Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Controversy over the true musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart

133K views 391 replies 30 participants last post by  Daniel 
#1 ·
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.

Having studied and written on this subject myself I've found this to be a hugely controversial area of research, focusing on many aspects of music history but also on still surviving archive material, including manuscripts now at the Estense Library, Modena and also in other collections.

The thesis is that the musical achievements of both Haydn and also Mozart were hugely inflated by the supply to them of many, many works of which they were not the true composer, this including (in the case of Mozart) a whole series of works which he claims to have written himself in Vienna and which he had entered in to his thematic catalogue.

So far reaching are these views that they constitute a highly controversial area of research. I wonder if members of this forum would be prepared to consider the case for such a viewpoint but know in advance that such things may be unacceptable to others.

That these issues are based on documentary and other evidence is not in doubt. That they are correctly interpreted is the issue.

I am currently working on a long-term biography of Mozart which will feature some of these claims ('Mozart and the Late Holy Roman Empire') as well as involved in discussions on the possible production of a documentary programme on the same. In addition, I have been a student of Mozart for the better part of 20 years and a regular contributor to various forums on music of the late 18th century. Similar views on Mozart's career are now held by several researchers though, of course, they are bitterly resisted by tradition and by most other authors on the subject.

Best wishes
 
See less See more
#264 ·
Rod is here now. My rebuttals concerned Robert's theories about Beethoven and Luchesi, I'm less concerned with his ideas re Mozart and Haydn. I agree with him the quality of Mozart's attributed output varies greatly, some of the chamber pieces in particular sound as if they could have been written by anybody and are average fodder at best. I thought his ideas about Haydn were the most interesting and is probably safer ground for Robert - nobody is interested in Haydn enough to be offended!!
 
#3 ·
Dear Hexameron,

The two men you refer to are rather ignorant of the life and works of Mozart, specialising, as they do, in the life and works of Beethoven.

As to being 'up to my old tricks again' I am more than happy to ignore such provocation and use music forums such as this to encourage conversation on the musical achievements (real or supposed) of Mozart, this being my aim among those whose attitudes and knowledge is surely more worthy of appreciation than your own.

R.E. Newman
 
#4 ·
Until quite recently the iconic status of Haydn and Mozart within the landscape of western classical music seemed entirely justified to be compared with two great mountains - these two composers, combined with the life and career of Ludwig van Beethoven, being said to justify an entire 'school' of composition (known to musicology) as the 'First Vienna School'. This year, 2006, is virtually 'wall to wall Mozart', for example. And the reputations of these 3 composers seems (at least) to be based on facts so solid and so often demonstrated that little could ever challenge such a view of things.

But facts are stubbon things. In spite of a truly vast mountain of 'Mozartean' literature (and much less so on Haydn) there are good grounds to call in to question many of the most basic assumptions on the life and career of first Haydn and, later, WA Mozart.

That is to say, that, in fact, many works currently attributed to both Haydn and to Mozart (appearing till today in catalogues of both these composers) can be shown by documentary and other evidence not to have been composed by them. Indeed, that the available evidence (from manuscipts, watermarks, circumstantial and other sources) are so suggestive of manipulation and error that a contrary view has emerged on the true musical achievements of both Haydn and Mozart.

That works by the young Mozart were not, in fact, his own compositions (being often pastiches by others, arrangements made by his father Leopold with the assistance of his sister etc) has long been known. That a great number of symphonies and masses by Haydn were not, in fact, of Haydn's composition, is also an inescaptable fact. And, though such things may contradict the iconic status of both composers they are truths that justify a fair and honest appreciation of their scale.

This I and other researchers have tried to do in the past few years.

There is, today, a great deal of evidence that the life and career of Mozart was, to a very large extent 'manufactured' - in the sense that at each and every stage of his life Mozart was receiving from others (for reasons that must be argued) musical works for which he took the credit but which, in fact, he never composed. And this on a scale so massive that, naturally, a collision must (and to some extent already has) occurred with traditionalists.

This is the true context of such studies.

