Beethoven and the case of the true master of genius: "The Venetian Luchesi overshadowed."

In my opinion, it is useless patriotism just to catch three more readers.. This journalist is not the first time he has written rubbish..

He even writes:

The Austrian nation, although being absolutely the most powerful in the world (in the early nineteenth century), did not possess until that moment indigenous composers of fame. Hence the need to 'construct at the drawing board' a tradition: Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven"

For goodness sake.. Not that Luchesi is secondary in Beethoven's life, but everything written is the judgment of an archbishop (as if he were another musician..) regarding Beethoven's exercises

This story is not new at all; several years ago, it was Giorgio Taboga (a Venetian professor, as far as I know a connoisseur of music and musicology but not a professional musicologist) who asserted not only that Luchesi would have had great importance in the formation of the young LVB, but even that there had been a conspiracy to erase every trace of this important Italian author in favor of the "Viennese School". The aforementioned also published some books aimed at dismantling the "mythical" figure of Mozart, in an attempt to "demonstrate" (or so he claimed) not only the true dynamics of his death (a matter of cuckoldry...) but also that many of Mozart's most famous works would have actually been written by Luchesi and sold to Mozart, and the same would be true for many of Haydn's compositions. The issue has also been treated at length in some music forums; the controversy suddenly stopped upon the passing of Prof. Taboga (October 2010); I do not believe I have heard any further developments on the matter, although his son Agostino appears in the program of a lecture-concert organized in 2012 by the Sergio Gaggia association: on that occasion he is presented as "the foremost expert on the Venetian composer" (i.e., Luchesi).

I agree with what was stated in the previous response: it is right to re-evaluate musicians who have been forgotten for some reason (and Luchesi is certainly not the only one), but the thesis regarding the dissemination of one's own works under other names seems a bit daring to me: everything would be based on the "Fondo Estense", that is, a collection of musical manuscripts kept in Modena, which arrived there from Bonn (from where they had been hastily transported during an invasion): Taboga claimed, for example, that certain Mozart symphonies were located there before the "official" date of composition, and the "proof" of this would be the paper used, which is antecedent. However, it is impossible to establish the exact dating of these manuscripts, which could very well be copies made on paper purchased much earlier (since IMSLP did not exist at the time, the only way to have a copy of an unpublished work was to obtain a manuscript and set some copyists to work...)

Ciao

Gino

On my part, I fully confirm what was written in the chronicle of events by Gino.

Coming then to the facts regarding Beethoven's life and training, it is necessary to preface that the direct and indirect testimonies that have reached us do not allow us to express categorical certainties on this matter; therefore, only the discovery of new, certain revelations could change the pendulum of history in one direction or another, and for the rest, they are all suppositions if not conjectures.

So, what is the current state of affairs regarding Beethoven's teachers?

It was certain that the first musical training of the future genius of Bonn took place in his father's house. Ludwig's first public musical appearance occurred on March 26, 1778. On that occasion, he was presented as a child of only five years old, even though he was already seven: Johann resorted to this expedient to further give the impression that his son was a child prodigy, and little Ludwig performed several concerts for harpsichord and trios.

After the first musical rudiments, the father finally understood that in order to truly help his son grow, it was necessary for him to have a real teacher. His first lessons were given by a friend of his parent, Tobias Pfeiffer, a musical director and oboist in military bands. This man shared Johann's love for alcohol and, being homeless, was hosted for a certain period in the Beethoven house.

