Talk:Andrea Luchesi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Some sections of this article have been labelled as disputed, but specific comments on what was disputed are missing. Understanding this as a request of a better separation between the references to facts or events and those to assumptions, I’ve modified accordingly the sections of the original article. I’ve eliminated some details for which I haven’t found (yet?) a double check. If the request was for a discussion, I’ve found a very interesting one in a Beethoven Forum at: http://www.gyrix.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002035.html and http://www.gyrix.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002044.html , where the messages edited by Robert Newman (I understand he’s a Mozart expert) look fairly balanced and well informed.
==
Everything in the article about how Luchesi taught Beethoven (there's no record of this, it's just assumed by Luchesi supporters) and above all any attribution of works by Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven to Luchesi should be marked as disputed in the highest possible degree. The attribution question is - at most - an equivalent of the Shakespeare authorship theory, without even that theory's notoriety. It carries no support whatever in the established academic community. That doesn't prove it wrong, but it does prove it disputed. I have read the forum articles cited above, and "balanced and well informed" does not strike me as a good description. They start with a conclusion and try to build a case in total defiance of probability or plausibility. - Kalimac 11/23/05
==
I agree with Kalimac. I thought the reason why the article's content is in dispute was fairly self-evident. Not only does its content contradict other information on Wikipedia but there is no proper evidence to support the claims. The gravity of the insinuations in this article must have been lost on most. Considering it asserts that Mozart's symphonies 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 are "probably from Luchesi" I thought it would have raised a few eyebrows. Because of the contradiction with just about every other article about Mozart, and because the claims are totally ridiculous, those parts of the article should be removed or rewritten as an acknowledgement of some kind of 'theory'.
Also, the article is written in very poor English (the biography is in present tense!)...So if anyone has time on their hands they could rewrite the biography section.--Constan69 03:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
==
"the biography is in present tense!"
It seems a bad translation of an Italian text. I am Italian and I can tell you that we use the present tense for biographies very often. It is the so called "historical present". Maybe the author of this article is mr. Giorgio Taboga himself or one of his fans!
==
I’ve noted two main points in the above comments (by Kalimac and Constan69) that could be discussed separately, i.e. Beethoven’s teacher and the attributions to Mozart (and Haydn).
Regarding Beethoven the article says that he was Luchesi's most talented (and famous) pupil. Nobody will deny the talent or the fame of Beethoven, so the word being disputed is pupil. I agree with Kalimac that we are not aware of any declaration by Beethoven on whether or not he had been taught by Luchesi, but we know that Beethoven said that the had nothing to learn from Haydn. Prince Elector Max Franz had a similar opinion, as he replied to Haydn that the Beethoven’s works received as composed in Vienna under his guidance were (all but one) actually made in Bonn before the young musician left for Austria. Beethoven apparently meant that the musical preparation he had received in Bonn was better (or at least equal) than what Haydn could provide. If we try and make a list of possible providers of such a preparation in Bonn we cannot go much further than Luchesi: he had an advanced knowledge of musical theory, he was composing a variety of works performed by the court choir and orchestra (including the young Beethoven), his symphonies were in great demand in Germany, among his duties he had to take care of younger members of the chapel. (Luchesi had also professional and social relationships with Ludwig’s family, but this is not necessarily relevant). Traditionally, Neefe (court organist from June 1782) is credited as Beethoven’s teacher and almost undeniably he has been helping and assisting him, but he had neither the artistic level nor the knowledge to tell how to compose something like a symphony. So I don’t see a reason to amend the sentence in the article; it could be a subject of dispute, if any, if the sentence were Luchesi was the exclusive teacher of L.v.B.. The traditional “no-mention policy” regarding Luchesi’s role has been questioned at the Berlin International Beethoven Conference in June/July 1999; I haven’t read of any denial or other reply from the established academic community. Perhaps I’ve missed something; otherwise, why all “Beethoven experts” keep silent?
Attribution to Mozart (or Haydn) is a more complicated matter. Attributions of works to Mozart and Haydn have been subject to variations; e.g. Haydn at a certain time was credited with more than 200 symphonies. The Koechel catalogue has also gone through many fluctuations from an edition to another; e.g. 6 Sonatas for Piano and Violin considered sure Mozart works KV 55-60 in the earlier editions had been later downgraded to ‘attributed to Mozart’ as KV C 23.01-06, awaiting a more correct attribution. The symphonies mentioned in the article are anyhow not a problem of attribution by others to Mozart, but of attribution to Mozart by himself. Strangely enough, it seems that copies of some symphonies existed in Bonn years before Mozart’s asserted composition date. We have also the case of two versions for a same symphony, which could leave to believe that the second is a Mozart arrangement of a first version by somebody else. Mozart lack of symphony-composing capacity was well known to his father; Leopold Mozart even advised Wolfgang to avoid performing his own first symphonies. Based on recently established evidence and awaiting the results of further research, it may be less eyebrows raising to amend the article by writing that the symphonies are ‘possibly from a different composer. Luchesi could be such composer’.
