Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 392

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

  1. #151
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robert newman View Post
    Hello there ! I'm a new member of the Forum and would like to ask other Members if they are aware of the huge controversy now surrounding claims that many works by Haydn and Mozart were, in fact, written for them by a string of other composers - a central person involved in this affair being the Kapellmeister of Bonn (between 1771 and 1794), the little known Italian composer Andrea Luchesi.

    Aren't you the one creating the "huge controversy"?

  2. #152
    Mango
    Guest

    Default

    Mr Newman

    Yet another of your typical long, ranting responses. And yet again you have completely failed to answer the key questions. Let me repeat them for you:

    1. If your allegations are correct, what possible motive was there among the supplying composers to forfeit their own reputations for the sake of promoting those of Haydn and Mozart? If the motive was financial, why sell their works to Mozart when they could presumably have earned far more by selling direct to a music-publishing house?

    2. Why, if Mozart and Haydn were such poor composers, did the authorities who were allegedly sponsoring them not find some other people with much higher composing skills?

    3. Who exactly was pulling the strings? Was it the Jesuits or the Austrian Emperor? Can you produce any firm evidence to prove any link?

    4. If Mozart was such a poor composer as you allege, why was he favoured (by the Elector) to take the vacant Kapellmeister post at Bonn in preference to Luchesi after the death of Beethoven Snr?

    5. Why did all the high quality Mozart output cease after Mozart’s death?

    6. Joseph Haydn was employed in the noble Esterhazy family for many years. He was well known among all the staff including all the local musicians. If he was such an incompetent musician wouldn't this have been obvious, and would not word have got out? Surely he clearly didn't work in a vacuum, did he?

    You are clearly not winning this campaign. On the contrary, most respondents have either ignored you, laughed at you, criticised you, or banned you from their Forums. Only a tiny number of clear half-wits have shown any interest. Surely this is not the best way to promote your cause, however feeble it is. I suggest you are effectively ruining any (albeit very limited) chance you may have by going on like this. Let's see your results set out fully in a published research paper of some sort. I bet it will be completely annihiliated once proper experts get their hands on it, assuming they could be bothered with it.

  3. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi there Handel,

    You write -

    I still have problem with that motive. Why Maria Theresa and Joseph II, who didn't specifically liked the musical style of Haydn and Mozart, would have supported those two composers? Why not supporting instead their court composer, Antonio Salieri? Because we was not german? And what about Gluck?

    This is a really important question and although I've answered it elsewhere here's the best I can offer.

    Prior to 1773 the Jesuit control of major centres of study/education was virtually complete. Their medium of instruction was, as you will know, Latin. 1773 changed all that. It brought to the fore (often for the first time) the idea that education could be and even should be a process that occurred in our native language. And this, in turn, (certainly by around 1780) was partly responsible for the rise of nationalism. Certainly, in German speaking lands this was a major issue since, up until 1773, the main Kapellmeisters right across modern Germany and Austria were mostly Italians, as you will know. Luchesi in the major chapel of Bonn (arrived 1771) and others such as Fischietta in Salzburg are just two of literally hundreds of examples. This Italian dominance of music within the Holy Roman Empire' was very real. And, of course, from around 1773 it became a bigger and bigger issue. Music owes Italy a huge amount and so it was a matter of national pride that German composers should be praised in Germany. It often meant (in practice) marginalising their true education at the hands of Italians. And this is exactly what happened in the case of Haydn and of Mozart.

    By the mid 1780's the rivalry between Italians and German composers reached its peak. In 1786 (for example) we have an opera by Salieri being performed on the very same day and at the same palace (Schonnbrun) as one by Mozart. (Mozart's 'Impressario') - this months before the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

    So, really, by the early biographers of great German composers such as Beethoven it was almost certain that their true education at the hands of people such as Luchesi would largely be airbrushed out of biographies such as that of Thayer. This is one major reason why Luchesi and his real status comes as such as shock to many readers. Luchesi was effectively marginalised despite it being possible to show that he played a major role in the careers (real and supposed) of Haydn, Mozart, and even of the young Beethoven.

    Beethoven, according to his own words, learned 'nothing' from Haydn, despite the myth continuing that the older man was his teacher in Vienna, for example.

