Mozart a fraud?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Yes, I agree with 71dB there too. There is a saying along the lines of....the best is enemy of the good. I think that may well apply to composers who are certainly worth listening out for, but who have been unfortunately overlooked due to the hegemony of the musical giants.

That applies to all of the arts. Art is a (fluid) meritocracy, not a democracy. By 'fluid' I mean - reputations can always be contested. Although there comes a point with some composers, writers, painters and so on where their greatness has become a fact of life, due to universal admiration. 'Genius' isn't evenly distributed, which may irritate some.

[Herman]

I do agree with this statement myself. I think composers like Vanhal, Dittersdorf and Hofmann weren't that many steps behind Haydn and Mozart in quality. People may say Haydn's music is more inventive than Vanhal's but personally I find Vanhal's symphonies more energetic. so.

This is one of the great ironies of music history IMO. Mozart's genius only came to full flower in the second half of his career, and even then he wasn't shy of quickly writing some formulaic stuff to make a quick buck. However if you listen to classic FM you'll find that there is still a large audience for the early galant formula Mozart. Undemanding foot-tapping happy-go-lucky and sentimental music. Similarly a lot of people prefer those ra-ta-ta-ta motoric drive Haydn symphonies over his more lyrical and sublime work, for which you don't really need HAydn, since lots of lesser contemporaries churned out the same kind of ra-ta-ta stuff.

Frankly I suspect the author of this thread is one of those people who much prefers the classical formula music as written by any number of composers of the era, and his agenda is to eliminate Mozart achievement as a way to deny tout court there is such a thing as sublimity in classical era music.

[71 dB]

Similarly a lot of people prefer those ra-ta-ta-ta motoric drive Haydn symphonies over his more lyrical and sublime work

This is offtopic but could you give me examples of ra-ta-ta motoric symphonies and more lyrical and sublime symphonies by Haydn? I am in the HUGE process of getting familiar with those 100+ symphonies so this might help me "organizing" them stylistically in my mind.

[Holly]

In actual fact, Leopold Mozart was NOT a teacher of composition, harmony or orchestration at any time in his entire life. Why do you invent such nonsense ? Is it for home consumption ? Leopold Mozart was a failed student of philosophy at the University of Salzburg who was falsely attributed with writing a violin treatise in 1756, stolen from an Italian virtoso violinist. He joined the orchestra of Salzburg as 4th Violinist. He was NEVER at any time a teacher of music theory, harmony or orchestration and he was awarded the post of 'Deputy Kapellmeister' without ever serving in that capacity in his entire life. He left Salzburg 4 weeks after receiving this purely honorary award. Which caused great resentment in Salzburg. 3 years later he was still absent from Salzburg.

I do not pretend to be an expert in the biographical details of Leopold Mozart but the following Wiki article presents a more rounded account of his musical skills than the highly skewed version scandalously trotted out above.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart

This article refers to Groves dictionary but I don't have that.  The Wiki article explains that Leopold began his musical studies while a student at Augsburg, and became a skilled violinist and organist. He began his professional career as a musician in 1740 (age 21), at which time he began composing music. Three years later he was appointed 4th violinist in the Archbishop of Salzburg's Court establishment, and his duties did indeed include composition and the teaching of violin, later piano.  In 1758 he was promoted to second violinist in 1758, and in 1760 to Deputy Kapellmeister. The article goes to list numerous works accredited to him by a contemporary.

The main point is that Leopold was clearly far from being the musical buffoon portrayed by Newman.  The exact status of Leopold Mozart as a composer and teacher is irrelevant provided he was sufficiently capable of teaching his offspring all they needed to know.  There is no reason to believe otherwise given the musical status that Leopold achieved and his own musical legacy.  In any event, had W A Mozart been tutored instead by the very best available resources at the time (whoever they may have been), rather than by Leopold, there is no reason to presume that this was neither necessary or sufficient to exploit fully W A Mozart's genius.

[robnewman]

I do not pretend to be an expert in the biographical details of Leopold Mozart but the following Wiki article presents a more rounded account of his musical skills than the highly skewed version scandalously trotted out above.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart

This article refers to Groves dictionary but I don't have that.  The Wiki article explains that Leopold began his musical studies while a student at Augsburg, and became a skilled violinist and organist. He began his professional career as a musician in 1740 (age 21), at which time he began composing music. Three years later he was appointed 4th violinist in the Archbishop of Salzburg's Court establishment, and his duties did indeed include composition and the teaching of violin, later piano.  In 1758 he was promoted to second violinist in 1758, and in 1760 to Deputy Kapellmeister. The article goes to list numerous works accredited to him by a contemporary.

The main point is that Leopold was clearly far from being the musical buffoon portrayed by Newman.  The exact status of Leopold Mozart as a composer and teacher is irrelevant provided he was sufficiently capable of teaching his offspring all they needed to know.  There is no reason to believe otherwise given the musical status that Leopold achieved and his own musical legacy.  In any event, had W A Mozart been tutored instead by the very best available resources at the time (whoever they may have been), rather than by Leopold, there is no reason to presume that this was neither necessary or sufficient to exploit fully W A Mozart's genius.

Well, this last post of yours only confirms the truth. Leopold Mozart was a musician of no great talent, who, when Wolfgang was 2 years old, was still a Second Violinist. And who was raised to become a deputy Kapellmeister only as a token gesture, this weeks before they took their first tour. The number of days Leopold Mozart was actively involved at Salzburg as a deputy Kapellmeister was the same number that W.A. Mozart was himself a real 'Kapellmeister' - ZERO. For the Mozart's were on tour for 7 years of Wolfgang's childhood. There is no record whatsoever of Leopold Mozart being a teacher of harmony, orchestration or instrumentation, to anyone. He had joined the Salzburg Hofkapelle in 1743 as a humble 4th violinist, rising to 2nd Violin only 18 whole years later !! I mean, how clear can facts be ?

