http://www.bluemoontalent.com/talent...an/photo-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Printable View
http://www.bluemoontalent.com/talent...an/photo-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
And here is some more music that has been falsely attributed to 'giants' of the musical industry. This time remarkable music falsely attributed to the young Ludwig van Beethoven who was still a student at Bonn. Two cantatas of state actually composed by the Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (Beethoven's musical teacher) but credited by sheer tradition to the music student of Bonn himself, Ludwig van Beethoven ! Courtesy of the iconic world of Easter Island.
Now, whose job was it to write cantatas of state for the death of Emperors and the accession of new emperors in the Holy Roman Empire ? It was the job of the Kapellmeister of Bonn. NOT the young student Beethoven. But the Kapellmeister. How simple is that to understand ?
And thus, these two works today attributed to the young student Beethoven, Wo87 and WoO88 (cantatas on the death of the Emperor Joseph and also the cantata written on the accession of his successor, WoO88) are NOT by the student Beethoven and were in fact never credited to Beethoven in his entire lifetime. They are instead works by Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801). Ignored and marginalised (as usual) by the music industry ever since. Since, of course, you will look in vain for reference to Luchesi as his musical composition teacher in the textbooks of music history.
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Kapellmeister at Bonn (1771-1794)
Trauerkantate auf den Tod Kaiser Josephs II
Chorus
and NOT Ludwig van Beethoven.
Glad we sorted that out ! (These two cantatas were performed at Frankfurt and only much later were they falsely attributed to Ludwig van Beethoven). As for Andrea Luchesi............... Andrea who ???????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rMSF...eature=related
I have no doubt, Robert, that "Koch" promoted his disciple Mozart (alive in 1793), that disciple Haydn followed in step (and that his letter to Leopold is "moonshine" as you write) and so did Luchesi, but you apparently missed the essence of my "strange" previous post, ie the identity of The Manufacturer, a matter you have selected to leave covered in clouds.
But that was my point from the early start of this thread, was it not?
I am glad you agree the Haydn/Mozart relationship is moonshine. And so it is. But the fact remains that nobody knew of 'Mozart's piano concertos' until after 1791, with the exception of 3 concertos published in 1783, whose origins are definitely NOT Mozart. Neither Koch, nor any other writer of the time. Including Forkel. All 27 of these concertos appeared in print only in the very last years of the 18th century (i.e. from around 1798 onwards). By 1803 Koch saw them for the first time, in print. In 'Mozart's' name, of course. LOL.
As for actual authorship of these quartets dedicated to Haydn, no, I have no evidence of their actual composer. Since the documentary evidence shows they reached their final form long after 1785. This is a big subject and there is no simple answer. Several composers were certainly involved. And there is a fraudulent 'autograph' of these same works. Not often refered to. Casti was right. The original version of these quartets was riddled with musical errors and mistakes. They were it seems produced as arrangements of other music, drawing as it happens on various stage works attributed to (wait for it)..... Josef Haydn.
The circular world of musical propaganda, no less !
With Koch (alias Rousseau, Philidor, Gluck, Casanova, Grimm etc etc) praising Mozart's "Haydn symphonies" already in 1793 , your reluctance to address THE issue is well understood but maybe costly nevertheless.
BTW Musical Propaganda never was "Circular" but pyramidic instead!
:hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
Please provide us with evidence that Koch (aka Rousseau, Philidor, Gluck, Casanova,Grimm and numerous others) were all the same person.
It is not that I am reluctant to address 'the issue' but that the onus is yours to prove that Koch was another alias. Isn't it ?
We are still waiting for the evidence. What exactly IS the evidence in the case of Koch ? Because Herr Gluck died decades earlier. No ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
And here again -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhZE4...eature=related
Andrea Luchesi (1740-1801), WoO87 #
Kapellmeister, Bonn Hofkapelle (1774-1794)
Cantata (1790) on the Death of the Emperor Joseph
(Performed in Frankfurt at State Ceremonies)
This music had massive influence on Beethoven's only opera, 'Fidelio', of years later as you can hear here.
Details, courtesy of the great independent musical history researcher - Giorgio Taboga, Italy.
Evidence has already been presented, apparently in your mental absence.Nevertheless here is a recent work that might interest you:
Gluck: The marriage of Hercules and Hebe ~ Christoph Willibald Gluck (Composer), Helmut Koch (Conductor), Berlin Chamber Orchestra (Orchestra), Kammerorchester Berlin (Orchestra), Rosemarie Ronisch (Soprano), et al.
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
First performance 29.6.1747 Pillnitz castle. (Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor,Full name Peter Leopold Joseph,Titles Grand Duke of Tuscany,King of Germany,King of Hungary,King of Croatia and Slavonia,King of Bohemia
Archduke of Austria,Born May 5, 1747 Vienna ).