There are today at Estense Library in Modena, at Regensburg and elsewhere documents which are being flatly ignored by editors of the 'Koechel' list of Mozart's works since their acceptance would make more widely known the scale of the scandal. At Modena there are today 9 symphonies (these all traditionally attributed to Mozart) which indisputably once formed part of the music archives at Bonn (inventoried there in 1784) but which, at that time, were never attributed to Mozart. Indeed, prior to 1783, there is no contemporary reference to Mozart having written symphonies.

These and many other areas of study are strongly suggestive of the proposition that Mozart was, in fact, largely a 'manufactured' composer (as was Joseph Hadyn) and that these two composers were being 'groomed' as glories of Vienna by deceipt and by practices that have been little appreciated till now.

That Mozart was a great pianist and even a great arranger of music is beyond dispute. That he was the author of the 626 works found today in Koechel is, in my view, a grotesque and unjustifiable error taught only by those who cannot see further than the early (flawed) biographies of Niemetscheck and Nissen.

To have created the icon is to allow others to criticise it. This I and others do, though in doing so we aim to argue only from what can be shown true.

Regards
 
#5 ·
Your debate seems mechanically pompous and dry, but I would have to agree that Leopold might have given some assitance to the early Wolfgang, just as prehaps Rimsky assited Galzunov on his first symphony. When it comes to the later operas, 'de ponte', 'the flute', as well as many other works the 'mozartian individualism' is overwhelmingly abundent; therefore to suggest that an entirely different composers had written the majority of staples in his repetoire is absurd!
 
#6 · (Edited)
I don't recall saying that the 'majority of staples' in Mozart's repetoire were written by entirely different composers.

But, since you describe 'my' debate as mechanically pompous and dry (though debates always involve more than one person, do they not ?) let me say that (contrary to your assumptions) a great number of musical works today attributed to both Haydn and Mozart are indeed works by other composers -a fact so indisputable (if you care to examine the history of Koechel, for example) that we can describe this process as a 'one way street'. In the current revision of Koechel there will be (according to its senior editor) at least another 30 works ditched from the main list.

Now, if we are to allow ourselves honesty (i.e. if we are to deal with facts, rather than popular assumptions), we can easily show the state of things as they really are. Let's take, for example, 'Mozart Symphonies'.

Today, according to convention, there are between 41 and 47 symphonies said to have been composed from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Let me ask you or any other reader on what firm basis the first 22 or so of these are attributed to that composer ? Let me also point out (though it will no doubt come as a surprise to you) that close to 100 'Mozart' symphonies have at one time or another been attributed to Mozart since Mozart studies began ! Now, in simple terms, for us to correspond on such a subject without first agreeing that there is a major problem (by such statistics alone) would indeed by a dry and pointless exercise. But, how many composers do you know of whose symphonic achievements are today less than half the number once attributed to them ? None. None at all ? Except of course Joseph Haydn and a certain Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, that is. Fair point or not ? And we've only just begun.

You've no difficulty agreeing that 'some' exaggeration features in 'early Mozart'. I honestly think you would be more accurate to describe the situation as one of 'major' exaggeration. And the same with symphonies 1-22 inclusive, all of which (but one) lack any of the sorts of evidence that would solidly support their attribution to W.A. Mozart.

If all this is still not sufficient reason for you to question popular belief, we can move on to areas where (without doubt) you know next to nothing. (I say this with the greatest respect to you as a music lover). To discussion of the specific symphonies that were supposedly written by Mozart between, say, the 'Pariser' (No.31) and the 'Jupiter' (No.41). These 10 symphonies of Mozart's (supposed) maturity must surely be attributed correctly to him - yes ?

No, again not so. For (I must regretfully inform you) there are good grounds for us not doing so. But these good grounds are hardly even heard. If you and I were to discuss such issues on Mozart websites we would surely have been banned by now for simply for having such a fair conversation - this on grounds that we are 'trying to diminish' the achievements of Mozart, or 'stealing the jewels from Mozart's symphonic crown' etc etc. Such a plain fact is, I regret, my personal experience.

The Mozart industry (which really began with Leopold Mozart and which was later aided and abettted by rich patrons who manufactured myth at every stage of Mozart's life) was to be continued by his widow, Constanze, whose manipulation of historical records, of correspondence etc. and whose oversight of the first two biographies was little short of censorship, are but a few reasons why the iconic status of the composer is, in point of fact, a gross distortion of his actual musical achievements, concealing the truth that, in fact, he (and Haydn too) were being supplied choice works by others during the careers of both men, this to support a campaign to make Vienna the 'city of music'.

