The Manufacture of Mozart

[yanni]

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!

[Babbalanja]

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.

This is all completely false.

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

[Musicology]

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.

This is all completely false.

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

[Musicology]

And your evidence that Koch was Gluck is.................. precisely what ?

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!

[Musicology]

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.

[yanni]

Read this thread backwards and, when you reach post #1 of "Two works by Poe decoded", you'll know everything!

And your evidence that Koch was Gluck is.................. precisely what ?

[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

Read this thread backwards and, when you reach post #1 of "Two works by Poe decoded", you'll know everything!

[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?

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 ?

[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

[Musicology]

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

[yanni]

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!

[Musicology]

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

[yanni]

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!



Antonios Emm.Kokkinis.

*http://www.italianopera.org/articoli...nCONCERTI.html

[yanni]

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!



*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.

[Musicology]

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