...and "bohemian Gluck" was as real a person as "little prophet from Bohemia Grimm".
Cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
My 'mental absence' (so-called) equals that of virtually everyone reading this thread. You were asked to provide evidence Heinrich Christoph Koch was the same person as Gluck, Rousseau, and all the other invented aliases of your theory. But what have you provided ? Before we consider your last post let me start at the beginning.
Here is a reference to H.C. Koch anyone can read -
http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...G1ACEWCENUK313
And here, for the sake of our sanity, is the entire reference to H.C. Koch in the 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'. Please read it.
KOCH, HEINRICH CHRISTOPH
(b Rudolstadt, 10 Oct 1749; d Rudolstadt, 19 March 1816). German music theorist and violinist. He served in his youth as a violinist in the Hofkapelle at Rudolstadt and in 1772 became a court musician. He studied the violin and composition with the Kapellmeister Christian Scheinpflug and briefly continued his studies in Weimar, Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg before returning to Rudolstadt, where he remained for the rest of his life. In 1792 he was appointed Kapellmeister, but he returned voluntarily to the orchestra as a first violinist after one year. Composition and writing then occupied him until his death. He was posthumously elected to the Swedish Royal Academy of Music in 1818.
The majority of Koch's compositions were for the court: cantatas, a drama Die Stimme der Freude in Hygeens Haine (1790), instrumental works and sacred music. Except for excerpts illustrating his theoretical writings, these are now lost. Seven symphonies ascribed to ‘Koch’ and formerly held by the Hofkapelle (now in D-RUl) do not appear in contemporary lists of Koch's compositions and may not be his. Koch also wrote numerous reviews and a few articles – some anonymously – for the Musikalische Real-Zeitung of Speyer (1788–91), the Jenaische allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1804–11) and the Allegmeine musikalische Zeitung (1807–11). He started a periodical entitled Journal der Tonkunst in 1795, but only two issues appeared.
The Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, published in three volumes (1782, 1787, 1793), is Koch's most original and important work. A comprehensive study of both the theory and the aesthetics of music, it is grounded in the repertory of the day. Koch resolves the 18th-century dispute over the relative importance of harmony and melody by examining the origins of tones and the process by which the notes of the scale arise. He asserts that neither harmony nor melody takes precedence; key, or mode, is the primary matter (Urstoff) of music. If notes occur simultaneously, harmony results; if successively, melody results. Koch is indebted to Marpurg for the theoretical views expressed in volume i, but does not accept his theory of the undertones, derives the 7th differently, and does not believe that harmony is the primary element of music. He uses five counterpoint exercises of increasing harmonic complexity to illustrate how the notes of a cantus firmus contain the basis for differing harmonies related to the prevailing key. This demonstration is important preparation for the creation of a melody rich in harmonic variety. The Handbuch of 1811 is a revision of this volume, introducing recent scientific discoveries and a different method of chord classification.
Koch began volume ii of the 'Versuch' with an extended essay on aesthetic considerations and guidelines for creation in music. Here he was indebted to the work of Charles Batteux, which he knew in K.W. Ramler's translation, and especially to Sulzer's Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste. He believed that the ultimate purpose and moral justification of the fine arts, in particular music, are to awaken feelings in the audience that will inspire noble resolutions. Although aesthetic theory did not yet validate instrumental music, Koch implies that, by following certain guidelines of the fine arts, the composer of instrumental music may realize the same aim. He outlines three stages of creation, the plan (Anlage), the realization (Ausführung) and the elaboration (Ausarbeitung), and relates them specifically to music, describing the stages in which an aria from C.H. Graun's Der Tod Jesu was supposedly composed. Although it is unlikely that this method of creation was actually practised, the analysis was a useful pedagogical exercise.
Most of volume ii and all of volume iii are entitled ‘Von den mechanischen Regeln der Melodie’ [The Mechanical Rules of Melody]. Koch examines modulation, metre, melodic sections and their connection, and the genres of the day, stressing throughout the importance of the harmonic dimension. The composer's goal should be ‘to conceive of melody harmonically’ (die Melodie harmonisch zu denken), and this mutual dependence of melody and harmony should inform decisions at all levels. Koch acknowledges Joseph Riepel's Anfangsgründe zur musicalischen Setzkunst as the first work to discuss the smallest units of music and the ways in which they must be joined, and builds systematically upon these ideas. The distinguishing characteristics of a musical unit are its ending and its length. The ending, or melodic punctuation, is a resting-point articulated by melodic and harmonic means. The length of a phrase has a rhythmical character (rhythmische Beschaffenheit); because successive phrases create a rhythm, or periodicity, most pleasing if their lengths are equivalent. Koch prefers the four-bar phrase (Vierer), but also describes basic phrases of other lengths and extended and compound phrases. He discusses ways in which these building-blocks may be joined together in brief works, offering various harmonic patterns, and shows how an eight-bar dance can be expanded to 32 bars by such means as sequence, repetition, parenthesis and multiplication of phrase endings and cadences. In his descriptions of the larger forms, Koch concentrates on the principal period (Hauptperiode), a group of phrases which ends with a formal cadence. These periods create the various forms of music by their statement, their repetition, and the position of their harmonic centres within the hierarchy of the prevailing key. For the first movement of a symphony, Koch outlines a binary structure consisting of three principal periods; although he refers to a ‘singing phrase’ after the modulation, he never refers to it as a second theme. Koch's teachings on form were not prescriptive; he generally presented several options observed in the current repertory with the aim of showing what was most usual, das Gewöhnliche.
