there as Mus-E-158. Detailed study of its contents give us valuable information. This work (like others) was first written by another composer and began it's life as a 'Mozart' work first as a Serenade. Only later did Mozart convert it back in to a symphony with new, added orchestration.

Here is one writer commenting on KV203 - one who assumed Mozart was it's true composer -

'The inclusion amongst the Mozart symphonies of this work, comprised of the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th movements of the earlier D Major Serenade was afterwards adapted to this symphony. The Serenade itself had probably been written for the name-day of the Archbishop Colloredo....At Modena, in the Este Library is a copy of the time in which the work has no concertante movements and no second minuet, so it's in 4 moments with the explicit title of 'symphony'. Another copy of this same symphony was found in 1982 in the basement of the Odense Municipality in Denmark'. (Note - That Danish copy was found together with a copy of KV16a, a symphony falsely attributed to Mozart in the past).
(Luigi della Croce)

Thus, the Modena work predates even the Serenade. It is definitely a symphony. And it's attributed (falsely) to Mozart. It was the work on which the Serenade was first based and the much later symphony.

KV297 'Pariser'

The 'Paris' Symphony (31) has always occupied a curious place in lists of Mozart's symphonies. But, contrary to popular belief, it was NOT composed by Mozart in Paris. Mozart obtained this piece from elsewhere in Mannheim before he left for Paris in April 1778. He recopied it with his own hand on paper that arrived with the work in Mannheim (little realising that the paper on which he wrote it newly bore watermarks of the 'Nic-Heisler' kind - a paper from the Rhine area in common use at Bonn, and probably enclosed by its true composer with the package sent to Mozart in Mannheim).

The original symphony had a different slow movement to the one we usually hear today. The different versions are still extant - e.g. in the Harburg/Wallerstein collection (andante 6/8) and in the Thurn and Taxis collection at Regensburg (andante 3/4). In Paris, Joseph Le Gros asked Mozart to provide a substitute slow movement and it was then that Mozart provided the 3/4 version, selling it all as his own work.

But the truth of this symphony was quickly realised in Paris. By 25th September Le Gros had already informed Mozart's Paris patron Baron Melchior von Grimm and the baron, very angry and threatened with scandal himself, immediately sent Mozart away from Paris 'by the first available coach' to Strasbourg and breaking off direct relations with Leopold Mozart. In his letter to Mozart from this very time Leopold Mozart writes to his son -

'I still do not understand why Grimm has compelled you to leave in such a shameful way. It would have been good for you to stay some days longer' (Leopold to Wolfgang 19th October 1778)

Multiply such cases by dozens and we begin to see what Mozart's widow meant when she wrote -

'We do not want and must not publicly show our hero, as perhaps he would have described himself in the intimacy of domestic evenings. To say all the truth might do harm to his fame, to his respectability - to the success of his very music'
(Preface to Mozart biography written by Constanze Mozart's second husband George Nissen - of which he, Nissen, wrote not a single word).

The same pattern of behaviour affects early operas, symphonies, chamber works, sonatas and virtually every major work.

Robert


Thanks for your further posts. I am afraid that I am still unclear about the different types (in terms of authorship) of music identified in the 1784 inventory, and how they were labelled at that time. You skate rather too quickly over all this. In particular, I am struggling to understand how Haydn’s and Mozart’s names ever got to appear on these works.

Keeping things very simple, as I understand it, the main history and allegations are as follows:

(i) Luchesi (1741 – 1801) was an Italian composer who was appointed official court Kapellmeister at Bonn in 1774, upon the death of the previous holder who was Beethoven’s grandfather. Luchesi actually started there in 1771 on a three-year contract. Before 1771, Luchesi had already established a good name for himself in Italy. Prince Elector Archbishop of Cologne, Max Friedrich, made the appointment in 1774. Luchesi remained in that position until 1794 when the Bonn Chapel was closed down resulting from Napoleon’s invasion.

(ii) As Kapellmeister at Bonn, Luchesi's job was to teach students and to run the music-making machine.

Works: 1774-1783

(iii) From 1774 to 1783, Luchesi's music making activities operated under a deal he had struck with the Elector that he could produce three types of work (using my symbols for simplicity):

• Type A: material to be sold exclusively to Joseph Haydn. The practice by Luchesi of supplying Haydn may have started well before Luchesi's arrival at Bonn (Taboga suggests from as early as 1763).