The contradiction with other articles obviously exists. The Luchesi case and its supporting evidence are just starting to be known while the articles are based on pre-existing information. I dare not propose to mark at once all conflicting sections of these articles as disputed. This would probably generate a lot of confusion. More realistically, if critical research will further confirm the evidence gathered up to now, the correction of the articles will be just a matter of time.
About the article style, it is interesting to learn from 82.59.81.85 that the present tense may be called historical present. So, let’s wait for a volunteer willing to translate it to historical past. IfAny 09:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
==
I am sorry. I forgot to sign my comment on the so called "historical present". Silvano 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
==
IfAny's assertions are interesting but beside the point. They are a good example of what I described above as starting with a conclusion and building a case in defiance of the lack of evidence. The question is not whether Lucchesi actually taught Beethoven (an assertion which should be backed by evidence, not by dogmatic assertions that he must have done so). As Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, the question is whether a controversial statement accepted by only a few should be stated as definite fact.
IfAny finds it suspicious that orthodox scholarship has kept silent on the Lucchesi theory. Really, orthodox scholarship has better things to do than spend its time refuting every odd theory that comes around. I first heard of this theory only a month ago by accident, as a result of Googling for something entirely different.
Concerning attributions, a clear distinction should be drawn between false attributions which orthodox scholarship has acknowledged for decades, and the highly controversial assertions of the Lucchesi theory regarding works which orthodox scholarship accepts as authentic. The hundred "Haydn" symphonies no longer attributed to him were attributed by publishers who wished to capitalize on Haydn's popularity. These false attributions were easily disposed of in the 19th century. Mozart is more complicated, but the works removed from the Köchel listing in the past were not claimed by Mozart himself, unlike the works disputed here. From the correction of false attributions in the past it does not follow that other works must also be falsely attributed.
Inquiries on the Beethoven board listed above have elicited the revelation that there is only a suspicion, and no actual documentary evidence, that Mozart symphonies dated to 1788 are among the works in the Bonn inventory of 1784. Like other claims in the article, this claim must be rated as highly disputed. - Kalimac 12/27/05
- It's nice to call Robert Newman a Mozart expert. But as far as I know he has published absolutely nothing on Mozart. All that can be found are his endless ramblings on various forums on the internet, where - after having proved that he neither understands German nor Latin - he either gets banned from a forum, or his redundant posts are being deleted by moderators.--Suessmayr 07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry, only recognized scholarship can be included
The theory proposed here is wild--that Luchesi is the author of Mozart's 40th Symphony, and of all 12 of Haydn's London symphonies. Something like this can be included in the Wikipedia only if there is legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarship making the claim, and suitable citations are provided. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing. We're told that "Researchers are founding [sic] increasing evidence", which is no help at all--an unidentified researcher could easily be a crackpot.
For the Wikipedia policies that are applicable here, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
I have removed the "Works" section in its entirety, under the view that its entire content is suspect. It comes from a single, anonymous editor, and was added on October 14, 2005.
Opus33 19:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Newman's plaint
I find this talk most unsatisfactory and believe that Wikipedia is bending to pressure put on it by those who have vested interests in maintaining the 'status quo' on these issues. The facts themselves are simple enough. The very existence of Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) has only grudgingly been conceded by 'recognized scholarship' in recent decades. See for example how many Beethoven biographies so much as refer to Andrea Luceshi since the time of Thayer. That is an indisputable fact. Luchesi has been systematically ignored and his huge contribution to music simply edited out. It is indisputable too that Luchesi, as Kapellmeister of the Cologne Principality between 1774 and its dissolution in 1794 was the man in charge of teaching music students, including (but not solely) the musical education of the young Ludwig van Beethoven. If any 'recognised scholar' wishes to dispute this let them provide evidence to the contrary. They clearly cannot do so. For the simple facts are beyond dispute. Luchesi was the principal teacher of music to the young Ludwig van Beethoven.
As regards the statement that works long credited to Mozart (including many symphonies) are actually works composed by the same Andrea Luchesi, not a single contributor who has rubbished this view has presented a shred of evidence against it. They are allowed to rubbish the very idea but have no grounds whatsoever for saying as they do.
The facts are again as follows. In Mozart studies (according to the Mozarteum in Salzburg) no less than around 100 symphonies have at various times been attributed to Mozart - these today being said to number less than 50. Indeed, the standard number today is given at 41. Such a statistic is clear evidence of just how absurd the 'consensus view' really is on these issues.
Luchesi wrote many works. In 1784 an inventory was made of music at Bonn (where he was Kapellmeister). Not a single Mozart symphony was there. Not a single piano concerto, nor a single sonata, nor a single mass. In fact, in 1784 there was not a single work in Bonn attributed to Mozart. That too is a simple fact. And yet, despite the fact that many works from that archive made their way to Modena, Italy we find that no less than 9 Bonn symphonies are today found at Modena which are somehow attributed not to Luchesi, but to Mozart !! This startling change in attribution can only have come about by a conscious decision to label them as such between the time of the last inventory at Bonn and their arrival in Modena. It is the reason why natural justice dictates that these same symphonies must be credited to Luchesi and not, as traditionally, to Mozart - whether he or others claimed to have composed them. For the simple fact is that none one of these symphonies was published in Mozart's name during his lifetime.