The Versuch includes many musical examples by Koch and excerpts from symphonies by Haydn and Antonio Rosetti, Singspiele by J.A. Hiller and Georg Benda, keyboard sonatas and concertos by C.P.E. Bach and works by other composers. Although the majority date from the 1760s and 70s, Koch also praised Mozart's ‘Haydn’ Quartets (published in 1785) and noted changes in recent practice.
The monumental 'Musikalisches Lexikon' of 1802 was the work by which Koch was best known until the mid-20th century. It provides information on the formal and technical aspects of the music of the late 18th century in concise entries with scientific explanations, mathematical illustrations and numerous musical examples. Koch later revised and condensed it for a more popular version (1807).
Extracts from the Lexikon were translated into Danish in 1826, and Arrey von Dommer revised and enlarged the entire work in 1865. Both the Lexikon and the Versuch influenced such theorists as Choron, Weber, Marx, Lobe, Lussy and Riemann.
WRITINGS
Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition (Rudolstadt and Leipzig, 1782–93/R; partial Eng. trans. by N.K. Baker as Introductory Essay on Composition: the Mechanical Rules of Melody, Sections 3 and 4, 1983)
ed.: Journal der Tonkunst (Erfurt, 1795)
Musikalisches Lexikon, welches die theoretische und praktische Tonkunst, encyclopädisch bearbeitet, alle alten und neuen Kunstwörter erklärt, und die alten und neuen Instrumente beschrieben, enthält (Frankfurt, 1802/R, 2/1817); abridged as Kurzgefasstes Handwörterbuch der Musik für praktische Tonkünstler und für Dilettanten (Leipzig, 1807/R)
‘Über den technischen Ausdruck: Tempo rubato’, AMZ, x (1808), cols. 513–19
Handbuch bey dem Studium der Harmonie (Leipzig, 1811)
Versuch, aus der harten und weichen Tonart jeder Tonstufe der diatonisch-chromatischen Leiter vermittels des enharmonischen Tonwechsels in die Dur- und Molltonart der übrigen Stufen auszuweichen (Rudolstadt, 1812)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grove6 (L.G. Ratner) [incl. further bibliography]
H. Riemann: ‘H. Chr. Koch als Erläuterer unregelmässigen Themenaufbaues’, Präludien und Studien, ii (Leipzig, 1900/R), 56–70
N.K. Baker: From ‘Teil’ to ‘Tonstück’: the Significance of the ‘Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition’ by Heinrich Christoph Koch (diss., Yale U., 1975); extracts in JMT, xx (1976), 1–48, IRASM, viii (1977), 183–209, Studi musicali, ix (1980), 303–16
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Der rhetorische Formbegriff H.Chr. Kochs und die Theorie der Sonatenform’, AMw, xxxv (1978), 155–77
E. Sisman: ‘Small and Expanded Forms: Koch's Model and Haydn's Music’, MQ, lxviii (1982), 444–75
W. Budday: Grundlagen musikalischer Formen der Wiener Klassik: an Hand der zeitgenössischen Theorie von Joseph Riepel und Heinrich Christoph Koch dargestellt an Menuetten und Sonatensätzen (1750–1790) (Basle, 1983)
S. Davis: ‘H.C. Koch, the Classic Concerto, and the Sonata-Form Retransition’, JM, ii (1983), 45–61
I. Bent: ‘The “Compositional Process” in Music Theory 1713–1850’, MAn, iii (1984), 29–55
N.K. Baker: ‘Der Urstoff der Musik: Implications for Harmony and Melody in the Theory of Heinrich Koch’, MAn, vii (1988), 3–30
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Logik, Grammatik und Syntax der Musik bei Heinrich Christoph Koch’, Die Sprache der Musik: Festschrift Klaus Wolfgang Niemöller, ed. J. Fricke and others (Regensburg, 1989), 99–109
I. Waldbauer: ‘Riemann's Periodization Revisited and Revised’, JMT, xxxiii (1989), 333–91
J. Lester: Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1992)
W. Dürr: ‘Music as an Analogue of Speech: Musical Syntax in the Writings of Heinrich Christoph Koch and in the Works of Schubert’, Eighteenth-Century Music in Theory and Practice: Essays in Honor of Alfred Mann, ed. M. Parker (Stuyvesant, NY, 1994), 227–40
N.K. Baker and T. Christensen, trans. and eds.: Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment: Selected Writings of Johann G. Sulzer and Heinrich C. Koch (London, 1995)
//
OK ? And when you were asked to show that this person is the same person as Gluck you provide us with the following -
Gluck: 'The Marriage of Hercules and Hebe' ~ Christoph Willibald Gluck (Composer), Helmut Koch (Conductor), Berlin Chamber Orchestra (Orchestra), Kammerorchester Berlin (Orchestra), Rosemarie Ronisch (Soprano), et al.