After his departure, the court organist and director of the Bonn theater followed: Aegidius Gilles van den Eeden. Upon his death in 1782, he was succeeded in that position by Christian Gottlob Neefe, who arrived in the Rhenish city in October 1779. Various Beethoven biographies indicate him as Beethoven's first teacher and, some claim, that his teachings truly influenced his early compositional training. However, this thesis was not at all supported by what was written in the notes of Dr. Franz Gerhard Wegeler, a very close friend of Beethoven since 1782, to whom—along with the notes of Ferdinand Ries, a composer and also a friend of Beethoven—the first biographical notes published in 1838 are attributed. Indeed, Dr. Wegeler wrote: «(...) Neefe (...) modestly influenced the musical education of our Ludwig, who instead complained about the criticisms that he expressed with excessive severity regarding his first attempts at composition.(...)». (Franz Gerhard Wegeler/Ferdinand Ries: Beethoven. Biographical notes from life. Moretti e Vitali publisher)

And, in this discussion, a thesis has been inserted in recent years by some Italian scholars—among whom Luigi della Croce stands out very authoritatively—that the teacher who truly played the main role in Beethoven's first musical training was Andrea Luca Luchesi, who, in his capacity as Kappelmeister, was Neefe's direct superior. According to the supporters of this thesis, the reason for this failure to recognize him by many Beethoven biographers would be largely due to what is a typically German fundamental flaw: not wanting (being unable) to admit that the teacher of one of the greatest geniuses of German and universal music was an Italian or “welche” (southern Italian), as the Teutons like to define the inhabitants of the Bel Paese. According to the supporters of this thesis, Beethoven himself hid all this because he would have had personal reservations toward Luchesi, since he succeeded Ludwig van Beethoven senior as Kappelmeister, thereby taking this position right from his father, Johann.

However, the thesis that Neefe was Beethoven's main teacher was supported by an article that appeared on March 2, 1783, in the Magazin der Musik, signed by Carl Friedrich Cramer: «(...) a boy (...) of very promising talent. He plays the piano very quickly and with strength, reads sight-reading very well (...) mainly Sebastian Bach's well-tempered Harpsichord which was given to him by Mr. Neefe (...) who (...) also gave him some lessons in basso continuo. Now he is being exercised in composition; to encourage him, 9 variations composed by Beethoven for piano have been published in Mannheim. This young genius deserves a subsidy so that he may travel. He would certainly become a second Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.». (H. C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and the world in documents and images of the era. Rusconi publisher)

Furthermore, Beethoven supposedly later wrote a letter—the conditional is mandatory as the original letter has been lost and there exists a copy not in Beethoven's hand—datable to a period ranging from the end of October 1792 to October 26, 1793, of thanks to Neefe: «I thank you for all the advice you have bestowed upon me so that I might advance in my"}

art. If one day I become a great man, it will also be thanks to Him; that will please Him more as He can be sure of it." (Ludwig van Beethoven. Epistolario volume I 1783-1807. Edited by Sieghard Brandenburg. Skira editore)

Dr. Wegeler, several times in his notes, stated that he only reported what he was truly sure of, and his judgment on Neefe seems quite clear and peremptory. Furthermore, the fact that Beethoven's letter of thanks to Neefe has not reached us in its original text increases the numerous doubts in this regard.

On March 2, 1783, Beethoven joined the orchestra as a harpsichordist, and in this, it seems that Neefe played a truly strategic role. Also on the advice of the same master, before October 14, Beethoven wrote what was the first letter of his correspondence to reach us. The recipient was Elector Maximilian Friedrich, and the purpose was to seek his benevolence and those funds that would have served him to travel and to grow musically. To this end, he announced to the prince the dedication of the three Kurfürstensonaten.

In 1784, despite a musical catalog that was enriched by only one work that has reached us, moreover in an incomplete state, Beethoven's musical life was very important. He became a permanent – a function he performed until his departure for Vienna on October 31, 1792 – vice-organist of the court of Bonn which, in that very year, on April 15, saw the death of its Elector Maximilian Friedrich and the succession to his throne by Maximilian Franz, who had a great love for music. On him, the Beitrage zur Ausbreitung nutzlicher Kennynisse of August 20 wrote: "(...) Taste is refined more and more every day (...)". (H.C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and his world in documents and images. Rusconi Editore) Immediately after his installation, Maximilian Franz asked his secretary for a detailed report on the status and value of the musicians present at his court. This sort of memorandum was delivered to him on June 25. The document stated, among other things, that Christian Gottlob Neefe could be easily relieved of his function as organist "(...) because not particularly gifted (...) Ludwig van Beethoven (...) has no salary but has taken care of the organ during the absence of Kapellmeister Luchesy; he has good abilities, is still young, of good and quiet conduct and poor (...)". (H.C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and his world in documents and images. Rusconi Editore)