• Type B: material to be sold to unspecified third parties under the pen-name of Luchesi's brother-in-law, Captain D’Anthoin. It is not known whether any of these works also found their way to Joseph Haydn, in addition to the Type A works above.

• Type C: this is traditional material of a Kapellmeister that, by convention, would remain anonymous until his death or resignation. It was used purely for local purposes. Presumably, such works were labelled as “works by Kapellmeister”, or such like terminology.

(iv) I understand that all or most of Type A material had the name “Haydn” (or some such descriptor) clearly labelled on the front cover, or near the front cover, of each piece. A copy was supplied to Joseph Haydn and another copy was normally retained in the Bonn Chapel.

(v) I understand that none or very little of Type B material has survived as such.

(vi) As regards Type C, several such works have survived which we know of today as Luchesi’s works.

Works: 1784 – 1791

(vii) From April 1783 to May 1784, Luchesi was absent from Bonn in Venice with his family. He left Neefe (his deputy) in charge of the Chapel. In early 1784, Elector Max Friedrich died and was succeeded by Max Franz, the latter being the brother of the Emperor in Vienna. Max Franz was also a friend of W A Mozart. Upon succeeding to Elector, Max Franz wanted to get rid of Luchesi and replace him by Mozart as Kapellmeister at Bonn. It is conjectured that this is because the Elector and the Emperor together were involved in a grand scheme – aided and abetted by the locally defunct Jesuits since 1773 - to promote the musical supremacy of Austria/Hapsburg composers, Haydn and Mozart, while downplaying Italians like Luchesi.

(viii) The first thing that Max Franz did upon taking up his post as Elector was to order an inventory of all musical works in the Chapel in early 1784. In Luchesi's absence, Neefe organised the task. This inventory was completed in May 1784, just before Luchesi returned from Italy. Presumably, this stocktaking showed:

• Works of Type A, B, C above.

• Works of other Bonn Court composers (including possibly works of previous Kapellmeisters); call this class of works Type D.

• All other works, call it Type E: i.e. works written by sundry external composers to the Bonn Chapel, which were bought-in or deposited there for one reason or other.

(ix) From this inventory of Types A - E material, Max Franz was embarrassed to find out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn (i.e. Type A). However, he found that he could not get rid of Luchesi – with a view to replacing him by Mozart - because of his job-for-life status, and that it might have caused a scandal exposing the fact that the Elector's family, including the Emperor, had been involved in a long-standing deal to supply a flow works to Haydn.

(x) As a compromise, the Elector did a deal with Luchesi whereby it was agreed that Luchesi's pay/remuneration would be reduced, and Luchesi would henceforth supply (mainly or solely?) Mozart rather than Haydn, on the same basis as he had previously supplied Haydn. Luchesi would cease to write under the D’Anthoin name, and would write only under the name of Mozart (call it Type F material).

(xi) I am not clear as to whether, during this period, Type F works were clearly labelled “W A Mozart” at the time they were finished and handed over to Mozart. Or is the view that the name of "Mozart", as the paying customer, was somehow concealed originally; and if so, is it considered that Mozart’s name was added later (perhaps 10-50 years later, or whenever)? If the latter, exactly how would these works have been labelled in terms of authorship at the time of their first completion in Bonn?

Works: 1792 - 1794

(xii) Mozart died in December 1791. Luchesi stopped producing Type F works and resumed the D’Anthoin name (i.e. Type B works), until the latter’s death at the end of 1793. In 1794, the Bonn Court folded and all the Bonn Court records and documents were transferred to Bad Mergentheim castle to save them from approaching French troops. Most of these documents eventually ended up by 1836 at the Estense Library (Biblioteca Estense) in Modena, Italy. After 1794, Luchesi's name largely fell into oblivion, as this was probably deliberately part of the grand scheme to bury his name and his previous involvement in these shenanigans.

See next …



Topaz

Robert

cont.

Arising from my previous post immediately above, I am not sure whether my understanding is fully correct. If it is not, I trust you will make any necessary corrections.

Assuming it is broadly correct, I have the following further questions please.

1. Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type A material, i.e. with Haydn’s name written on it? Is it exactly the same material as we now know these works, or are there any significant compositional differences compared with the current scores as used?

2. Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any pre 1774 material written by Luchesi and supplied to Haydn, with Haydn’s name on it, as alleged by Taboga?

3. If Type A material originally had, and still has, Haydn’s name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was allegedly on it at one time and was subsequently replaced by Haydn’s? This is central to my failure to understand any of this. My repeated efforts at seeking clarification on this issue have not thus far produced an answer.

4. If Luchesi had this “little earner” of supplying Haydn going since 1763 as alleged by Taboga - i.e. well before the collapse of the Jesuit Order in 1773 - does this not cast doubt on your theory that the sale of music to Austrian composers started after 1773 as an integral part of an alleged plot to reinstate the Jesuits after their demise when the Order was dissolved (for various misdemeanours) upon the instructions of the Pope? Alternatively, are you alleging that this selling practice was rife anyway, and that the Jesuits merely adopted it, and extended it for their own purposes, in collaboration with the Austrian Emperor and his family?

5. Why should Elector Max Franz have felt embarrassed at finding out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn? Did he not know of such practices? If not, why not if it was, ex hypothesi, a known practice? Was the purpose of requesting the inventory while Luchesi was absent more likely to have been in order to identify Luchesi's work for the purpose of seeing how good it was, or to assess how far to cut his salary with a view to a re-focusing of his efforts at assisting Mozart, with consequently less time spent on Court work, per se? Indeed, is it possible that Mozart may have asked the Elector for it to make this assessment?

6. Was any of the work supplied to Mozart in the period after Luchesi's return to Bonn in May 1784 the result of previous endeavours by Luchesi - i.e. Type B - or was the only work you allege was supplied to Mozart post May 1784 work of Type F?

7. Similar to Q.1 above, does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type F material, i.e. with Mozart’s name on it? Are these works the same compositions, as we now know these works, or are there any material compositional differences compared with the current scores? If this material originally (i.e. from the time of first composition in the period 1784 – 1791) had, and still has, Mozart’s name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was ever on it, and subsequently replaced by Mozart’s? It does not make any sense to me.

8. If, on the other hand, Type F works supplied to Mozart did not originally contain Mozart’s name, but Luchesi's instead, why was Luchesi's name put on them when this practice was supposedly non-customary. This whole area remains very confusing, and I am afraid that neither you nor Taboga have explained it from the material I have seen. In fact, Taboga’s article (the one in the mathematical journal) is rather badly translated into English with all manner of unclear phraseology, allowing all manner of possible interpretations in key areas.

9. Depending on the answers to the above, would you not concede that the evidence is equally, if not far more, suggestive that Mozart was indeed the brilliant composer, and that Luchesi was merely retained to work further upon the works of Mozart who supplied a lot of material to the Court for analysis or possible educational aids or whatever? This might explain how Mozart’s name is found on various Bonn documents (if that is the case), and offers a far more plausible explanation of why Luchesi was happy to continue working there, rather than facing the "boot", despite his alleged job-for-life status, which sounds a bit implausible to me. Those were the days when people lost their heads at the drop of a hat, were they not? This interpretation obviously turns everything around and puts Mozart in the clear, and casts Luchesi as a good but inferior composer. He may well have got involved in supplying several early/mid symphonies to Haydn earlier on (before 1784), but these works are, with respect to Haydn fans, in a different league to most of Mozart's post S 25.

10. I realise from your last post that you may not be able to respond for a while. Later, I wish to explore further the separate matter of authorship of Mozart's late piano concertos (19-27). These are monumental works which you say you have not examined, along with a few others.


Regards



Topaz

Topaz,

Your last two posts show you understand the outline quite well. But you finish it by saying -

'I am struggling to understand how Haydn’s and Mozart’s names ever got to appear on these works'.

In reply, we are all struggling. However, it is quite obvious Haydn and Mozart's names were associated with thes symphonies in their name at Modena AFTER 1784 and before they actually arrived in Modena. That is 100% sure.

Let me illustrate how this must be true.