    That Germanic achievement should be reason for celebration in Vienna is, of course, understandable. But in the case of Haydn and Mozart (the two chief foundations of the so-caled 1st 'Viennese School' the exaggerations and falsifcations were truly massive. Vienna was portayed as the 'city of music' and this suited all parties. The rest, as they say, is history. And so it was that the Jesuits, behind the scenes, helped Vienna as they also helped the reputation of the Holy Roman Empire and of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire. (The Jesuit Order, amazingly, was restored in 1814, 23 years after the death of Mozart, by which time the mythologising of Mozart's first biographers was already well under way. Hundreds of works were said to be by the genius Mozart).

    That is has taken 2 centuries for these things to be questioned is not, perhaps, surprising seeing (at a superficial level) that any criticism seems to be impossible.

    Regards

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi Mango,

    I will make this very short.

    The answer to your first question has been given here several times. Please read the thread carefully. I've answered this just now to another poster. As far as selling to a publishing house is concerned, yes, Artaria was one major publisher who established offices in Vienna at the very time of Haydn AND Mozart's great successes there. Both composers used them and there were others. This comfortable relationship did even more to boost their reputations.

    Haydn and Mozart were poor composers but that didn't matter a great deal. They were musically literate and they personally received huge credit and applause. The system worked very well for their 'sons of the Holy Roman Empire'. There WERE problems. Especially with Mozart (who was far less disciplined in many ways than Haydn with this arrangement. For example, Mozart was finally ruined by a court case brought against him in the last years of his life, by the aristocracy). But yes, these two men were, in actual fact, competent but not specially talented composers. In the case of Mozart he was a good pianist. But, once again, not hugely so. In fact, detailed study of works that are indisputably his (such as the slow introduction to the symphony KV444 and the very poor work in his singspiel 'The Impressario') show him to be at best a rather poor composer. This seems 'impossible' and yet it's true. The real Mozart was not a great theoretician. Works that he composed (as opposed to copied) are of a quite poor content. Once again, this is just a fact - though it does not fit in easily to the popular myth. One could find many examples. Even from the 'mature' Mozart. There are copies of works attributed to Mozart that are riddled with musical/harmonic errors. This is something that is rarely discussed and yet this occurs in virtually every phase of his life and musical career. It begs and explanation. And the explanation is that he, Mozart, wrote far less than you suppose. And that what he actually composed is rarely if ever as great as you might suppose. The rest was supplied to him by others. In fact, it was 1784 (7 years before his death) that Mozart finally opens a thematic catalogue of his supposed works - these now being of a standard of composition generally far in advance of anything he had achieved before. Once again, such an observation is not a mere opinion but a plain fact that begs and expanation. You don't like the explanation. Fine. I respect that.

    You ask who exactly was 'pulling the strings'. The answer is, quite simply (as I think I've said several times) the Jesuits were keen to 'help' build the reputation of Vienna as the 'city of music' - a city where their own composers were always hugely dominant. So although the Emperor may have suspected what was happening nothing happened. The Emperor himself was led to believe that Mozart was a genius (even although he had been told many years before that it was all being faked). Mozart is offered no officially important post.. For the perfectly good reason that, in actual fact, he was NOT the 'Mozart' we see today in countless textbooks.

    Mozart was favoured by the Elector of Cologne (Max Franz) to become Kapellmeister in 1784 because Max Franz (a man of the same age as Mozart and a man who had known Mozart from his childhood) had often promised the post to Mozart. In fact, an early work written at Salzburg (and actually completed by Fischietta) was dedicated to Max Franz by Mozart, for example. Max Franz made numerous promises to Mozart who, fully 3 years after arriving in Vienna, had still not found a permanent job. He simply was NOT so talented as you suppose. But, of course, Luchesi was already 12 years in the job at Bonn and could not be fired. His job was for life. Since Luchesi was not ill or incompetent he could not be removed. A letter exists from Mozart on this subject - angry that Max Franz could not keep his promise despite it often being made over the years. This is part of the reason why Luchesi becomes a supplier of music to Mozart, even after 1784. Privately, of course. He had been so before. This simply continued. In fact, one of the first letters written by Mozart's widow after Mozart's death is to the chapel of Bonn (to the Italian tenor Simonetti) - showing clearly that a relationship existed with Bonn during all of Mozart's mature career - the true nature of the relationship as hidden from us today as it is in the case of Haydn. Luchesi was a major supplier of music to both men.