It should be noted that, just two months before the death of the previous Elector Maximilian Friedrich, Beethoven sent him a letter of supplication asking for a raise. This letter was then reinforced on February 23 by another, sent also to the Elector, from Sigismund, Count of the Holy Roman Empire of Salm and Reiffrerscheid, first court master and musical superintendent, where he wrote: "(...) the supplicant has given sufficient proof of skill and ability in the past in playing the court organ following the frequent absences of the organist Neefe, both within the framework of auditions for theater pieces as well as on other occasions (...). Taking into account the above, I believe that the supplicant deserves the title of vice-organist of the court, as well as the small increase that Your Most Illustrious Grace will magnanimously grant him. (...)". (H.C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and his world in documents and images. Rusconi Editore)

Note the discrepancy that exists between the text of Count Sigismund, which refers to the replacement of Neefe, and that of the secretary, who instead wrote about the replacement of Kapellmeister Luchesi: they seem made specifically to give rise to the doubts I have already mentioned regarding who was Beethoven's true master in those years in Bonn.

Be that as it may, Elector Maximilian Friedrich was deaf to these requests and did not grant the increase, something his successor Maximilian Franz did, after reading his secretary's report: 150 florins, a sum that Beethoven received from the following year, in which the official appointment as vice-organist formally took place.

The last testimony regarding Luchesi that has reached us in the relationship with Beethoven concerns the fourteen musical lines all written in bass clef, except for the first, in treble clef, on "The Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremiah", the dating of which can be understood to be between 1790 and 1792. Franz Gerhard Wegeler tells us that, during the Lenten period, they were traditionally performed and consisted of: "(...) short phrases, four to six lines long, performed in the manner of a chorale, each having a particular rhythm (...)" The task of accompanying them fell to Beethoven, who asked Heller – the singer who had to intone them – if he could"},

to answer out of tune. Heller acquiesced, probably believing that Beethoven would not have been capable of doing so. The composer performed a "strongly modulating accompaniment" (Franz Gerhard Wegeler/Ferdinand Ries: Beethoven. Biographical notes live. Moretti e Vitali editore) succeeding in his intention.

The reaction was one of astonishment from Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi, who was present at the event. For his part, Heller reacted badly: he reported the matter to the Prince-Elector who, despite having laughed at the episode, was forced to order a "less elaborate accompaniment". (Franz Gerhard Wegeler/Ferdinand Ries: Beethoven. Biographical notes live. Moretti e Vitali editore)

Alexander Wheelock Thayer indicated Lent in 1790 as the most probable date for these events to have occurred, and it is very likely to be so. This is also because Franz Gerhard Wegeler, in describing the event, expressed himself as follows: "(...) Beethoven gave the orchestra its first taste of his talent in a casual way (...)" (Franz Gerhard Wegeler/Ferdinand Ries: Beethoven. Biographical notes live. Moretti e Vitali editore) and it seems highly improbable to me that this first time occurred before or after, during the remaining two years of his stay in Bonn.