First performance 29.6.1747 Pillnitz castle. (Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor,Full name Peter Leopold Joseph,Titles Grand Duke of Tuscany,King of Germany,King of Hungary,King of Croatia and Slavonia,King of Bohemia
Archduke of Austria,Born May 5, 1747 Vienna ).
...and "bohemian Gluck" was as real a person as "little prophet from Bohemia Grimm".
And this is the sum total of your 'proof' that H.C. Koch was the same person as Gluck !!!!!
I hate to trouble you further. But what is the relationship between the contents of your last post and H.C. Koch ?
But it gets worse. H.C. Koch died in 1816. But Christoph Willibald Ritter von Gluck died in 1787. Twenty nine years earlier.
I leave others to comment on your 'proofs' they were one and the same person since you have provided none at all. As usual.
Regards
But, to return to the subject. Here is the opening movement of 'Mozart's' Symphony No. 35 'Haffner', KV 385. Allegedly composed in Vienna 2 years after his arrival there.
A symphony, in fact, NOT by Mozart. Which began its life as a symphony supplied to Salzburg years earlier, by another composer. Which was twice altered, first into a Serenade, then re-orchestrated and changed back into a symphony by Leopold Mozart and (later) his son in Vienna before being performed and published in Mozart's name in Vienna ! And for which there is documentary evidence of it existing long before 1783 in its original form. As we find in the score today able to be seen at the Estense Library in Modena. Italy. A Modena score which goes year after year and decade after decade completely ignored in 'Mozart research'.
(Courtesy of L. Bianchini/A. Trombetta/G. Taboga/A. Taboga)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HV-B...eature=related
Quoting doublebed sheets from Grove does not impress me, Robert, and neither does it impress anybody who has studied history in enough detail to conclude the obvious:
"Sources" and "scholars" were even less worth their ink then than those of today!
Having urged you from my first post in this thread to....
Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :
a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"
as well as
b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.
Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.
...I can now but repeat one more of same.
It will take you a couple of years, grant you that!
:D
This is all completely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
It wasn't the job of the Kapellmeister to write cantatas for state events. Haydn was a Kapellmeister in Austria, but he didn't write cantatas for the death of Maria Theresa in 1780 or the elevation of her successor Joseph ll.
The reason no one mentions Luchesi as Beethoven's teacher was that he wasn't Beethoven's teacher. There was bad blood between Luchesi and Beethoven's father: Johann expected to inherit his father's Kapellmeister position, but Luchesi ended up succeeding Beethoven's grandfather Ludwig in the position.
Furthermore, Beethoven arrived in Vienna without the knowledge of counterpoint that the immensely talented Luchesi certainly would have imparted to any pupil: Beethoven's acknowledged tutor Neefe was certainly deficient in this regard.
There exist sketches in Beethoven's hand of the works Robert attributes to Luchesi. There is no evidence whatsoever that Luchesi had anything to do with them.
Again, more shoddy work from "Musicology."
Regards,
Istvan
Completely 'false' ?
You say it wasn't the job of Kapellmeisters to write cantatas for state events. Really ! ? So it was the job of unknown music students ? Students whom, you agree yourself, still needed more teaching when they came to Vienna ? Is that what you are saying ? Really !!!!! This is absurd. You are saying Beethoven was chosen for these festivities of the Holy Roman Empire held at Frankfurt ! In preference to the Kapellmeisters of Germany !!! And I am saying Manchester United is not the name of a candy bar.
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) was the longest serving Kapellmeister of the Bonn Hofkapelle. Specially appointed. One of the great music chapels of Germany. In fact it was ranked third in all of Germany during the late 1780's, at the time when Beethoven and numerous others were musical pupils were there. The PRINCIPAL duty of a Kapellmeister was to provide musical instruction to its pupils. Another was to provide music for the official functions of the state.
Welcome to Planet Earth, Istvan !
