Printable View
Oh, my goodness !! So Josef Haydn is the same person as Gluck. And Josef Haydn is also Gluck, and Count Durazzo too. These are all the same person ? But all of them are, in reality, G. Cocchi ?
Is this what you are saying ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Limit your losses as best as you can, Robert, but do provide our readers with your explanation of Prince of Wales Saint James reception and bow to commoner "Haydn" first!
A quote from the 1791 Royal Protocol would suffice.
...and do not forget to advise on results of your promised Grove look-up re Saint Germain owner of Ferney...
...and then the evidence to support your previous reassuring statement on your subject "Haydn": You may be sure Josef Haydn did not compose any of these three operas....
...and then attempt disputing through facts any single "Koch" alias you chose ...
...and provide specific on "Vogler's" 1771-1774 whereabouts(in particular)...
...and do pinpoint any stylistic differences between "Haydn" and his "Koch" patron...
...and "Koch's" views on Mozart's "Haydn quartets"
etc etc
Yes, that was my conclusion in "Hid'n Haydn", three posts back, to which you then replied differently, propably asleep.
You may now go ahead and finally make a true musicology breakthrough provided you proceed as follows:
Place all my "Cocchi aliases" including Haydn in a music history timeline,for years 1791-1794 in particular*, interpet what you see and announce it.
Enjoy!
*If you don't already have your own timeline just ask me for one!
Yanni,
You are obviously determined to prove (to your own satisfaction, at least) that G. Cocchi was author of the works of almost unlimited numbers of people, although your 'timeline' is entirely your own, has not been presented here and is unlikely to be, and nor can you begin to tell us how one man could possibly have achieved all you claim of Cocchi, without a vast network existing of which he was but a part. But of the aims and purposes of such a network or of one giant Cocchi you have no real suggestion, nor have you ever spent time to examine the nature of the network in which he operated or it's major and obvious weaknesses. They consist of dozens, even hundreds of weaknesses which would be, frankly, laughed at. But your notes do make sense if you see Cocchi as one element of a far larger picture. That of an entire network, of which Cocchi was one part. And is that not what I have repeatedly suggested from the start ?
You refer to Ferney. But here again Voltaire met Casanova at Ferney. Proof positive Cocchi is Voltaire and is also Casanova, no doubt ? One could waste one's entire life on such things. And I would not like you to waste your time in realising (as the evidence so plainly says) members of the Cocchi clan were only one group of people within a vast cultural network. Known more widely as the 'Enlightenment' but consisting of fraternal associates who invented (amongst other things) the careers of their own invented heroes.
I post here text of the exchanges recently made with the Music Library Director of the Royal College of Music here in London reference background to the 3 'Haydn' operas associated with his two visits to London in 1791/2. As earlier promised. Indicating (as already said) none of these 3 'Haydn' operas were his. I offer this as further proof that I am not dogmatic about anything. That I have (unlike others) being willing from the start to attribute to G. Cocchi the role of being an active musical member of a vast network, part of whose aim was to create the mythical reputations of Haydn and Mozart. Since no other interpretation makes sense and none is consistent with the evidence I have found. Anyway here, in several posts, are the text of those exchanges with Dr. Horton of the Royal College of Music in London, reference Haydn and 'his' operas associated with London, none of which were performed there. So you see I've examined that matter in some detail. As said earlier. And have numerous other notes on just that one subject of 'Haydn operas'. These posts may convince you this affair is not exclusively Cocchi, but involved various other composers. If it convinces you of that I will be glad to know of it -
(I will continue on a second post). Anyway, here goes -
Dear Dr Horton,
10th January 2010
JOSEF HAYDN AUTOGRAPH SCORE OF THE OPERA 'ARMIDA' (1783/4) AT THE LIBRARY OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF MUSIC, LONDON
Thank you for help over a number of years on various enquiries related to the musical assets of the RCM Library.
I understand from a number of sources the RCM Library possesses the autograph score of Josef Haydn's opera 'Armida' (1783/4) written at Esterhazy. If so, may I please ask a few questions of this particular operatic score ?