To offer a brief and general overview of this case is, I think, only fair. But, from K1 to K626 we are able to trace a history of fraud, deception and manipulation so great that I think we must fairly describe the iconic status of Mozart as being one of the great myths of western civilization. (Incidentally, Mozart did not compose KV626 - a fact realised as early as 1825 by the great German musicologist, Gottfried Weber, editor of the leading musical journal 'Caelicia' of that year. (But Weber did not know, even at that time, that the signature on the score and the actual music within it is actually forged. But of the true history of that highly complex and controversial story, more later if so required).

So, contrary to your general description of my post, may I suggest your natural condemnation of what I wrote may, if you choose, be proved to be nothing but a natural 'gut reaction' rather than a view based on evidence.

From 1784 onwards (the time when Mozart begins his thematic catalogue in Vienna) he was being supplied works from various sources (this several years after his arrival in that city). In point of fact (and contrary to popular assumption) Mozart did NOT compose symphonies 39,40 and 41 in a mere 6 weeks during 1788. They too are not works by Mozart. But such is the enormity of the deception that this whole subject is surely best tackled on a work by work basis.

The 18th century, of course, had no copyright laws, as such. But there is sufficient documentary and other evidence to show that he, Mozart, profited from being supplied works that were actually composed by various other composers. The same was true of Haydn. I would be pleased to provide specific examples on request.
 
#7 ·
Robert, I should have put some smiling emoticons in my message. I mentioned you "up to your old tricks again" in good jest. I'm actually glad to find you here. Despite all the harassment you faced in other places, I rather enjoyed following your indepth posts. You can spew off more Mozart information than an auditorium of professors. What made your Mozart/Salieri/Beethoven/Luchesi threads even better was the interaction between other members, challenging you or asking further questions. To me, that's what a musical amateur like me can truly learn from: musical debate. However, it went too far and I disagree with what happened, but by no means do I wish to expose you to any "provocation." Think of my comment as a light-hearted gesture.
 
#9 ·
Dear Hexameron,

Well, I am really pleased to read your second post on this thread !

Yes, you're quite right that attempts to get these issues aired are not so easy when the entire 'Mozart Industry' use ground rules that are so unfairly skewed in favour of mere tradition.

Very best regards and thank you for being so honest and constructive.

Yours sincerely

R.E.Newman
 
#10 ·
Dear Linz,

I respect the fact that you care nothing of who actually wrote the music today attributed to Mozart (or most of it). For those of us who do (and I think they care because the correct attribution matters for historical as well as musical reasons) there are issues that need to be tackled, some of them questioning things that, till now, we've always accepted on traditional grounds.

Yes, I entirely agree that the music under examination is some of the finest written in the 18th or any other century.

Regards
 
#12 ·
Dear Topaz,

Let me answer your question as well as I can.

You ask about reputable journals. Let me first give you a list of some of the publications which provide the background to this issue -

In the online Wikipedia Encyclopaedia there is an article entitled -

'Luchesi Authorship Controversy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luchesi_authorship_controversy

You can see a list of various academic publications that are relevant to this issue. I personally provided a new English language version of a work called 'Works Falsely Attributed to Haydn and Mozart' (2005) which is not included in that list.

Please bear in mind that we are here discussing the entire life and career of Mozart - from that of his childhood, his youth, his early adulthood, his years before coming to Vienna, his arrival and marriage in Vienna, and the last 10 years or so of his short life. That's a lot of ground, you will agree !

I don't know where you stand on his early life. But it's very plain that many, many works atrributed to Mozart from his childhood were not, in fact, his own. This is a commonly known fact. Take, for example, the first 5 piano concertos. These are not compositions by the young Mozart. They're arrangements of works by various other composers. That's a plain fact. And this sort of thing happens for years.

You hear of course only one side of this story. The 'Mozart industry' is very powerful and it doesn't want you to hear the other side.