'Beethoven's acknowledged tutor Neefe'. That's what you've just written, isn't it ? But you are again ignoring the man in charge of Bonn Hofkapelle, aren't you ? Its Kapellmeister. Andrea Luchesi. As for Neefe, he was at best a temporary substitute in 1783/4 in that role, during the year Luchesi returned to Italy for a year long stay. Compare that FACT with Luchesi, who served in that capacity from 1774 right up until the dissolution of the Bonn Hofkapelle in 1794. Twenty years, no less !!! Now who is fooling who ? Luchesi is also recorded as having assisted the young Beethoven in writing the cantata on the death of the British Envoy there, George Cressner. Once again, clear and obvious, logical, consistent proof that Luchesi WAS the composition and music teacher of the young Ludwig van Beethoven. Ignored, of course, in the 19th century. And ever since. There is a ton of evidence that Luchesi WAS the Kapellmeister who wrote these two cantatas for the state occasion at Frankfurt on the death of the Emperor Joseph and on the accession of the new Emperor. But you ignore such obvious things (as do writers of German textbooks on music history). Really ! This is absurd. There is not a shred of evidence Beethoven, one of many students there, wrote these two cantatas of state. It's science fiction. Indeed, categorical proof that Beethoven did NOT write them is in catalogue C53/1 (today held at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) where we see that the young Beethoven was credited with writing only 4 works before he left Bonn for Vienna. And none of them is a cantata for orchestra, choir and soloists. This FACT is again proved with a surviving letter from Josef Haydn to Max Franz, which was replied to by Max Franz (elector of Bonn) who reminded Haydn of that fact. That his 'pupil' Beethoven had written nothing except those four works. One of which was a fugue. But none of them major works of the kind we hear here in WoO87 and WoO88. That cantata is the work of a finished musical master. And not by Beethoven. These documents exist, these letters, and they cannot be disputed. They can only be ignored. By men like you.
Thus, your moonshine on Neefe (who came to Bonn long, long after Luchesi was Kapellmeister and who left before him) and now on the young Beethoven is, and it remains, moonshine. These two cantatas are the product of Andrea Luchesi, the Kapellmeister at Bonn. The true composer of these works. Which were performed at Frankfurt, the capital of the Holy Roman Empire on such occasions. And not (contrary to musical mythology) the young Beethoven. It was Luchesi who wrote these 'Haydn' symphonies for England posted here a day or so ago. Because (as anyone can hear with their own ears) they are stylistically in anticipation of the style you know today as that of Beethoven. And how can it be otherwise ? Since Luchesi WAS, as said, the composition and music teacher of this same young Ludwig van Beethoven. So says ALL the evidence. So says common sense. And so says anyone who has an ear to hear this music.
The 'shoddy work' is your very own. I will keep producing information of accuracy (able to be demonstrated true) and you will keep ignoring it, having none of your own. Such is the difference between fact and popular fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
:crash:
And your evidence that Koch was Gluck is.................. precisely what ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Istvan says there exists 'sketches of these works in Beethoven's own hand'. This too is incorrect and very misleading. What exists is a sketch for a work Beethoven wished to write, which would have included part of these two state cantatas already composed by his teacher, Andrea Luchesi ! Indeed, I have already posted on the subject elsewhere, at some length.
Read this thread backwards and, when you reach post #1 of "Two works by Poe decoded", you'll know everything!
:Angel_anim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
Since the theory that Koch was Gluck is none but yours the onus is on you to produce evidence for it here. Isn't it ?
Something I am happy to do with what I say and write. Why not you ? Your last post does nothing at all to 'prove' as you claim. Does it ? And, with respect, 'Poe Decoded' is a totally different thread. Please produce some evidence that Koch was Gluck. Here.
The wisest thing is to have both sides of an argument to consider. And then, having them both together, to form your own considered judgment. I see no reason to break with that common sense. And, having extracted ourselves from the quicksand of your Cocchi theory shall we now walk back into one on Koch/Gluck ?
If you wish to provide some evidence here of them being the same person, please do here. I can't be fairer than that.
Thank You
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Robert, the issue of your integrity as a scholar, the issue of your inadequacy as a "faithfull servant of the Music Industry", the issue of your worthiness as my talking partner:
By your post 8 you first brought up the name of "Koch" in this thread as follows....
“Take a simple example. In Vienna in 1793 a 2 volume work was published by musicologist Heinrich Koch dealing with concertos. Mozart is nowhere mentioned. Not once. And there is plenty of evidence for the massive fraud that was his 'reputation'.” (post 8)
...immediatley answered by my...
“All I am saying is that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera. He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg) "Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)
*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!” (post 9)
You did not reply on that one and decided to drop "Koch" for Forkel, but I did not and brought him up again....
*Mozart's 1778 questionable relations to "Grimm", who did not really approve of "flawed" Mozart as his(as "Gluck"-musicmaster) successor(hence Koch's later ommission of Mozart), are important in deciphering "Grimm" himself and his role in diplomacy and world affairs. (post 201 by Y)
...which you also failed to address, as you did my next ...