    You ask why all the high quality work ceased after Mozart's death. Good question. It didn't. In fact, after Mozart's death Luchesi begins to sell music using a pen-name once again (as he had done before 1784) - writing numerous stage works - though every one of them has mysteriously vanished although they are recorded by name. Besides, by 1794 the chapel at Bonn was closed. Luchesi retired soon afterwards except for his work for the stage in Bonn, this composed (as said) using the same pen-name as his brother in law. So it is not true that high quality music ended. It existed but has disappeared. So these works, like so much of Luchesi, has been obliterated.

    Joseph Haydn was employed by the noble Esterhazy family for years. True. But at Esterhazy there is no record of many 'Haydn' symphonies being known there. In fact, it wasn't till Haydn retired (in 1804) that works were officially attributed to him there as 'Haydn's'. Many of them were in fact by Sammartini and also by Luchesi. The same is true of 'Haydn's' church music. At Modena studies have shown major discrepancies in a whole number of works, including the famous 'Nelson Mass' and even the '7 Last Words'. Neither of these were Haydn works despite tradition saying the opposite. In actual fact, Haydn could hardly hold a pen in his hand years before his is said to have written the 'Creation'. There are numerous examples of his plagiarism and fakery. In fact, Haydn 'original autographs' are actually often written many, many years later than the works first performance. Papermark studies have proved this beyond all doubt. And in the case of Haydn he even forgets (often) to include music that he is copying right in front of his own nose. These sorts of facts are indisputable. And they are damning evidence.


    I don't know who is winning the case. I am glad that we have a chance to hear both sides of the story. I hope readers agree that this forum deserves great credit for allowing us this rare exchange. You see that one side is at least trying to sketch a reply on these issues and is not abusing or insulting anyone.

    Regards

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi Don,

    Yes, I agree that it's highly controversial to argue that the careers of both Haydn and Mozart ('Papa Haydn' and Wolfgang) were hugely manipulated, exaggerated and faked.

    But that's the tough thing that I and others now assert, and with good reason. Let the chips fall where they will. There are reasons why we argue as we do and they are all based on facts little known and rarely appreciated. The picture they present is not specially welcomed.

    Sure, people think it's crazy, absurd, impossible etc. Fine. People are free to believe as they please.

    Regards

  6. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    946
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Newman
    Beethoven, according to his own words, learned 'nothing' from Haydn, despite the myth continuing that the older man was his teacher in Vienna, for example.
    As Andras Schiff points out, it is obvious Beethoven was bluffing when he said this. The stylistic coincidences, in terms of forms and use of the motifs, are too many for us to plainly believe that Beethoven quote. Even comparing music from both composers in different genres, the legacy of Haydn is always present. And you can not denied it, provided you have a bit of a knowledge of their works, of course.

    You can (I know you will) say that he learned nothing from Haydn because Luchesi, or some other guy the story has managed to hide well, was in fact his teacher. Then why Beethoven, as he was not really fond of the aristocrats, the regime and politics, would mind hiding that? To the point of not communicating this late in his life to anybody?

    Is your theory involving Beethoven as a conspirer too?

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi Manuel,

    So you don't believe Beethoven when he says he learned nothing from Haydn ? I don't know why you say this. Beethoven, you say, was 'bluffing'.

    I think anyone will agree that the first 2 symphonies, for example, contain stylistic elements that can be described as 'Haydnesque'. That's well known and l completely agree with this. Not a problem. But surely we are talking about two different things. Beethoven was actually saying that he learned nothing theoretically from Haydn - that Haydn was atually NOT his teacher in Vienna and that, in actual fact, Haydn was forced to use Albrechtsberger and others. Secondly, that which we called 'Haydnesque' is a subject worthy of a few words in itself. For example, in the 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' under the article for Josef Myslivececk is contained details recorded by the Vienna music writer Carpani. He notes that Myslivececk once approached Haydn and pointed out that when he heard Haydn's symphonies he said immediately, 'Now I understand that the real origin of Haydn's style was Sammartini'. This was furiously denied by Haydn. But several scholars have noted that, in fact, Valotti and others such as Sammartini were definitely the main influences on Haydn as they also were later on Mozart.

    The young Beethoven wrote various works in Italian style.