We now come to the Haydn case. Beethoven's relationship with the elderly composer was very controversial and contradictory. In the first year, 1793, their relations were, however, generally marked by a certain friendship: lessons twice a week and socializing that went even beyond a normal pupil-teacher relationship. However, these relations changed at the end of November, after Beethoven, in the midst of a creative crisis, tried to pass off some works already composed in Bonn as new. The reason for this crisis must be sought, as often happened with Beethoven, in a negative psychological state, probably also due to his distance from his native soil and the friends left in Bonn. The fact remains that Haydn, leaving for London on January 19, 1794, did not take his young pupil with him but, in all fairness, it would not be surprising if it had been Beethoven himself who decided not to follow the master to London, seeking other paths of study. On the other hand, it is certain that regarding another matter, at least Beethoven was, if not outright mendacious, absolutely reticent with Haydn: secretly from him and simultaneously to his lessons, he also took lessons from Johann Baptist Schenk because the latter requested that he tell him nothing. Contacts with the latter were initiated through Joseph Gelinek, a pianist and teacher who, in turn, met Beethoven probably between the end of 1792 and the beginning of 1793, within the context of the disputes among pianists that took place from the arrival of the composer from Bonn to Vienna. Gelinek was defeated but between the two there was initially friendship, then later, in 1794, due to disagreements probably attributable to both, the friendship ended and it was he who revealed to Haydn the clandestine lessons with Schenk. The latter, in 1830, wrote a memorandum recounting how he came to know Beethoven. Unfortunately, his account results as very confused and contradictory, probably due to advanced age and his now blurred memories: "(...) At the end of July, Abbé Gelinek let me know that he had met a young man who demonstrates on the piano a rare skill such as he has not heard since Mozart. At the same time, he explained that Beethoven had already begun studying counterpoint with Haydn six months ago and was still stuck on the first exercise (...)". (H. C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and the world in documents and images of the era. Rusconi editore)

It is quite evident how it would have been impossible for these events to have occurred in July 1793, not only because Beethoven had already been taking lessons from Haydn for eight months but also because, given the amount of exercises done with Haydn, it could not be that after so much time they were still on the first exercise. And therefore this meeting between Gelinek and Beethoven can only have occurred, as I have already written, between the end of 1792 – December – and the beginning of 1793 – January – which is about a month or two after the start of the lessons with Haydn.

Gelinek introduced Beethoven to Schenk during that period, who immediately realized how things stood and agreed to give, in turn, lessons to Beethoven: "(...) Upon a simple glance, I found some error in every key (...). Since I was now certain that my pupil did not know the basic rules of counterpoint, I gave him Joseph Fux's famous manual "Gradus ad Parnassum" (...)". (H. C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and the world in documents and images of the era. Rusconi editore) But then moving forward in the writing, it was Schenk himself who contradicted himself in the

date: «(...) All'incirca dopo la metà di marzo mi fece sapere che presto si sarebbe recato con Haydn a Eisenstadt e che vi si sarebbe trattenuto fino all'inverno (...)». (H. C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and the world in documents and images of the era. Rusconi editore) It is quite evident that if Gelinek had met Beethoven in July, he certainly could not have introduced him to Schenk in March.

On June 19, 1793, Beethoven left for Eisenstadt to join Haydn who, since May, was already there. That day Schenk recounted that he went to Beethoven for the usual lesson and instead found only a small note – letter no. 9 - on the door: «Dear Schenk, I would not have wanted to leave for Eisenstadt, I was counting on being able to speak with you again. I thank you for all the courtesies you have shown me. I will try to return them according to my means. I hope to see you again soon and to be able to enjoy the pleasure of your company. Farewell and do not completely forget your Beethoven.» (Ludwig van Beethoven. Epistolary volume I 1783-1807. Edited by Sieghard Brandenburg. Skira editore)

From this it is deduced that the lessons with Schenk took place between March and June 1793 – Thayer-Forbes believed only towards the end of April - and that, upon the return of Haydn and Beethoven to Vienna between late July and early August – and not for the winter as Beethoven seemed to have planned with Schenk – these did not resume. However, if we take at face value what was reported by Anton Schindler, his first biographer, in 1824, a chance encounter occurred between Beethoven and Schenk. The two had not seen each other since the time of the lessons, and the occasion was thus good to remember those times. Thus Schindler reported: «(...) the episodes of the years 1793-94 also came to mind, when they had deceived Papa Haydn without him ever noticing anything, and this memory caused Beethoven to burst into a loud laugh.(...)». (H. C. Robbins Landon: Beethoven. His life and the world in documents and images of the era. Rusconi editore)

If we take what was written by Schindler at face value, the lessons with Haydn also took place upon his return from Eisenstadt and lasted until his departure for London on January 19, 1794.