(On Cocchi-"Koch")He was well trusted as a diplomat in all "courts" at least till 1786, including USA's but his identity and the controversy in his many aliases had been partly uncovered. He was thereby threatened and propably blackmailed at the time (thus concented to deliver his music archive to Mozart but never mentioned him in his "Koch" music dictionary of 1792) but kept on serving Royal France, totally "drained" already, under yet more aliases, until "Terror" decapitated the Royal couple when he decided to quit and permanently settle in Russia. He was already around 70 at the time.
For the "common good" (his concept) it was decided to "bury" him in a myth, a rather favourable myth at that, "Le comte de Saint Germain", still described as a likeable "good sort", his "charlatan" personality, a professional hazard, suppressed by other comments, all to his favour.(400 by Y)
....and my next...
Assuming these wise words of Forkel's date post 1774...a pioneer promoter of future german "ethnic" music (as per title) nevertheless.
His opinion on "Rousseau-Gluck-Cocchi etc" is irrelevant, as a musician he was insignificant and the title "first musicologist" totaly unfounded: He had neither the depth nor the knowledge!
If I were a musicologist, Robert, I would research similarities between music dictionaries by Rousseau and Koch. (p 471 by Y)
....until finally my decisive....
By suggesting Forkel instead, Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).
After hearing them all, Haydn made a now-famous remark to Mozart's father Leopold, who was visiting from Salzburg: "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."[3] The comment was preserved in a letter Leopold wrote 16 February to his daughter Nannerl.[4] (Wiki)
But then, Robert refuses to address any relative (to "Koch") issue, including Krause's correspondence (because of the unfortunate "Carl Ludwig Cocceji")
On the subject of "Koch" sharing the same music principles (melody vs harmony, ie Rameau vs Rousseau/Grimm or the buffon debate, later "Gluck" vs Piccininni) with paedagogue-lexicographer "Rousseau", see http://www.fedegarcia.net/writings/period.pdf
But then, again, Robert wants us to believe that "Rousseau's" alias "Philidor" supported Rameau's principles.
IE
a)"Koch" was a master chessplayer.
b)Robert is a faithfull servant of the Music Industry!!!
...and the identity of the London "Bach" is still pending!
Why did you "fail to tell the truth" (about Koch not including Mozart in his Lexikon) in your post 8 above???
Are you so desperate?
:hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
If truth is simple your postings are definitely not. When you are asked to provide hard evidence that Koch was the same person as Gluck (who had died 29 years earlier than he) you return to your usual spaghetti. And the spaghetti becomes even more tangled. Since you believe Koch is not only the same person as Gluck, but also numerous other people ! Which, when examined, when questioned, has you saying I am desparate !!!!
You are, Yanni, a highly complicated person. And I can't really spend much more time on this nonsense. You seem incapable of understanding a subject is worthy of study only if it is agreed by by those who are discussing it that it is worth studying. In our conversation you have failed to produce any evidence to me or anyone else of it being worth my time, and that of others. And here we are, weeks later, still trying to understand what on earth you are actually saying !
This is my final post on this subject. My reply to your last post. Showing, once again, your ability to misquote and obfuscate is the same as ever.
Yes, in Post 8 I refered to Koch who, in 1793 (5 years after the death of Gluck) published a two volume work in which Mozart is not refered to even once.
To which you replied, 'All I am saying is.... that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera. He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg) "Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)
*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!” (post 9)
And, so far, your only 'proof' of Gluck, Koch and Cocchi being the very same person is that they believed 'music followed lyrics'. Yanni, I hate to shatter your delusions but the belief 'music follows lyrics' was shared by dozens, even hundreds of composers and theoreticians of the 18th and 19th century. As was chess playing.
I know a lady in Florida who likes Big Macs. But she is not the same person as a lady here in London who likes the same. They are, I promise you, two different people. I am sure of it Yanni. In fact, I know them to be different. Though they both like Big Macs.
But on equally flimsy grounds you are sure that Cocchi was Koch. (And also Gluck, JJ Rousseau and others).
Can anyone play this game ? I know a man in Estonia who likes chocolate. And another man in Edinburgh who always buys his wife chocolates for her birthday. Does this prove they are the same person ?
Again, Prokofiev was a chess player for most of his adult life. Clear proof he must be an 18th century chess player. Right ? And we still have not a shred of evidence from you connecting Koch with Gluck, do we ?
You then go on to say -
If I were a musicologist, Robert, I would research similarities between music dictionaries by Rousseau and Koch. (p 471 by Y)
Well, OK. My sources have been checked and they say that JJ Rousseau died in 1778. And when did Koch die, Yanni ?
And so we come to your 'decisive' argument. This is the best of them all.
Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).