    That Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was the true teacher of the young Beethoven is not and should not reasonably be an issue of debate. Such a fact would have been known by everyone in the decade 1781-1791. To have suggested anything else would have been ridiculous. With the exception of the year 1783-4 (when Luchesi was in Italy on a 1 year absence - attending to family business) it was Andrea Luchesi was the teacher of the young Beethoven, this beyond reasonable doubt. Luchesi was also teacher at Bonn to numerous other music pupils. Again, such a fact may have been suppressed by early biographers (with Luchesi only briefly mentioned by Thayer) but it's such a certain fact that little more needs to be said of it. It is perfectly true that Ch G Neefe (who was court organist and then deputy Kapellmeister) focused specially on JS Bach and counterpoint - that Beethoven mastered the 'Well Tempered Klavier' etc, this too is not disputed. But, starting at the Cantata for the death of Georg Cressner and even including such later Bonn works as the Cantata for the death of the Emperor Joseph and the Cantata for the accession of the new Emperor, Luchesi was the principle teacher of Beethoven. Later 19th century German writers choose to forget this fact. But it's a fact nevertheless. And it deserves to be appreciated.

    The Sonatas Op.1 for Violiin and Piano by the new Kapellmeister Luchesi (the first ever music published at Bonn) date from 1772 (when Beethoven was only 1 year old) but it is remarkable that they anticipate Beethoven by more than 15 years. This has been often noted and I recommend that you listen to them. Again, the cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (which have always wrongly been attributed by modern writers to the young Beethoven) werel in fact, compositions that would surely have been the duty of the Bonn Kapellmeister to compose. Both were for state occasions. These were NOT Beethoven works though Beethoven does quote from one of these in a cantata that he wrote for the death of Joseph 2nd - a work he showed to Haydn on his way to England.

    The influence of Luchesi can again be detected in several Luchesi symphonies still extant - whose directness is again one of the most striking features of Beethoven's style. These symphonies are now at Estense Library in Modena.

    Beethoven seems not to have talked much about his youth in Bonn. If he did so it may have been recorded in now lost Conversation Books. Part (at least) of the reason was the sheer embarrasment of the problem of alcohol in the Beethoven family and the fact that part of the Beethoven family income was a pension paid by Cressner through the salary of Luchesi himself. It's not really surprising that these hard times were rarely refered to by Beethoven. But it's curious that not even a reference to Luchesi's death seems to have been commented on by Beethoven. It really does seem information has been somehow lost on these years.

  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    946
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The Sonatas Op.1 for Violiin and Piano by the new Kapellmeister Luchesi date from 1772 but it is remarkable that they anticipate Beethoven by more than 15 years.
    So do Clementi piano sonatas (as pointed out by Horowitz), but that's not enough for me to invoke a conspiracy including Beethoven, Clementi and elements of the government.

    That Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was the true teacher of the young Beethoven is not and should not reasonably be an issue of debate.
    It will be debated as long as we don't have historic reference about this.

    The influence of Luchesi can again be detected in several Luchesi symphonies still extant - whose directness is again one of the most striking features of Beethoven's style. These symphonies are now at Estense Library in Modena.
    Are there any recordings of this works you suggest purchasing?

    I think anyone will agree that the first 2 symphonies, for example, contain stylistic elements that can be described as 'Haydnesque'.
    There's more to it than that. All his symphonies are haydenesque, the same with his chamber music, his piano sonatas, his violin sonatas...
    Beethoven was persistent in the forms that Haydn developed, and subtle elements more in a formal way are to be found in his whole output (disregarding, of course, the fact that he may build complete movements as fugues, or similar innovations).

    So, Haydn output was a mix of different obscure composers, even though there's a distinguishable and unique style throughout it. And Beethoven learned enough from those composers (Albrechtsberger and others) to be able to imitate their formal elements in a way that he composed like all of them, together?


    Again, the cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (which have always wrongly been attributed by modern writers to the young Beethoven) werel in fact, compositions that would surely have been the duty of the Bonn Kapellmeister to compose.
    Which proofs do you have to confirm this? Besides the not really convincing idea that invokes this strict relation
    Kapellmeister = composer of cantatas
    which supposes nobody but the Kapellmeister could write a cantata.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Manuel,

    That Luchesi's music (even the small surviving amount of it that is indisputably his and not 'Mozart' or 'Haydn') was a huge influence on the young Ludwig van Beethoven is not simply stating a plain fact. Beyond all reasonable doubt, logically, sensibly, rationally, you can accept without fear of contradiction that he, Andrea Luchesi, airbrushed out of 19th century German textbooks on music in general and on Beethoven's formative years in particular WAS the true music teacher of the same Ludwig van Beethoven and was, in actual fact (and not mere opinion) by definition the man in charge of music teaching at Bonn Chapel during the 10 years or so that Beethoven and various other students studied there. The problem is not that I and others need to teach a fact that would readily have been known to everyone in the late 18th century but that you can, at last, in reality, incorporate it in to your understanding of historical reality. You now see plainly how writers of books so often regurgitated earlier books which had completely obliterated Luchesi and details of his career and significance from appreciation. Having done so I hope that you can move on to consider what the implications of this serious ommission are.