Upon his departure, he recommended to his pupil to take lessons from Johann Georg Albrechtsberger. In March 1795 – though more recently a hypothesis has emerged postponing them to July – the lessons with Albrechtsberger ended and, at the end of August, Haydn returned to Vienna where he found a Beethoven much changed from how he had left him more than a year and a half before.

Now, however one may see it or think of it, I still think that it is absolutely undeniable how much influence Haydn's music had on Beethoven: it is enough to listen to many masterpieces of the late Haydn to recognize its ancestry in the young Rhenish man.

JohannJohannËgidius Gilles van den EedenChristian Gottlob NeefeFranz Gerhard WegelerFerdinand ReisWegelerNeefeLuigi della Croce Andrea Luca LuchesiNeefeLuchesiLudwig van Beethoven seniorJohannNeefeCarl Friedrich Cramer

Open content (youtube)

Sebastian BachNeefebasso continuo

Open content (youtube)

Wolfgang Amadeus MozartNeefeWegelerNeefeNeefeNeefeMaximilian Friedrich

Open content (youtube)

Maximilian FriedrichMaximilian FranzMaximilian FranzChristian Gottlob NeefeLuchesyMaximilian FriedrichNeefeNeefeLuchesiMaximilian FriedrichMaximilian FranzLuchesiFranz Gerhard WegelerAndrea LuchesiAlexander Wheelock ThayerFranz Gerhard WegelerHaydnHaydnHaydnJohann Baptist SchenkJoseph GelinekGelinekHaydnSchenkGelinekMozartHaydnHaydnHaydnGelinekHaydnGelinekSchenkJoseph Fux “Gradus ad Parnassum”SchenkHaydnEisenstadtGelinekSchenkHaydnSchenkSchenkSchenkThayer-ForbesHaydnSchenkAnton SchindlerSchenkSchindlerHaydnSchindlerHaydnJohann Georg AlbrechtsbergerAlbrechtsbergerHaydn

Andrea Luca Lucchesi is a composer who was unjustly forgotten.

il "Lucchesi case," on the other hand, is something that has been blown out of proportion more than allowed (as Gino and Daniele have rightly reminded us with such patience. Thank you both!)

Although Prof. Taboga was not a musicologist, he tried to draw unprecedented conclusions regarding the musical relevance of Andrea Lucchesi. In that whole affair, which seems to be archived by now, I—as an act of trust—preserve: 1) his goodwill/seriousness in his investigations 2) his good faith.

In my opinion, Taboga erred by excessive mathematical rigor in drawing his conclusions. It is useful to remember that his training was scientific-mathematical and thus, perhaps inevitably, so was his approach to matters of art such as the "Lucchesi/Beethoven case."

his basic assumption was what I would define as a naive "chain of genius" that starts from Riccati, passes through Lucchesi, and arrives at Beethoven.

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4tab-it.htm

Too easy conclusions! ... The greatness of an artist (when they are a great artist) cannot be fully explained in a purely mathematical way.

Taboga, in his infatuation, considered every note Lucchesi wrote to be a 'masterpiece.' Naivety, certainly.

But hasn't this critical judgment of "genius regardless" also been reserved for others more illustrious than Lucchesi?

But his Requiem, and his other works, seem very beautiful to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdFE8M2Q_Fk

Therefore, for me, as I wrote at the beginning, he was unjustly forgotten.

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4tab-it.htm

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)