1. Am I correct in thinking this operatic score at RCM is complete ?
2. Does RCM library also hold performance parts of this opera from the late 18th or early 19th century ?
3. Is it known how this operatic score first came to be in the RCM Library ? Did it possibly come to London with Josef Haydn himself during one of his two visits made here in the 1790's - (at which time Haydn had hopes to write another opera but which, as it happened, remained unfinished) ? Any information on the arrival here in England of that score of 'Armida' and of how it frst arrived at the RCM would certainly be very useful.
and finally -
4. Does RCM Library hold any musical scores by composers such as Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802) ?
Regards
Robert Newman
//
To which I received the following reply -(dated 11th January 2010)
Dear Mr Newman,
Thank you for your enquiry. We do indeed hold the autograph score of Haydn’s 'Armida', but it lacks 30 folios from Act 2 (the end of scene 6, scene 7 and part of scene 8). These are now in the Houghton Library of Harvard University – see Anthony van Hoboken, Joseph Haydn Thematisch-bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis (Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne, 1971), vol. 2, p420-21, for details. We do not, however, possess performance parts and it was not in fact performed in London as a result of the retirement of J. Gallini, who had commissioned it for the King’s Theatre, before Haydn’s score had arrived. Unknown to those in London , the work had been composed for Esterhazy in 1784.
Joseph Salomon acted as agent for Haydn in England and, as Gallini refused to accept the score, took possession of it (and paid for it) himself. On Salomon’s death it was bequeathed to William Ayrton who subsequently sold it and it passed into the ownership of the Earl of Falmouth. After the latter’s death in 1852 it was sold (in 1853) as part of his library and acquired by the Sacred Harmonic Society, whose library was in turn presented to the RCM on its opening in 1883.
We have a number of manuscripts by Sarti, details of many of which can be found in the RCM online catalogue.
With best wishes,
Dr Peter Horton
Reference Librarian
Royal College of Music
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2BS
UK
//
And I wrote again (11th January 2010) -
OPERATIC SCORE OF HAYDN'S 'ARMIDA' (1783)
Thank you so very much for the highly informative and speedy reply to my questions on 'Armida'.
I have to hand various works such as 'Concert Life in London from Haydn to Mozart' by S. McVeigh and 'Amico - The Life of Giovanni Battista Viotti' by W. Lister (with various other publications related to the history of the London opera scene of that time) and am so very grateful you have filled in a number of glaring gaps in my knowledge on this subject of 'Armida'. Frankly, I was completely unaware 'Armida' was originally intended to be performed in London under an arrangement made betweeen Gallini and Josef Haydn ! Does any documentary evidence exist of a 'deal' made for Haydn's 'Armida' to be staged in London ? And, if its cancellation was due to Gallini's retirement under what circumstances was 'L'anima del filosofo, ossia Orfeo ed Euridice' planned for London performance during Haydn's tours here ? Is it your view this opera was begun by Haydn only after the plan to stage 'Armida' had already collapsed ?
Please forgive me writing again at length but the content of your letter is of such great interest to me. Secondly, since the score of 'Armida' came to London with Haydn/Salomon on tour here was it cancelled before their arrival ? Or have I misunderstood you ? I have no knowledge of when or what agreement was made between Gallini and Salomon/J. Haydn on this work. The reason is that 'L'anima del filosofo, ossia Orfeo ed Euridice' was itself planned for London performance during Haydn's tours though it too was not staged as you know. But was this last opera begun by Haydn after plans to stage 'Armida' had collapsed ? I am obviously missing some documentation of which I was not aware.
And finally, I note 30 folios are missing in London from the score of 'Armida' which are today at Harvard. Which brings me to my last point and question on this opera.
You will already be aware of the curious fact that -
A facsimile of an autograph page of 11 bars by Mozart of what H.C. Robbins Landon called, "corrections to the score'' of the closing duet in Act I of Armida". (K506a Nr.4). This autograph page is today held at the MS Department of the University of Bonn. These are not 'corrections' but alterations in 3 coloratura passages in that duet. In 1982 G. Federer pointed out this 'Mozart' version had even been entered into a copy of this work today held at Einstadt (Landes Museum). This (supposedly) originating from a copy made by a later Vienna copyist. Alan Tyson noted this Mozart autograph page (11 bars long) is written on paper definitely made after 1784.