    That Clementi had influence on Beethoven is also undeniable. But that Luchesi had more (by virtue of being his music teacher for a full decade) is, again, obvious. The Sonatas Op.1 of Luchesi ARE strikingly Beethovenesque - these appearing fully 15 years before the same Beethoven's Op.1. Such a fact is not a coincidence also.

    You ask whether any recordings are available of Luchesi's symphonies. Yes, there are. There is one in particular (almost certainly written in Bonn during the 1770's) which still survives and I will happily send a copy of it to you if you can provide an email address. This is very fine music and, once again, you can hear for yourself how great the influence was on Beethoven.

    Luchesi was not the only influence. He was, however, a very major influence as was Clementi and others. Recognising this fact is simply recognising reality.

    Albrechtsberger was really famed more as a musical theorist than a composer. But he was called in to preserve the myth that Beethoven 'learned' from Haydn etc. and from others who would conceal the reality. The truth is that Beethoven, by the time of his arrival in Vienna was a finished composer well able to tackle virtually every kind of musical form. His education under Luchesi (and temporarily under Neefe) was virtually complete. But the illusion is created that he, Beethoven, needed to learn under Haydn and Albrechtsberger. In actual fact, this cosmetic exercise bored Beethoven and he was already branching out in to his own style.

    A further myth exists that Beethoven 'studied' under Mozart. Once again, this is an example of just how false our understanding is on these issues. Beethoven was a great genius. He was also a devoted student at Bonn. He studied, in point of fact, far more than 'Mozart' ever did. He was (unlike Mozart) a true student of music. He was, in fact, a musical genius far beyond that of Mozart.

    You ask what proofs I have that the 2 cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (for the death of the Emperor and for the accession of his successor) were actually composed by Kapellmeister Luchesi. Let's try common sense ? It was the job of the Kapellemeister of Bonn (since the Cologne Principality rated first) to provide such music for Frankfurt. A state ceremony in both cases. Now, ask yourself the simple question whether he, the Kapellmeister, was the man with such duties. Or whether it was the duty of the student musician Beethoven - a Beethoven who was, in fact, one of dozens of music students. Let us allow common sense to prevail, yes ?

  10. #160
    Mango
    Guest

    Default

    Mr Newman

    As I said previously, I find your thesis absurd. Many scholars have examined the life and times of W A Mozart and have re-affirmed his musical genius. If you think they are all wrong why don't you try to publish a paper, or a book, setting out your views systematically, instead of merely engaging in lengthy correspondence here, which is 99% mere assertion.

    I do believe you are wasting your time in following the approach you have chosen over the past few years. How many Forums have you been banned from now? It is perfectly clear that your endeavours thus far have achieved very little indeed, judging from the very limited information on the Net about your (and a small few others') views on this subject.

    My own perception is that you realise fully that no reputable publisher would touch the kind of material you might offer. Do you realise this? If not, since you are pretty quick to throw out challenges to posters here to debate with you the authenticity of Mozart-ascribed works, can we see you put your evidence on the table in the form of a published document? We can then all come back in due course to discuss with you the reaction of the music profession to your paper. I don't think we'll see you for dust quite frankly after they have decimated it. But first you have to find a publisher, so it's over to you Mr Newman. This should establish the market worth of your opinions.

  11. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi Mango,

    In my last post to Manuel it was explained that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was in charge of Beethoven's musical education for over a decade at Bonn. You cannot tell us why this fact (completely unknown to you) has been obliterated from textbooks. Not only is your attitude illogical it's unfair. And to delete Luchesi is only one example of how false much of what we read really is. You must get used to such things if you really want to get back to reality. You must also open your mind to the possibility that what is popularly believed is simply not true.


    I am happy to leave this thread here since you have nothing to offer in defence of your mythical Mozart. And nor, you see, has anyone else.

    Regards

  12. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    946
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    In my last post to Manuel it was explained that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was in charge of Beethoven's musical education for over a decade at Bonn.
    I read what you wrote this time, and I have the feeling that you didn't explain that, you exposed how you assume that fact.