Take as a specific example Mozart symphonies now at Modena -

1. Absolutely NO works by Mozart were at the chapel in the 1784 Bonn Inventory. Yes ?
2. We know 10 symphonies from the Bonn archives are today in the name of Mozart at Modena. Yes ?
3. We know various symphonies (e.g. 39.40, and 41) were claimed to have been composed by Mozart himself in his own Vienna thematic catalogue in the summer of 1788
4. We know from Catalogue C.53.1 at Modena (begun at Bonn in 1784 after the Inventory) that no less than 14 Symphonies in 'Mozart's' name are refered to - a catalogue that was kept up to date virtually till the chapel closed in 1794. Thus, the attribution to Mozart of 'his' symphonies in Bonn began only in 1784 and was last made in 1794 at the latest - as far as Bonn is concerned. Yes ?

If we assume Mozart was honest, the 3 symphonies 39. 40, and 41 cannot possibly have arrived at Bonn chapel prior to summer of 1788 ? Agreed ?

But the catalogue C.53.1 lists not 10 bu 14 symphonies of Mozart. 10 are today attributed to Mozart in Modena, remarkably corresponding with a group of 10 un-named symphonies of the 1784 Inventory. Likewise, 28 Haydn symphonies are today in his name at Modena corresponding to a further 28 un-named symphonies in the 1784 Inventory. Yet another remarkable coincidence. Yet there are, today, no unattributed symphonies at Modena or anywhere else from Bonn.

So it seems obvious that between 1784 and their arrival in Modena these 38 'un-named' symphonies have become 'officially' symphonies attributed to 'Haydn' and to 'Mozart' - though at the time of the 1784 inventory they were not attributed to anyone. Today, at Modena, as just said, there are NO un-named symphonies.

By simple process of elimination, the 14 'Mozart' symphonies listed in Catalogue C.53.1 at Bonn MINUS the 10 now in Mozart's name at Modena indicates that 4 were, actually, admitted in to the Bonn archives in the name of 'Mozart' prior to 1794 - the other 10 being officially attributed to him only in C.53.1 and before their arrival in Modena. We do not know the date when the 14 symphonies were entered in to C.53.1 - we know only that it occurred between 1784 and closure of the chapel in 1794.

Not for a moment do I underestimate the complexity of this problem. But the simple fact is that many works written on Bonn paper now at Modena came from the Bonn chapel and Mozart's name was not once refered to there in 1783. It is no coincidence also that the Modena collection shows many signs of having its jackets and front pages ripped out or altered so as to remove vital information.

In short, there are many reasons to doubt the automatic attribution to Mozart of the 10 symphonies now in his name at Modena.

On these grounds alone (which I certainly agree are not conclusive evidence of fakery) there is a good case for saying these works may indeed be works falsely attributed to Mozart. Watermarks and other lines of evidence add to this possibility.

But let me now try now to deal with your second letter.

Regards

Topaz,

In continuation of the above -

I really do appreciate you staying with this. Let me try to deal with you second post.

You ask -

Q1. Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type A material, i.e. with Haydn’s name written on it? Is it exactly the same material as we now know these works, or are there any significant compositional differences compared with the current scores as used?

A1a. The Modena library today holds 38 Symphonies in Haydn's name from Bonn. This corresponds exactly with two piles of UN-NAMED symphonies from the official 1784 Inventory at Bonn of 28 symphonies and 10 symphonies respectively - i.e. 38 Symphonies.

and, by remarkable coincidence -

A1b. The Modena library today holds 10 Symphonies in Mozart's name from Bonn. This corresponds exactly with one pile of UN-NAMED symphonies from the official 1784 Inventory at Bonn.

Thus, the remarkable correspondence of un-named symphonies at Bonn and named symphonies at Modena is suggestive of these works having been attributed to Haydn and Mozart AFTER the Inventory of 1784 at Bonn.

A1c. In the Inventory at Bonn of 1784 there were 8 symphonies attributed to 'Haydn' and there were 11 symphonies attributed to 'Heyde'. But of these 8 plus 11 NONE of these are today at Modena.

A1d. In the Inventory at Bonn of 1784 there were NO symphonies attributed to Mozart.

Q2. Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any pre 1774 material written by Luchesi and supplied to Haydn, with Haydn’s name on it, as alleged by Taboga?

A. Where does Taboga allege this ?

Q3. If Type A material originally had, and still has, Haydn’s name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was allegedly on it at one time and was subsequently replaced by Haydn’s? This is central to my failure to understand any of this. My repeated efforts at seeking clarification on this issue have not thus far produced an answer.