No, you are wrong. Koch did NOT recognise Mozart's quartets in his publication of 1793. He did not refer to them in his 'Versuch' of that year. He actually refered to them 10 years later (in 1803). And this was now 25 years after the death of Rousseau and 16 years after the death of Gluck. Though all 3 (or is it 8 people) were one and the same.
This nonsense continues with your statement -
Why did you "fail to tell the truth" (about Koch not including Mozart in his Lexikon) in your post 8 above??? Are you so desperate?
Yanni, unless/until you can show us evidence that Koch was Gluck (and also Cocchi) I can only laugh at this nonsense. Sorry, but you need rather more evidence to persuade me and the rest of the human race. Of this I am certain.
Koch published works in 1793 and also (as said in the early 19th century). This too seems to have escaped your attention.
But thank you. I prefer simplicity and you are, beyond all doubt, a master chef of spaghetti.
Regards
If truth is simple your postings are not. When you are asked to provide evidence that Koch is the same person as Gluck (who died 29 years earlier than he) you return to your ususal spaghetti. And the spaghetti becomes even more tangled. Since you believe that Koch is not only the same person as Gluck, but also numerous other people. Which, when examined, when questioned, has you saying that I am desparate !!!!
You are, Yanni, a most complicated person. And I can't really spend much more time on this nonsense. You seem incapable of understanding that a subject is worthy of study only if it is agreed that it is worth studying. In our conversation you have failed to produce any evidence of it being worth my time, and that of others. And here we are, weeks later, still trying to understand what on earth you are actually saying.
This is my final post on this subject. My reply to your last post. Showing, once again, that your ability to misquote and obfuscate is the same as ever.
Yes, in Post 8 I refered to Koch who, in 1793 (5 years after the death of Gluck) published a two volume work in which Mozart is not refered to even once. This is FACT. Isn't it ?
To which your replied, 'All I am saying is.... that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera. He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg) "Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)
*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!” (post 9)
And, so far, your only proof of Gluck, Koch and Cocchi being the same person is that they believed 'music followed lyrics'. Yanni, I hate to shatter your delusions but the belief that 'music follows lyrics' was believed by dozens, even hundreds of composers and theoreticians of the 18th and 19th century.
I know a lady in Florida who likes Big Macs. But she is not the same person as a lady here in London who likes the same. They are, I promise you, two different people. I am sure of this Yanni. In fact, I know them to be different. Though they both like Big Macs.
But on these grounds you are already sure that Cocchi is now Koch.
Can anyone play this game ? I also know a man in Estonia who likes chocolate. And another man in Edinburgh who always buys his wife chocolates for her birthday. Does this prove they are the same person ?
Again, Prokofiev was a chess player for most of his adult life. Clear proof that he must be an 18th century chess player. Right ? And we still have not a shred of evidence connecting Koch with Gluck, do we ?
You then go on to say -
If I were a musicologist, Robert, I would research similarities between music dictionaries by Rousseau and Koch. (p 471 by Y)
Well, OK. My sources say that JJ Rousseau died in 1778. And when did Koch die, Yanni ?
And so we come to your 'decisive' argument.
Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).
No, you are wrong. Koch did NOT recognise Mozart's quartets in his publication of 1793. He did not refer to them at all in his 'Versuch' of that year. He refered to them 10 years later (in 1803). And this was now 25 years after the death of Rousseau and 16 years after the death of Gluck.
This nonsense continues with your statement -
Why did you "fail to tell the truth" (about Koch not including Mozart in his Lexikon) in your post 8 above??? Are you so desperate?
Yanni, unless/until you can show us some evidence that Koch was Gluck (and also Cocchi) I can only laugh at this nonsense. Sorry, but you need rather more evidence to persuade me, and the rest of the human race. Of this I am certain.
Koch published works in 1793 and also (as said) in the early 19th century. Before which time he had never heard of Mozart piano concertos at all. This too seems to have escaped your attention.
But thank you. I really prefer simplicity and you are, without a doubt, a master chef of low nutrient spaghetti.
Regards
:hand:
In his book, The Haydn Quartets, page 74, John Irving (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/music/staff/ji/) clearly refers to Koch's Versuch of 1793 as Among the earliest critical reactions to Mozart's Haydn quartets
The book is online.
At stake is not if I care to persuade you or anybody else as to the real identity of Koch-Cocchi but the continuation of your employment at the Music Industry and the Macaroni club controlling it.
Keep your cool, you are going to need it soon!