    You cannot tell us why this fact has been obliterated from textbooks. Not only is your attitude illogical it's unfair.
    If it isn't in books or biographies, where did you take it from? Taboga? A hidden manuscript? Having the supposed proofs that will bring light to this subject, and not showing them upon request is something I find most illogical. And the feeling grows as I realise the backup information for what you communicate here is something will definitely pursue the welfare of your theory.

  13. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    946
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I am happy to leave this thread here since you have nothing to offer in defence of your mythical Mozart. And nor, you see, has anyone else.
    Don't twist the whole thing. It's you who has nothing to offer appart from theories. It's you who is persistent in not showing the information that makes you think this whole Mozartgate is relevant.

    And now you claim you leave because we have nothing to offer? Is that how you perceive this situation here? Don't you realise it's a twisted view on reality what you have there?
    Having noticed this walkout and the reasons you expose. How do we know you are not doing the same thing to your thoughts on Mozart? I mean, living a magical fantasy after a twisted perception of the real world.

  14. #164
    Mango
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robert newman View Post
    Hi Mango,

    In my last post to Manuel it was explained that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was in charge of Beethoven's musical education for over a decade at Bonn. You cannot tell us why this fact (completely unknown to you) has been obliterated from textbooks. Not only is your attitude illogical it's unfair. And to delete Luchesi is only one example of how false much of what we read really is. You must get used to such things if you really want to get back to reality. You must also open your mind to the possibility that what is popularly believed is simply not true.


    I am happy to leave this thread here since you have nothing to offer in defence of your mythical Mozart. And nor, you see, has anyone else.

    Regards

    Why are you making such a big thing out of Luchesi being in charge of Beethoven's musical education?

    By itself, I couldn't care less. Someone had to be in charge. You have offered no proof that Beethoven's greatness was enhanced in any way as a result of this connection. If you could lay your hands on some very fine works by Luchesi and some unambigous evidence that Beethoven's later career was much helped by this connection then I might take some note. Even then, I doubt that I would be over-impressed. For example, Salieri was the undoubted musical tutor of Schubert but this doesn't proved that Salieri was much good. The genius of some people will shine through regardless of actual early training. It so happens that Salieri was a good composer but he was not in anything like the same league as either Beethoven, Mozart or Schubert. As for Luchesi, he is, by comparison with Salieri, virtually an unknown, at least in terms of actual musical output that has survived by Salieri.

    I'm sorry, Mr Newman, but you are are living under a cloud of self-delusion. You have conned yourself into believing all this half-baked nonsense, involving mythical conspiracies with the Jesuit Order etc. Your reason for offering to sign off now is clearly because you can read the writing on the wall. After all your efforts, you have no following here, or none that is prepared to speak up in support of your views. Looking back on this thread, I detect one possible sympathiser but his views seemed pretty lame and incoherent on the topic. Most other people were deeply sceptical, and some were offended by your views.

    May I repeat that the reason you have failed to win support is because of your style and method of presentation. It is not good enough to throw out mere assertions based on an alternative theory of history, without offering clear backup evidence. You go off on too many irrelevant tangents when questioned. It also irritates audiences to be told that it is the established orthodoxy which has to defend itself against your (loony) views. On the contrary, you have to do far more to establish your position and to prove your points. I have suggested the way you might do this - by publishing a thorough-going exposition of your views - but clearly this poses a huge problem for you. I trust this essential point isn't missed by anyone reading this.

  15. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Nobody has ever suggested that Beethoven's career was falsified. The point being made is that Luchesi was a very important composer in the lives of all 3 composers, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. And that several works by Luchesi are still today wrongly attributed to Beethoven. That wasn't Beethoven's fault. Luchesi was a hugely talented composer and teacher as anyone can appreciate. But it's just one of a thousand things you never learned from the textbooks of your 'experts'.

    Yes, I could write a big book and have it published. Perhaps i shall. But before that happens I will have consulted widely for years on forums such as this one. The public must now judge who has done their homework on Mozart and who is simply repeating popular myths and false assumptions. The judgement of those who believe in free, fair and accountable sources matters more to me than the rigid attitudes of dogmatists.

    I say (and so do others) that the compositional careers of Haydn and Mozart were massively fabricated, falsified and exaggerated. That view remains my considered position having examined a great deal of evidence from many different kinds of source and you see already what reaction this has received.

    Let's leave this thread open. Who knows - maybe your 'experts' will actiually defend their views. Wow - that would be fun, yes ? Till then, thanks.

Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... 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
  •