A. Perhaps the central issue is that. to date, researchers have not bothered to study the actual manuscripts now at Modena which bear the names of Haydn and Mozart ? Those who supplied Haydn with symphonies (e.g. Sammartini, Boccherini, Luchesi, etc.) did so anonymously by definition. Do you expect them to sign their names to a symphony if the deal was to supply it to them secretly ? Sorry, but you confuse me with this question. Perhaps you can clarify it ?

Q4. If Luchesi had this “little earner” of supplying Haydn going since 1763 as alleged by Taboga - i.e. well before the collapse of the Jesuit Order in 1773 - does this not cast doubt on your theory that the sale of music to Austrian composers started after 1773 as an integral part of an alleged plot to reinstate the Jesuits after their demise when the Order was dissolved (for various misdemeanours) upon the instructions of the Pope? Alternatively, are you alleging that this selling practice was rife anyway, and that the Jesuits merely adopted it, and extended it for their own purposes, in collaboration with the Austrian Emperor and his family?

A. I don't think it casts doubt on the theory at all. In the 18th century (a time when there was really no copyright) works were attributed to Haydn which Esterhazy received to boost him and Haydn's reputation, though they actually came from Sammartini, Luchesi etc. Such a thing was almost undetectable and it accounts for Haydn's confusion about what he had written and what he had not - a confusion that he lived with for decades. Such practices (which brought glory to German music and which increasingly 'airbrushed' out the truth, was simply expanded in the case of Mozart. Mozart and Hadyn were both groomed falsely, being supplied a steady stream of works which boosted their own fame and that, increasingly, of their patrons. In the case of Mozart we see this 'management' very clearly in the works of his childhood. It began with his Jesuit educated father. It continued in to his youth (by him being aided and abetted from Salzburg), and it continued beyond 1773 behind the scenes.

Bear in mind that Salzburg was not part of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire during Mozart's lifetime. It was a Principality of the Holy Roman Empire. It was Mozart's base up till the time when he came to Vienna in the early 1780's. Up until this time his career was very largely stage-managed by the Jesuits of Salzburg. From 1781 onwards (when he came to Vienna) the Jesuits were now officially banned, and their manipulation of this situation continued, but increasingly to bring glory to the Austrian state. No longer from Salzburg but through a network which existed from just before the official ban on the Jesuits. That is, from around 1772 onwards.

Thus, I suggest, Mozart's real career is one of continuous fakery. It divides in to two parts -

1. The fakery of his productions prior to around 1772 (mostly controlled from Salzburg)
2. The fakery of his productions from around 1772 onwards (till his death in 1791) mostly controlled by a network created around that year which was adminsitered by Abbe Georg Vogler, but also still involving Salzburg.

Q5. Why should Elector Max Franz have felt embarrassed at finding out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn? Did he not know of such practices? If not, why not if it was, ex hypothesi, a known practice? Was the purpose of requesting the inventory while Luchesi was absent more likely to have been in order to identify Luchesi's work for the purpose of seeing how good it was, or to assess how far to cut his salary with a view to a re-focusing of his efforts at assisting Mozart, with consequently less time spent on Court work, per se? Indeed, is it possible that Mozart may have asked the Elector for it to make this assessment?

A. Max Franz was a brother of the Emperor. He was not a Jesuit. He was raised in the family of the Empire who were increasingly anti-Jesuit. It was his own mother who was glad to enforce the ban on the Jesuits in 1773. He seems to have had no idea that the career of Haydn had been grossly falsified prior to 1784. But he discovered this for the first time in 1784 when he took personal interest in the situation at Bonn. Yes, he did know of many 'deals'. But he seems to have had no idea of the sheer scale of the 'Haydn' situation. Perhaps he was naiive ? In any event, he soon found out.

Mozart, at this time (1784) had been kicking his heels in Vienna for several years with no official post. As you know, he really did expect to get the Kapellmeister post at Bonn. He had the promise of his childhood friend, Max Franz, made repeatedly. But that, of course, proved to be impractical. The discovery of Luchesi being involved in Haydn's ouput was, of course, sure to have been a shock. But by 1784 there was little he could do that would avoid real embarrasment for the Austrian state, which was already glorifying Haydn as one of their 'great musicians'. All that could be done was reach some accomodation with the reality of the situation. And that is what occurred. From that time onwards (1784), and in some sort of compensation for broken promises, Mozart was now to be a major recipient of these works.