Furthermore, an account by one of Haydn's very earliest biographers, Framery, states that G. Sarti had attended a performance of Armida in Eszterhaza, and was fascinated by this work. ( 'Armida' was as you know to some extent influenced by Sarti's earlier 'Giulio Sabino' (premiered in Venice) which was itself later performed at Esterhaza).
So my last (third) question is -
Are there any plans for the missing 30 folios of this score to be returned to RCM Library ?
Thank you for any further assistance in these queries.
//
Continued on another post.
//
Note, the following letter is an example of how commonly, how often, 'Mozart experts' ignore musical scores which are not convenient for their version of 'musical history'. As we see acknowledged by Dr Horton. We find the same with respect to various 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' symphonies/masses held today at the Estense Library of Modena, Italy. Where the same Robbins Landon suffered again from amnesia, in forgetting watermarks clearly show the origins of those scores (falsely attributed as they are to those two 'giants')were made far before the 'early 19th century' as Robbins Landon claimed in his publications'.
//
Dear Mr Newman, (26th January 2010)
Many thanks for your e-mail. From what you say it sounds as though little is known about Armida and London , which no doubt explains why Robbins Landon makes no reference to it. I’ve put together what information I can find in the RCM Library in the attached document, but I’m not a Haydn expert and am afraid that I can’t answer your questions concerning the history of L’anima del filosofo, the King’s Theatre, &c. That said, the detective work has been interesting. Given that Haydn only wrote L’anima del filosofo after his arrival in England , I wonder whether he might have brought Armida with him as a back-up? Only speculation, of course.
With regard to your last question concerning the missing 30 folios of 'Armida', I think it highly unlikely that Harvard would willingly part with them! What we must do, however, is try to acquire a copy for the RCM.
With all good wishes
//
Pete Horton
Note to R. Newman from P Horton with the above message - 26th January 2010
Haydn: Armida (RCM MS 276)
There are three principal sources of information on the MS of Armida at the RCM: a) the entry in the catalogue of the library of the Sacred Harmonic Society, b) a short cutting (? from the 1853 sale catalogue) and c) the entry in the RCM catalogue of Manuscripts. I suspect that any further documentation that might have shed light on the commissioning of the opera for London is no longer extant.
‘This opera was sent to England by Haydn, in fulfilment of an engagement entered into by him when in this country, to furnish an opera for the King’s Theatre. During the interval between the making of the engagement and the sending the opera, an alteration had taken place in the management of the theatre; and on arrival of the work, the new manage refused to receive it, and it was consequently never brought out.’
‘This work was composed for the King’s Theatre in 1793, by contract with Sir John Gallini, then proprietor and manager, who having sold the house and retired from its direction before the Manuscript was delivered, refused to receive it. The negotiator in the business was the celebrated violinist, Mr. Salomon, who advanced the stipulated sum – Three Hundred Guineas – to the composer, and never was indemnified by either party, the score remaining in his hands as a security, till his decease, when, by his will, it passed into the possession of a friend.
The opera now offered for sale has never been produced in England, or elsewhere, it is presumed; and there can be little doubt that the copyright is with the present vendor. The fine, original Score, thus for the first time brought under public view, is in the handwriting of the composer, verified by his signature at the commencement of the first act, and further distinguished by the motto, In Nomine Domini, which he prefixed to all his great works, and the pious Laus Deo with which he ended them.’
This has been annotated thus by William Ayrton in RCM MS 1163:
‘Haydn’s Armida Sold in the Sale of the Earl of Falmouth’s Colln. by Puttick and Simpson No. 191 Piccadilly, 26/5/53; Purchaser Mr. [blank] for the Library of the Sacred Harmonic Society.’
‘(The MS. Score was mine, bequeathed to me by Mr. Salomon; and this printed acct. of it is a copy of my history of the composition, as inscribed by me in the Volume. W. Ayrton.)’ [Ayrton’s note is no longer to be found in the MS]
Entry in the RCM Catalogue of MSS
MS 276. (S.H. 1855) Ff. 209; 1783. Obl. Fol. Autograph. Armida, Opera in three Acts. (Commissioned by J. Gallini for the King’s Theatre in 1783, but Gallini had retired when Haydn sent the score. Salomon paid Haydn 300 gs. for it and left it (by Will) to [William Ayrton; Salomon died 25 November 1815.] It was sold in Lord Falmouth’s Sale in May, 1853. (Athenaeum, 1853, p. 658). Full Score.