The whole history of Mozart and Haydn's huge status is rightly under scrutiny and it must surely be high time that a page on Andrea Luchesi allows it to be said that his huge contribution and claim to these symphonies is at least as great as that of Mozart. For unlike him and Haydn Luchesi has had no massive decline in the claims being made of him.
As regards expertise in these areas, I and others are as qualified to speak of Luchesi as are those who choose hear to rubbish him.
I therefore appeal to Wilkepedia to allow these claims of Luchesi's authorship to remain on the article dealing with Andrea Luchesi - this being a small price to pay for allowing the huge and grossly exaggerated claims of the 'status quo' on these issues.
As final proof of these issues being defendable - I, the undersigned, agree to debate with anyone who rubbishes Luchesi's achievements or who says that he did not, in fact, write those symphonies which are today falsely attributed to Mozart. Let critics agree to such a debate in a fair and open forum so that Wilkipedia will not be pressured by dogmatic conservatives - the sort who have proved their ingorance of both Luchesi and of Mozart's real career.
Robert Newman
Dear Mr. Newman,
Please read this carefully, because its content is probably not what you are anticipating.
What is at issue is not the truth about whether Luchesi wrote Mozart and Haydn's works, but the (non-negotiable) Wikipedia policies embodied in Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. We are required to act only as compilers and transmitters of the published scholarly literature. The organization's policy is that any individual editor is presumed not qualified to judge scholarly controversies. We're only permitted to report what both sides say in published outlets. I reverted the Haydn/Mozart material because it did not clearly give its reference sources.
It's true that occasionally the Wikipedia editors fail in their duty and put things in without including citations. But this is more acceptable for something trivial, like the name of a sitcom character, than for an intense scholarly controversy like this one.
Since the issue here is of citation, not content, it should be possible for you to restore the controversial material in some form. All you have to do is begin your discussion with:
"[Scholar X], writing in [published forum Y] claims that Z."
Then carefully summarize Z.
I did a bit of Web searching which indicates that perhaps X is a person named Giorgio Taboga, and Y is a book called L'assassinio di Mozart, published 1997. You would want to read the book with great care, if you haven't already, and summarize its arguments. If you did this, you would be in compliance with the Wikipedia rules and could expect that your contribution would not be deleted (though, as always, it might be further edited).
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Opus33 16:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IfAny's reinsertion of the authorship material
The "Works" section has been re-edited. Before going further with improvements, I would be grateful to Opus 33 if he could advise on the compliance of the revised text with the rules.--IfAny 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, IfAny,
- Of course, I'm not the Official Referee, but in my judgment, the article in its present form violates the NPOV policy of the Wikipedia. This is because the bulk of the article's space is devoted to the views of one scholar, Taboga, views which are ultra-controversial. If I may give an analogy, it's as if two thirds of the Wikipedia article on Shakespeare were devoted to the hypothesis (equally controversial) that Shakespeare's works were written by Edward DeVere.
- So, what I will do next is just what they did in the Shakespeare article, which is to move the authorship controversy to a separate article, giving a brief summary in the main article. I hope this is acceptable to you.
- Yours sincerely, Opus33 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Opus33,
If you allow for another analogy, your suggestion recalls Solomon's judgement: to split the baby for finding the real mother. So, even if I'm not fully convinced of the NPOV policy violation, I think this is acceptable as a provisional solution, hoping that a fair discussion will go on without repeated recourse to "disputed" labels or cancellations. I'm just amending your summaries to make them closer to the main text.
The now-separated article seemed largely reporting facts; it should be rather normal that an article on Luchesi gives some preminence to the findings and related reconstruction of events by his most comprehensive biographer. Should the article have been on Haydn, it would have been a different matter. However please consider this as my present opinion, which is not worth a discussion now.
I don't know in detail the Edward deVere case, so I'll refrain to comment on that controversy, but we may find some analogy as far as the social position of the personages is concerned: in both cases we find a famous commoner (Mozart/Shakespeare) and an aristocrat who should conform to his era rules (Luchesi/deVere). I'll add something about the Luchesi family asap.
Yours sincerely--IfAny 15:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dear IfAny,
- Thank you for your patience. I did make a small revert in the main article, namely replacing "for information on Luchesi's work" with "for discussion and references to Taboga's work". This proceeds from my view that to call what Taboga has written "information" would violate the Wikipedia NPOV policy--it's precisely his characterization of the facts that is so controversial.
- Other than that, I think the Taboga material is now appropriately labeled, so that no reader of our encyclopedia would naively think that it represents consensus scholarship. Nevertheless, readers who are curious about this sort of thing will be able to access it.
- I also did a bit of formatting on the list of works generally attributed to Luchesi, and put a copy of it into the main article.
- Yours sincerely, Opus33 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