6. Was any of the work supplied to Mozart in the period after Luchesi's return to Bonn in May 1784 the result of previous endeavours by Luchesi - i.e. Type B - or was the only work you allege was supplied to Mozart post May 1784 work of Type F?

A. This is a difficult question because there were times when the general rule was not followed. In general terms, it seems to have been agreed that if a work was 5 years old it could be (and was) claimed by Mozart as his very own. So it is that in the summer of 1788 (for example) Mozart claims authorship in his own thematic catalogue of 3 symphonies (39,40 and 41) which had actually been composed some 5 years prior, by Luchesi). This 5 year period seems to have been the general rule in such commerce. Again, the '7 Last Words' of Haydn is officially a Haydn work only 5 years after it was already in existence at Bonn. This 5 years seems to have been the working agreement. In that 5 years the piece seems to have remained the private property of the true composer. It could be sold in a handwritten copy by the true composer but not published, according to the verbal agreement. And if 5 years elapsed with it still unpublished then, at that time, its rights could be and were sold to Mozart/Haydn.

Again, I do not say this was always the case. It simply seems to have been the general rule. In some cases a work could be specially composed for a particular composer. So the rules were flexible.


cont'd ..........

r

Topaz....cont'd

7. Similar to Q.1 above, does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type F material, i.e. with Mozart’s name on it? Are these works the same compositions, as we now know these works, or are there any material compositional differences compared with the current scores? If this material originally (i.e. from the time of first composition in the period 1784 – 1791) had, and still has, Mozart’s name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was ever on it, and subsequently replaced by Mozart’s? It does not make any sense to me.

A. The works at Modena today attributed to Mozart (for example) are symphonies in their original scoring. Usually minus clarinets, trumpets etc etc. These versions are the originals (I suggest) that Mozart used for his 'own'.

In reply to your question of how any work originally had Luchesi's name on it - please bear in mind that in such cases (e.g. the Paris Symphony now at Regensburg) this seems to have been sold as a handwritten copy to the aristocracy there by Luchesi within the 5 year period. Luchesi had the right to sell such handwritten copies despite not publishing them in his name. But at Modena there is no symphony with a Luchesi signature. And, once the 'Paris' symphony was actually published in Mozart's name then, at that time, the name of 'Lucchese' was rubbed out in Regensburg and the name 'Mozart' replaced it.

Q8. If, on the other hand, Type F works supplied to Mozart did not originally contain Mozart’s name, but Luchesi's instead, why was Luchesi's name put on them when this practice was supposedly non-customary. This whole area remains very confusing, and I am afraid that neither you nor Taboga have explained it from the material I have seen. In fact, Taboga’s article (the one in the mathematical journal) is rather badly translated into English with all manner of unclear phraseology, allowing all manner of possible interpretations in key areas.

A. Yes, you are right about the various online articles about this controversy. I myself have often struggled to understand clearly what is being said. In a nutshell, we are talking here of a trade in music - this being manufactured and published to falsely inflate the compositional achievements of Haydn and Mozart. We are not yet at a point where this can be conclusively proved. But I do think we, if our job was to make such things understandable to Italians, would have the same sort of problems. I do think that, despite its many shortcomings, these posts by enthusiastic Italians, at least convey (or try to) the huge significance of these issues. As such, they represent a real attempt to get a basic message across, this despite stone-walling and flat denial by the 'Viennese' musical establishment.

9. Depending on the answers to the above, would you not concede that the evidence is equally, if not far more, suggestive that Mozart was indeed the brilliant composer, and that Luchesi was merely retained to work further upon the works of Mozart who supplied a lot of material to the Court for analysis or possible educational aids or whatever? This might explain how Mozart’s name is found on various Bonn documents (if that is the case), and offers a far more plausible explanation of why Luchesi was happy to continue working there, rather than facing the "boot", despite his alleged job-for-life status, which sounds a bit implausible to me. Those were the days when people lost their heads at the drop of a hat, were they not? This interpretation obviously turns everything around and puts Mozart in the clear, and casts Luchesi as a good but inferior composer. He may well have got involved in supplying several early/mid symphonies to Haydn earlier on (before 1784), but these works are, with respect to Haydn fans, in a different league to most of Mozart's post S 25.