The early pagination shows that 30 fol. are missing from Act II (the end of Scene VI, all Scene VII and part of Scene VIII).
[Despite what this says about Armida being commissioned for London in 1783, this isn’t true. The work was composed for Esterházy, where it received 54 performances – see Phänomen Haydn 1732-1809 ([Esterházy]: Schloss Esterházy Management, 2009), p.80].
Further information can be gleaned from the Kritischer Bericht to the work in Joseph Haydn Werke, Reihe XXV, Bd. 12 (München: Henle, 2003). According to this, Ayrton divided the score between himself and his son in law, Thomas Alsager (1779-1846); as the missing folios were sold as part of Ayrton’s Library in 1858 (see below), it must have been the main portion that passed to the latter. Alsager’s collection was also sold after his death and it is interesting to discover that his “Gallery of Musical Portraits” later appeared in the Earl of Falmouth’s sale, together with Armida. Presumably he bought both at the same time.
A brief resumé of the 1853 sale (26-28 May) is given by James Coover in Music at Auction: Puttick and Simpson (of London) … (see footnote 1), which indicates that the missing folios were already separate and were sold, as part of Ayrton’s Library, on 3 July 1858 (Lot 156). The purchaser was Charles Sumner who later presented them to Harvard University.
See James Coover in 'Music at Auction': Puttick and Simpson (of London), 1794-1971, Being an Annotated, Chronological List of Sales of Musical Materials …([Detroit]: Harmonie Park Press, 1988), p.63.
//
Further connection between Salomon (previously of Bonn) and the works of 'Hadyn' presented in London or said to be by Haydn and brought to London -
Manuscript version of 'Haydn's' London symphonies certainly exists in Salomon's handwriting. It was written in London on English paper watermarked by a crown over fleur-de-lys shield and 'GR 1794'. The date of these 'arrangements' is remarkably early because, officially, Salomon did not have a commercial contract with Joseph Hadyn in London for these works until 1795. These versions seem to have been made very fast. It is very possible these works came to London and Salomon, in 1794 copied them in his own handwriting to publish them as 'his' arrangements'. Paris known to have been involved in arriving at final forms of these works. But these versions (in the Salomon manuscript) show they were performed in London. They were later published in this form as ‘XII GRAND SYMPHONIES by Haydn, arranged as Quintets by JP Salomon'. The Salomon manuscript is definitely written on paper with a watermark from 1794. The watermark has a crown over a fleur-de-lys in a shield. They include symphonies 97, 93, 94, 98, 95, 104, 103, 102, 99, 101, and 100 and seem to have been published in 2 volumes.
These scores are for Flute, Viol (1mo). Viol, 2 do. Viola and Cello (replacing 'Basso' which has been erased at the start of Symphony 97). There is no indication of an independent double bass line in these arrangemens. Salomon's score contains no written out keyboard part also. The bass line is figured only rarely.
//
Note - (R. Newman)
Thus, beyond reasonable doubt, the procurement of 'Haydn' works for this two tours of London involved Salomon, as did the fact of Haydn's close association with Bonn both before and after his visits to England. Further confirmed by known association of 'Haydn' symphonies with the career of Viotti when he was for years in Paris associated with the French court, and with the known visit to Esterhazy of composer G. Sarti. Whose own earlier operas were musical influential and strikingly found in Hadyn's 'Armida' of that year 1783/4.
A network, in fact, of which Salomon was a major, crucial part. Since it was Salomon who arranged the two Haydn visits to London. Featuring works attributed to Joseph Haydn but actually involving Sarti, Luchesi at Bonn (teacher of the young Beethoven), and various other composers such as Gyrowetz. Also involving Esterhazy, Bonn and Paris. And not exclusively G. Cocchi. Indeed, that 'Haydn's' works anticipate Beethoven's style is plainly heard by numerous examples of 'his' late symphonies etc.