For a very long time, Austria (and the territory we today call Germany) was under the musical domination of Italians. It was Italians who had most of the music posts. Most Kapellmeisters were Italian and, of course, the invention of the symphony, the quartet, the quintet, etc etc were Italian. Those countries were part of what we call 'The Holy Roman Empire' where, up until 1773, the Jesuits (a military order of the Catholic Church) were in virtual control of music teaching. Mozart's father Leopold was Jesuit educated and Mozart himself received some academic teaching at home in Salzburg from Abbe Bullinger, himself a former Jesuit.

But in 1773 came a crisis. The Jesuits (who taught only in Latin) were officially banned. That caused a huge disruption in the musical Europe of that time in nations of the Holy Roman Empire. The Order was banished, forever, by the pope. For many crimes and for many times undermining kings and governments. So the Jesuits were forced to go underground or to emigrate. Some went to Russia (where they were temporarily accepted) and others stayed, hoping that one day they would be restored to power.
Officially they no longer existed. The Emperor himself banned them as soon as he heard the news from Rome. And from that time onwards their future seemed to be very uncertain.

But the Jesuits (of course) did not like losing all their huge power and influence. They fought to get it back. And this they did in many ways. First, by organising schools of theory in Padua (Italy), later in places like Mannheim etc. They wanted to keep their influence, even under the table, so to speak.

And, around this time, the idea was born that what would really get them back their favour would be if native German speaking composers were to become famous. So a plan was made to sponsor people like Gluck, and Haydn. Rich patrons did so. They became very famous. Their sponsors were rich lords like Esterhazy and the Emperor's brother Max Franz (the Elector of Cologne). Soon, people began to praise Gluck and Haydn as being 'German heroes' and this, in turn, helped to make 'Vienna - the city of music'. Great prestige for the Emperor (himself based in Vienna). This great idea was further helped by the development of the reputation of the young Mozart. It didn't really matter that, in fact, many works by Haydn and the young Mozart were actually by other composers. This was all secret. But, in truth, people like Sammartini and Luchesi (not famous today, of course) wrote many, many works which today are said to be 'Haydn's'.

This fakery was highly successful. Nobody cared too much and it wasn't exactly advertised. Later (in the 1780's) this 'manufactured' situation went to another level when several publishing firms for music opened with offices in Vienna - Artaria being one of them.

Let me continue with the story if I may.

Mozart (after many intrigues) finally came to Vienna. But notice, that in his first 3 years there he did not even keep a catalogue of his own compositions. That came later, in 1784.

And, in these early Vienna years, Mozart was looking for a permanent post.

The post Mozart really wanted was to be the Kapellmeister of the second greatest music chapel of the Holy Roman Empire. It was in Bonn - the seat of the Electorate of Cologne. This post was offered to him repeatedly by Max Franz, brother of the Emperor Leopold. But there was a problem. Max Franz had to wait for the death of the existing Elector (Max Friedrich). Only then could Mozart get to Bonn.

(This is the same Bonn chapel where, of course, the young Beethoven was to go).

Finally, in 1784, the old Max Friedrich died. Here was Mozart's big chance. The new elector Max Franz arrived in the city of Bonn. Being a great lover of music he ordered almost immediately an inventory of the chapel music to be made. (At that time, the existing Kapellmeister was the Italian named Andrea Luchesi - and he was on 1 year holiday in Italy with his Concertmaster).

Anyway, the inventory was made. Other people helped in the absence of Luchesi.

Luchesi was then told to hurry back from Italy. He arrived as fast as he could in Bonn but the inventory had already been completed.

During the inventory it was found that many pieces of music had NO NAME on the manuscript. Those making the inventory did not know whose they were. (In fact they were of course music personally written by Luchesi. It was normal for Kapellmeisters not to sign their own names on music they write during their term of office - the cantatas of JS Bach, for example, are rarely signed).

This large body of music with no name was simply put in to a pile and called 'anonymous'.
And this happened before Luchesi returned. It was spring of 1784.

Now - at this time (1784) Mozart was NOT known as a writer of symphonies. Nowhere do we find him having any reputation for writing symphonies. The two top writers of the time do NOT mention Mozart symphonies. In fact, in his entire lifetime Mozart had only ONE symphony published in his name (No.31) and it's not by him. (The Paris Symphony).