A. Well, that's an interesting counter-suggestion and one worthy of consideration. Was it not for the fact that Mozart has a track-record of such falsehood I would be tempted to agree with you - to say, yes, this is a real possibility. But you are assuming a musical genius which, I honestly believe, does not bear scrutiny even in the years leading up to 1784. That is why I think your interesting suggestion is probably not right. I will post after this on two early 'Mozart' operas to illustrate this point.

10. I realise from your last post that you may not be able to respond for a while. Later, I wish to explore further the separate matter of authorship of Mozart's late piano concertos (19-27). These are monumental works which you say you have not examined, along with a few others.

A. In my view the Mozart piano concertos came to Mozart in Vienna from Salzburg and are the product of a great deal of non-Mozart output - including that of his own grossly ignored sister who had at least a hand in their arrangement. She taught piano in Salzburg as you may well know.

No, as stated, I have not specifically studied the history of these concertos. But several people have. It is clear that their earliest form was made in Salzburg, and not by Mozart in Vienna.

Having said it would be difficult to post in the near future, I will still do all I can to reply if you have further points of questions on these issues.

I really do appreciate your input on these issues and will now post here on a typical case - two operas today attributed to Mozart.

Best regards

Robert

Robert

Thanks for all this. I probably will have some follow-up questions but I'll leave it for a week or so as I gather you will be unavailable for a while.

I wonder if anyone else has any questions.


Regards


Topaz

Readers of this thread will be pleased to know work has virtually finished on producing MIDI sound files of several priceless symphonic manuscripts attributed to Mozart now at the Estense Library in Modena, which are known to have arrived there in the early 19th century after having been evacuated from the Bonn chapel in 1794. These include versions of the 'Prague' Symphony and the 'Jupiter', both of which exist at Modena in slightly different forms and scoring than we are familiar with but none of which have yet been recorded or heard.

Some of this material will be freely available online within the next week or so and there are plans to also make photographic images of these same Modena scores available for general viewing.

We already know several of these 10 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena exist in versions that predate the symphonies we are familiar with. Some musical content is different from that with which we are familiar. This promises to be a remarkable development in studies of these famous works.

Colleagues in Italy and elsewhere realise that the 'Mozart establishment' has dragged its feet for many years on dealing with the implications of this collection at Modena. It has for example done virtually nothing to study or discuss this material in many years. It has repeatedly avoided listing various works in this collection in the Koechel catalogue, for example. Hopefully the release of these versions for public study online will prove to be the best response to such attitudes.

It's my considered opinion and that of several other researchers in this field (based on the available documentary and circumstantial evidence) that many symphonies traditionally attributed to W.A. Mozart were not, in fact, composed by him and that Andrea Luchesi seems to have been their true composer.

Thus, the Haydn and Mozart material at Modena could prove to be some of the most significant musical material of the late 18th century and has the potential to overturn more than 200 years of tradition. Whether it does so remains to be seen. But at least the process will be public.

Watermarks indicate this material did come from Bonn. But there are significant numbers of works in Modena in Haydn and Mozart's name which are also written on Italian paper. Some of these could be explained as having been composed by Luchesi prior to his arrival in Bonn in 1771. But other evidence from these manuscripts demands caution. Some Haydn masses, for example, bear written attribution to Haydn in English language, though the paper on which the writing is found is Italian.

So, it is hoped, lovers of music can shortly have what we would all wish - a fair and open opportunity to study this Modena material online and to bypass literally decades of 'stonewalling' by the 'Mozart'/'Haydn' establishment. Putting this material online for anyone to study might give these works the exposure they deserve and I hope members of this forum welcome this process.

Regards

Those interested in hearing world premiere MIDI files of some highly controversial musical manuscripts from the Estense Library at Modena (including versions of symphonies traditionally attributed to Mozart) can now hear some of them by visiting the website ItalianOPERA.org - These symphonic versions (which include the 'Jupiter') have never been heard for over 200 years. (In the past few days the release of the first few of these works in their unique versions has attracted almost 8,000 people to listen to them, worldwide). The site also contains a few short articles on each piece.

I post this here because it's obviously related to this thread. Hope you enjoy these versions.

Regards