And finally, from Vol. 3 of Thomas Busby, ‘Anecdotes of Music and Musicians’ Vol 3 p. 93 (1828) - details of the almost unknown musical status of Josef Haydn at the time of his arrival in England in the early 1790‘s. (And ignored ever since by the music industry. Wonder why ?) -
‘Haydn’s genius made him the composer of reward of his great talents. One of his earliest bargains, for the copyright of his compositions, was made with Forster, the cello maker. On that occasion an agreement was entered in to by Count van Swieten, on the part of Haydn, with John Ashley, the Elder, on the part of Forster along the following terms -
‘Joseph Haydn of Vienna is about to sell certain musical compositions to William Forster of London. As the said Josef Haydn is a composer of NO CELEBRITY in music he agrees to furnish the said William Forster with sonatas, quartets and symphonies at half the usual price that is usually demanded of composers who are well known’.
//
So much for the ‘great and celebrated Josef Haydn’ !! And this deal made 1791/2, since Haydn is then in Vienna - late in his career. In fact, hardly able to hold a pen in his hand according to various sources. Due to an illness.
But then, what's new in the fantasy world of Josef Haydn and W.A. Mozart ? Only the landscape where, before, stood two idols blocking the sunlight.
You keep on repeating the same false interpretations of my writings even if they have been all strongly denied by me in this here thread and your "Mozart Manufactured". As such I can only question both your reasoning and your reasons but have no interest to readdress them.
The issue of our last posts has been Cocchi's alias "Joseph Haydn" and this last of yours simply does not address the very specific issues raised by me with regard to his 1791-1792 London visit.
My sympathies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
Have you obtained any evidence of G. Cocchi being involved with the careers of Baron van Swieten (patron of both Haydn and Mozart), or of being involved with Salomon (formerly of Bonn Hofkapelle) - since both (as you see) made the arrangements for Haydn to come to London in the first place. Thus, if your Cocchi fits within that documented scenario we can examine Cocchi's role in it. But not otherwise.
Perhaps you have some information on this ? If not I will continue to say that Luchesi, Kapellmeister of Bonn, was the true composer of numerous later 'Haydn' symphonies, just as the Italian composer Sammartini was the supplier to the same Haydn of many of 'his' earlier ones. Assisted later by composers such as Gyrowetz and G. Sarti who were involved in the supply to the same Haydn of various of 'his' operas, again with the assistance of Andrea Luchesi, Kapellmeister at Bonn. Since that is overwhelmingly indicated by the totality of the actual musical and biographical evidence.
And, with the best will in the world, wishing G. Cocchi to be author of all of this music (together with the works of his vast number of other 'aliases') becomes less and less probable.
I again repeat G. Cocchi was a part of a vast musical network. And an important though still undefined part. But by no means its nucleus as you seem determined to believe. I have hardly scratched the surface of the proofs which suggest this process involved many fraternal composers, patrons, managers and publishers. Thinking you would accept it.
Here, once again, in a operatic aria by G. Sarti. Does it not sound like Haydn/Mozart, to you ? And is Sarti also another name for G. Cocchi ?
http://www.mediafire.com/?zqul5to4gtk
It was never my wish to change your mind. But to share, and to understand each other's viewpoint. I think I've done this.
But best wishes anyway
Regards
Engaging the same old slander on Cocchi "author of all music" shows how desperate you are, Robert.
I never wrote so, in fact I have repeatedly denied it, explaining otherwise and in detail, so, unless you can support your re claim quoting specific posts of mine, kindly proceed to a next thread at your earliest and never mind about the Regent bowing to Haydn, patronised by van Swieten perhaps.
I don't think I'm 'slandering' Cocchi. But I am trying to understand what you believe of him, in terms of music.
For your information, Yanni, the careers of Mozart and Haydn were both supported by fraternities. Many of them part of the Illuminatist movement which controlled most of German language publishing. As said so often here on this thread. And which included Baron van Swieten himself. Also the Bonn music publisher Simrock (himself a member at Bonn), plus Ch.G. Neefe, plus numerous others associated with the Bonn musical scene. It also included Waldstein, patron of the young Beethoven. And van Swieten (as any reader of musical history knows) was a vitally important patron to W.A. Mozart during all of his Vienna career. Another was Salomon, the impresario/manager to Haydn during his visits to England. And so, you see, Yanni, there is lots of evidence if G. Cocchi was associated in a major way, musically, with Haydn and Mozart's careers he too was part of this same network of patrons, publishers, composers who oversaw the manufacturing of their careers. This is surely easy for you to understand, isn't it ?