In this same year, the Inventory made at Bonn (which still survives) recorded hundreds and hundreds of pieces of music. But guess how many by Mozart were there ? The answer is NONE ! Not a single piece of Mozart was there. So you see how great the myth really is of Mozart's fame as a composer. Here is perhaps the greatest chapel in Germany at the time and not a single work by Mozart.

But the new Elector looked at this music and he noticed something extraordinary. He noticed that his Kapellmeister Luchesi was the true composer of works that were already in print in Haydn's name ! (These Luchesi had been selling to Haydn).

The new elector had a problem. He couldn't fire his own Kapellmeister and it might cause a huge scandal. Besides, he wanted Mozart to take Luchesi's place. But Luchesi couldn't be forced to resign. So a deal was made. Luchesi would from now on supply Mozart.

And that is what happened.

We know this is true. Years later the city of Bonn was occupied by the invading troops of Napoleon. But not before the music archives were parcelled up and removed from the city. Some of them eventually came to Italy - to relatives of the Elector. There they stayed, in Modena, until they were finally examined many decades later, by the librarian of the great Estense Library in Modena.

This Bonn material contained dozens and dozens of works by Haydn and Mozart !!! Many of these works had their original covers torn off and the name of 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' was now found on them. But there is no record that these symphonies ever came to Bonn during the lifetime of the chapel.

Among them are 9 'Mozart' symphonies. These include the 'Haffner' (35), the great G Minor (40), the 'Paris (31) and the 'Jupiter' (41). Symphonies that are today assumed to be by Mozart. In fact, the watermarks clearly show they come from Bonn. These symphonies are NOT by Mozart. Although they are (even in Modena) attributed to him.

Further proof is found at Regensburg. In that library you can see a copy of the symphony No. 31 ('Paris') containing the name of Mozart. But that name is written on top of a still legible name of 'Lucchese'.

I could continue for a long time. But this will hopefully be of some help in explaining the point. Others who supplied Mozart included composers such as Myslivececk, Kraus, Michael Haydn and others.

Very best wishes. Hope this helps.

Robert
 
#13 · (Edited)
Robert Newman

I was of course fully familiar with the Wikepedia reference and the links identified thereto. With this and the additional information you have supplied I'm sorry to say that you have singularly failed to impress me. Your story sounds completely unconvincing. I was expecting you might have done far better than this.

I say this because:

1. This issue has been around for several years now and has hardly hit the big time, has it? In fact, it's got nowhere. There is no reference to it in Groves, one of the main classical music reference dictionaries. If they gave it any credence whatsoever it would surely have made at least a brief appearance there. Nor have I seen a refutations elsewhere on the Net. Clearly people obviously think the propositions advanced by the very small group you refer to are so ludicrous that it's not worth challenging.

2. I don't buy this facile notion that the "Mozart industry" is suppressing any debate. This seems utter nonsense. This is not Stalinist Russia. There is no censorship.

3. Musicology experts can usually tell whether a distinguished piece of music came from a particular composer's hand. Even learned amateurs can do that, especially with such famous names as Beethoven and Mozart and even more especially with their most famous works. I reckon I can tell a piece of genuine late Mozart. It has a definite feel to it. It is even reckoned babies can tell too! As for Beethoven, I agree some of the very early stuff may be a bit difficult to identify an untrained person but to an expert they should be able to tell in no time. Most pieces have a certain "fingerprint" stamped all over them. And you don't need to be that well-trained to spot it. I know, for example, that Beethoven, in his early days, sometimes accepted commisions for short pieces that were passed off as somebody else's work. Musicologists have easily sorted out out a number of these commission pieces and they are quite definite about them. This kind of "genetic" identification is far more reliable than dusty old manuscripts with watermark discrepancies that you are relying to a large extent it seems.

4. I immediately noticed that you have no qualifications, or at least none that you are prepared to divulge. Do you think people are daft? Your single (unpublished) article is inadequate testimony. I wouldn't believe what you say unless I had firm evidence that (i) you are a serious researcher with proper, recognised qualifications in music, and (ii) someone who has gained the backing of an acknowledged University musicology department. Even then I would treat it with suspicion, until at least it became a big talking point and general academic opinion was swinging in favour.