Yanni,
If the 'earliest critical reactions' to Mozart's 'Haydn' set of quartets were years after Mozart was already dead what does that tell us of reactions to them during the years of 1785, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1790 and 1791 - when Mozart was very much still alive ? The answer is they were rubbished during those years as musical nonsense. Full of errors and mistakes. 1793 was 8 years after Mozart claims to have composed them, yes ? But, during Mozart's lifetime they were singled out for ridicule by Casti, a writer on music of the time. A fact you have chosen to completely ignore. Why ? By 1793 (i.e. within 2 years of Mozart's funeral ) they had been completely rewritten and published. In Mozart's name. So this sheer nonsense was now officially credited to Mozart's 'genius'. Why not read what Casti wrote about these very works in 1785 ? The year of their supposed composition by Mozart ? The 'earliest cricial reactions' do not come from 1793 or from any other posthumous date. They come from men such as Casti. Around 1785. Maybe he was another alias of Cocchi ???
You also write -
At stake is not if I care to persuade you or anybody else as to the real identity of Koch-Cocchi but the continuation of your employment at the Music Industry and the Macaroni club controlling it.
Well, how are you going to persuade anyone of the 'real' identity of Koch and the ubiquitous Cocchi (being the 'same person') if you switch the conversation to these quartets ?
What we are looking for, and have spent a page asking for, is some evidence Koch/Cocchi/Gluck/Rousseau/Baron Grimm and other aliases and pen-names were one and the same person ? Which is what you seem determined to post on here. When the evidence you gave us today was the premiere of a Gluck opera in 1747. The 'time warps' of your aliases seem unlimited.
If you cannot provide evidence for even one link of this alleged chain of aliases (Koch being the same person as Gluck) please ignore the request. Because so far we seem to be getting nowhere, fast. Don't you agree ?
Regards
I repeat: Why did you lie in your post 8 (and elsewhere*) on Koch not including Mozart in his 1793 Versuch?
You are a shame to musicology and your employers!
:hand:
Antonios Emm.Kokkinis.
*http://www.italianopera.org/articoli...nCONCERTI.html
there are Cocchis everywhere!
Early Beethoven (aka little Mozart)
Becoming aware of his son’s extraordinary talent, Johann thinks of turning young Beethoven into a new Mozart (whose childhood success was still vivid in people’s minds). In this respect, he tries to provide Ludwig with a musical education that might enhance his remarkable abilities. In fact, from this point on, Beethoven's childhood will be marked by his father's cruel attempts to transform him into a music genius.
Until the age of 12 his studies lacked any systematic organization. Among his teachers there was one of the court’s musicians, a certain Eden, followed by actor Tobias Pfeifer and Franciscan monk Willibald Koch.*
In March 1778, Johann forces Ludwig to hold a concert in Koeln. At that time Beethoven was 8 years old.
No wonder "Koch" sources are overly gekocht!
:Angel_anim:
*According to http://www.musicweb-international.co...k/chapter2.htm "Koch" taught Wolfgand music "sometime" in 1781. According to my mastertimeline it was not later than early 1781, ie a few months before "abbe Raynal's" Paris condemnation (May) and subsequent "Chastellux's/Bagge's" departure for America.
"The Beethoven violin sonatas: history, criticism, performance" by Lewis Lockwood,Mark Kroll, notices Heinrich Christoph Koch's influence on Beethoven's sonatas.
Please provide us with some evidence of Gluck being the same person as Koch. This is the fifth consecutive request.
In 1793 Koch did not refer to the piano concertos of 'Mozart'. He did so at length in his future publications. (When no less than 24 of them became available in 'Mozart's' name through various publishers, often many years after Mozart's death). I have also told you the contemporary reference to the 'Haydn' string quartets comes from Casti. Which you have of course chosen to ignore. Or were ignorant of. Giovanni Battista Casti - Italian poet, satirist, and author of comic opera libretti. (1724-1803).
Please can we finally have some real evidence of Gluck being the same person as Koch ? This is request number 6.
And counting !
There may be many people of the same surname. Who denies it ? What we want is evidence Gluck and Koch were the same person. Which is your own idea. And here we are, yet again, waiting for some evidence. You don't have any, do you ?
Thank You
Continue your "Mozart manufacture" with Professor John Irving if you can.
My input in this thread is terminated for reasons already explained.
:hand:
And for reasons unexplained, yes ? :yesnod:
Now I don't need to ask for a 7th time.
I have said all along that these things are explained by the existence of an entire network of composers, patrons, publishers and propagandists. And there is no reason to believe otherwise. Not even your fixation with G. Cocchi. Seen within that context we can have a useful discussion. But this thread is about Mozart, and not your never-ending ideas of the omnipotent and ever more prolific G. Cocchi.
Thanks Yanni
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
I will contact the archivist of the Bonn Franciscans reference the Koch refered to in early Beethoven's life.
No need to rush, the question of the manufacture of-not just- Mozart has been answered, thanks!
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=51451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Is this serious? New Historicism and post-modernism (with a healthy dose of "fake news") has found another cause.
"The Mozart Myth" - I'm sure some cynical publisher will be happy to cash in.