The fact that the Regent bowed to Josef Haydn is no more mysterious than the case of the Emperor Joseph 2nd, who allowed ordinary men of no rank whatsover to see him, daily, on virtually any issue. We have an account of the King of England waving to the Mozart family in London as he drove past them in a park. Does that mean anything ?
Cocchi was part of the same network as Voltaire, Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Casanova, and literally hundreds of others including the Encyclopaedists in Paris and so many others it was, beyond reasonable doubt, an entire network, which, culturally, included the musical careers of both Josef Haydn and W.A. Mozart.
Far from being 'desperate' I am very relaxed. 'Haydn's' opera 'Armida' is based on a still earlier opera of G. Sarti. So says the evidence, at least. An opera of Sarti which had been premiered in Venice only a year or two earlier and which, in 1783, this very same Sarti brought personally to J. Haydn at Esterhazy. When it became a 'Haydn' opera. The same Haydn stopped 'composing' operas according to his own correspondence in 1786.
Do you believe the composer G. Sarti was also Cocchi ?
You see, I am trying very hard to see what you actually believe. Since, according to you Haydn's career was possible with the assistance of G. Cocchi although the shortage of facts to support this are missing. So far.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802)
Orchestral Interlude
From Act 2
Opera ‘Enea nel Lazio’ (Premiered St Petersburg, Russia, 1799)
Sarti’s graceful and simple lines are the main feature of his music. His operas become more and more simple in content. This comes from one of his last.
http://www.mediafire.com/?hy0hqzjvykz
(This is the same Sarti whose music features in the banquet scene of ‘Mozart’s’ ‘Don Giovanni’ (from his earlier opera 'Fra i due litiganti il terzo gode'). He played a much bigger role in the operatic career of Mozart than is generally supposed).
Where is the specific quote requested in my previous post?
Sarti's sole source is "Grove", who serve and maintain the "scholarly pile" just like you are.
Get lost in "it", slanderer.
Other readers of this thread may be interested to know that "Sarti" , just like "Haydn" and "Gluck" and countless others, was definitely another alias of Cocchi (primogenitor of the "pile" himself -thru his pennames as an author-philosophe-artist-art critic, his "covers" as France's chief secret agent and his Confessions or Memoirs as "Rousseau" and "Casanova" ).
Sarti's "limited" biography and travel data as well as 1791-1793 London performances (while the Regent's guest "Haydn" was there) such as Cocchi's Le Nozze di Dorina and "Gluck's" Iphigenia in Aulis (staged in London before "Haydn's" departure for Bonn in 1793, even though his Iphigenie in Tauris was previously banned by royal order in 1791. The King and the Regent had a minor disagreement at the time re the former's ability to rule and the latter's support by freemasons) are sufficient evidence to the fact and so is "Sarti's" influence on Mozart (Mozart himself "manufactured" -ie tutored-by Cocchi along with Beethoven and Goethe).
And 1791-1793 was definitely an important period for our global theater's history.
This 'alias' of Cocchi, Giuseppe Sarti, wrote some of the finest, most eloquent stage music of the late 18th century. Close to 30 operas. And really, it's pointless arguing. You believe Cocchi, Gluck, Myslivececk, now Sarti, and many others were the same man. If you cannot give us your timeline you may, one day, give us a list of his aliases. I wish you every success with your ideas. Here is a small fragment of his music. He was a massively talented composer and one you should hear.
Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802)
Orchestral Introduction to Act 2
Opera ‘Enea nel Lazio’ (Premiered in St Petersburg, Russia, 1799)
http://www.mediafire.com/?gmqwjtzddjj
Regards
Yanni,
I'll finish here. An aria from the same opera -
Giuseppe Sarti
Aria
Act 2/14
Opera ‘Enea nel Lazio’
http://www.mediafire.com/?jwmufozzygy
Regards