Topaz
 
#14 · (Edited)
Topaz,

You say 'I was OF COURSE familiar with the Wikipedia reference and the links indentified thereto'. Why do you say 'of course' - surely the vast majority of music lovers and even students of music history are NOT familiar with this material ?

However, you are. Fine.

I have singularly 'failed to impress you'. Fine. Allow me to do better. But who could overturn the entire iconic mythology of Mozart in a few short emails ? Surely you were not expecting anything more than a short introduction, were you ? I could do little more than lay out the case for general readers and experts alike in a very, very condensed form. So that discussion could be made. And not so much to prove the case. And I am happy to justify what I wrote at length.

Well, I am certainly pleased you claim knowledge of the main issues. That gives us and the neutral reader an opportunity (perhaps the first online) to have substantial discussion on the main issues. Something (as you say yourself) that has hardly occurred yet (for one reason or another).

1. Yes, the issue has been around for a few years now. Not long - but long enough (you may agree) for its outline, at least, to be familiar to you if not its substance - as I hope to show. There is as you say no record of it in Groves - true - but then, there is no record in Groves of many important matters of musical history. I could name many. There is no record there that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was for some 10 years the main music teacher of Ludwig van Beethoven, for example. Nor any that Luchesi wrote the two cantatas WoO87 and WoO88, both wrongly attributed to Beethoven. In point of fact, German musicology would much prefer (it seems) that Luchesi never existed - it being 1937 before the first appreciation of his life and career was published. I could mention various blatantly nationlistic attempts to entirely erase Luchesi's career from Beethoven biographies, for example. Thayer is one famous example. It is not common knowledge that Luchesi gave one of his piano concertos to Mozart during one of his Italian tours, which Mozart was still performing publicly over a decade later, for example. In point of fact (rather than opinion) Luchesi was a famed writer of symphonies in the 1780's. Documentary fact. This was never said of Mozart. And so on.

2. You have seen no refutations on the net. True. That's hardly the fault of those who bring your attention to the issue, is it ? In point of fact, it's clear evidence (as the editors of Wikipedia themselves agree in their article, that no Mozart scholar has even addressed these issues, let alone refuted them) - hardly an argument in support of your view, is it ? Start, if you are serious, with documentary manuscripts attributed to Mozart in the Estense Library at Modena if you are sure there is nothing in this issue. All 9 of them. Or let's take dozens of 'Haydn' works there also - all of them falsely attributed to those two composers. So the inaction of critics such as your goodself is surely the last thing you should be trumpeting as an argument. It might make people think you are a fair judge when, in fact, you regret that nobody has yet examined the case from your own viewpoint. What a strange opening argument !

3. You don't buy the 'facile argument' that the Mozart establishment is suppressing debate. Mmm. Well, the simple facts suggest otherwise. In the previous edition of Koechel the editors seem to have been struck by amnesia, in neglecting to record the fact that there is at Modena a copy of the Prague Symphony of 'Mozart' and a copy of the 'Paris' Symphony at Regensburg - both of these, in fact, works that can be shown to be by Luchesi. (In the case of the 'Paris' at Regensburg still bearing the name of Luchesi - which has been crudely removed with the name 'Mozart' written over the top of it). It must be one of those 'coincidences' that such a copy (indisputably there by 1790) has been ignored by the editors of Koechel. But an all too familiar story in the bandwaggon that is the Mozart myth. Which composers, other than Haydn and Mozart, do you know who, today, have less than half the symphonies attributed to them than have once been the case ? Surely, surely, this is a clear example of gross exaggeration, is it not ? Or statistics become meaningless. There is 'no censorship' ! No - and is it censorship that the Requiem of Mozart bears a fraudulent signature ? This little known ? What is censorship except the removal from public appreciation of facts that challenge the myth of Mozart at each and every stage of his musical career - the destruction of correspondence, the gross exaggerations and alterations to historical fact, etc etc. All of these feature at every single stage of Mozart's life and career, as they have featured ever since. If that is not approved 'censorship' (which included the first two bogus biographies - both 'managed' by Constanze Mozart but published in the name of Niemetscheck and then Nissen - the latter not writing a single word of it) well, what is that but blatant falsehood ?

4. 'Musicology experts can usually tell whether a distinguished piece of music came from a composer's hand'.

Well, let's take just a few examples of 'expertise'. Where was 'expertise' of the kind you describe before 1908 with Symphony No. 37 (KV444) of 'Mozart' ? It was as you will know part of the canon - approved by Mozart experts of the very sort that you praise. Where was this same Mozart 'expertise' in KV582, whose ending is forged in a hand so close to that of Mozart that the truth of it being a fraudulent end was revealed less than 10 years ago ? I could go on and on. Have you ever heard the works of Myselivececk - a composer who indisputably taught Mozart much of his style ? (In fact, a man who for the better part of a decade helped Mozart with work after work and who is the most mentioned composer in the entire Mozart family correspondence ?). Or, what of JM Kraus - a composer who wrote at least 4 works that, till recently, have been attributed to Mozart. Or, again, what of the 40 or so works today known to have come from Michael Haydn that are still in the Koechel catalogue as we speak ? Shall I continue, or do you see the point I am making ?

There are today piano trios from Bonn which have in the past been wrongly attributed to Beethoven. I guarantee you would suppose them to be by Mozart if you knew them - and yet they are not.

Unlike you, I did not look first for your qualifications. It's my view that a person's qualifications are the quantity and quality of their views. But (since these things concern you) I have studied music, have written on the subject for the better part of a decade, am over 50 years old, have studied the life and works of Mozart for the better part of 25 years, have even been making notes for a biography for the last 10, and am now (amongst other things) preparing with a colleague for a 2 part televised documentary on the 'Real life and work of Mozart'.

Now, none of these things makes me 'expert'. But it does give me a little experience in the sorts of issues that are likely to resolve this area of dispute.

Luchesi, Sammartini and others were composing works for Haydn and Mozart which these last two falsely claimed as their own. The evidence (of various kinds) is in my view compelling. So much so that, I seriously believe, there is no longer a problem if the Mozart academic establishment continue to be oblivious to modern discoveries that contradict their assumptions.

Mozart was undoubtedly a fine pianist and a very fine arranger. But he was never, at any time, a great composer. He profited from patronisation by those who wished to make Vienna the city of music and who (in an age where there was no copyright) profited from a grossly exaggerated version of his compositional achievements at each and every stage of his career.

If you wish to continue the discussion I will be more than pleased to sustain it .

Best wishes

Robert
 
#15 ·
Mozart was undoubtedly a fine pianist and a very fine arranger. But he was never, at any time, a great composer.
Robert... I'm surprised. Do you really mean that? That comment shocks me beyond description. Unless you can refute Mozart's authorship of The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, the last 10 Piano Concertos, Symphonies 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, the last 8 Piano Sonatas, the Mass in C minor, the two Fantasias, the Clarinet Concerto K.622, the "Hunt" and "Dissonance" String Quartet, all Violin Concertos, the 3 Salzburg Symphonies, the Rondo in A minor, the Serenade in G major "Nachtmusik," and the Ave Verum Corpus, then such a statement that Mozart was never a great composer is ridiculously, blindly, and totally false.
 
#16 ·
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
 
#32 · (Edited)
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.
This is not one of your best arguments. I'm sure many people had the score of 'Carmen' before its first performance.
The same was happening with Haydn in his later years. In fact, Haydn stopped off in Bonn to receive his London symphonies, from Luchesi.
I read he even stopped in Bonn in both trips to London.
But isn't there another city where he stopped both times.
Didn't all people travelling from Vienna to London stopped in Bonn? It's clearly between the two cities.
I hope you've got stronger evidence of Haydn coming to Bonn to receive his symphonies.

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.
I agree with this. But where are your really serious arguments?

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
This letter you quoted tends to make me think Wolfie did compose those symphonies.

Regarding the Haffner symphony, I'm not completely convinced. How do you know it's Luchesi? Just because it was in Bonn?
Why an arrangement by Mozart is a proof that the original is not his?

I'm hungry of more precise arguments. Can you give them to me?
Is there a place, book or website where I can find them?

It won't be easy to convince me. But I'm going to check objectively, trust me.
 
#17 ·
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
 
#18 · (Edited)
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
 
#19 ·
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
 
#20 · (Edited)
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
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#22 · (Edited)
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
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#24 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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?
 
#26 ·
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
 
#27 ·
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top