These are the plain facts of the case. It is also a plain fact 'his' Violin Treatise of 1756 is a much plagiarised version of an unpublished work on violin by the Italian virtuoso violinist Giuseppe Tartini - a fact known all across Europe by anyone who has actually cared to examine the matter.

[Holly]

Well, this last post of yours only confirms the truth. Leopold Mozart was a musician of no great talent, who, when Wolfgang was 2 years old, was still a Second Violinist. And who was raised to become a deputy Kapellmeister only as a token gesture, this weeks before they took their first tour. The number of days Leopold Mozart was actively involved at Salzburg as a deputy Kapellmeister was the same number that W.A. Mozart was himself a real 'Kapellmeister' - ZERO. For the Mozart's were on tour for 7 years of Wolfgang's childhood. There is no record whatsoever of Leopold Mozart being a teacher of harmony, orchestration or instrumentation, to anyone. He had joined the Salzburg Hofkapelle in 1743 as a humble 4th violinist, rising to 2nd Violin only 18 whole years later !! I mean, how clear can facts be ?

These are the plain facts of the case. It is also a plain fact 'his' Violin Treatise of 1756 is a much plagiarised version of an unpublished work on violin by the Italian virtuoso violinist Giuseppe Tartini - a fact known all across Europe by anyone who has actually cared to examine the matter.

Why was it imperative that Mozart's tutor had to be a musician of "great talent", even assuming that Leopold does not fit this description which I do not necessarily accept merely on your say so?

Beethoven's nominal tutor was Luchesi, but can you be sure that Luchesi actually imparted any useful knowledge to LvB, or was it all down to Neefe instead?  At any rate, what makes you think that Luchesi was any greater than Leopold as a teacher and composer?  And wasn't it the case that W A Mozart was at one time being seriously considered for the post of the Bonn Kapellmeister, rather than Luchesi who sneaked into the job based on some dodgy deal involving his brother-in-law and the Elector?

Quite simply, you have not demonstrated any good reason why W A Mozart could not have developed all the necessary skills with which he is noted on the basis of initial teaching by his father and by later self-development.

[71 dB]

How about Leopold Mozart's own compositions? If he was able to compose crappy symphonies himself why wouldn't he be able to teach his own son to compose?

[greg]

More like:
Hi, Rob Newman.
My name is Greg.
Oh, my popsicle is a hoax?
No, thank you, I'm not allowed to talk to strangers.
Okay, bye.

[robnewman]

Why was it imperative that Mozart's tutor had to be a musician of "great talent", even assuming that Leopold does not fit this description which I do not necessarily accept merely on your say so?

Beethoven's nominal tutor was Luchesi, but can you be sure that Luchesi actually imparted any useful knowledge to LvB, or was it all down to Neefe instead?  At any rate, what makes you think that Luchesi was any greater than Leopold as a teacher and composer?  And wasn't it the case that W A Mozart was at one time being seriously considered for the post of the Bonn Kapellmeister, rather than Luchesi who sneaked into the job based on some dodgy deal involving his brother-in-law and the Elector?

Quite simply, you have not demonstrated any good reason why W A Mozart could not have developed all the necessary skills with which he is noted on the basis of initial teaching by his father and by later self-development.

Well, Holly, which of the two sides of this discussion is dealing in facts, and which is dealing in groundless speculation and flat denial ? I understand you wish to examine this issue only as a staunch defender of the Mozart story. But we already see how this forces you in a position of suppressing the evidence, such as Leopold's very limited abilities, the timeframe under which Wolfgang supposedly studied composition for any concerted period of time during his entire life, the blatant theft/plagiarisation of the Violin Treatise of Tartini, and the plain fact that even in 1770 the surviving entrance exam of Mozart at Bologna is riddled with musical crudities which betray his real ignorance of harmony and voice parts, even at the age of 14. You naturally wish to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to Mozart. But are you being fair on yourself that you surrender the business of presenting evidence and accepting evidence from those who disagree with you for these plain reasons  ? It is not, of course, because you are motivated by fairness or objectivity. But because your perspective is that given to you by wearing 'Mozartean spectacles', so to speak. You believe, sincerely, you are serving reality. That what is under attack here is reality itself. When, in fact, all that is happening is a frank exchange of facts. Facts which, without you making huge speculations, indicate very differently from what you suppose. So that if evidence is of any significance it forms little, if any part of your view. And it shows.

You say Beethoven's 'nominal' tutor was Luchesi.  Holly, if Luchesi was not the real tutor of Beethoven you are making him the first Kapellmeister in music history who was NOT the tutor of music pupils at a Hofkapelle ! Since the teaching of pupils IS a principal job of a Kapellmeister. But has that too escaped you  ? Furthermore, the association of Ch. G Neefe with the education of Beethoven was confined to one single year (1783-4) at which time Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was taking leave for 1 year in Italy. Why then is Neefe portrayed as Beethoven's 'teacher' when, in plain fact, it was Andrea Luchesi who was, for close to 20 years, the Kapellmeister at Bonn ? And how is it, Holly, the name of Luchesi has been so often airbrushed out of Beethoven biography when, in plain fact, he, Luchesi was of immense importance ?  Indeed, the very first work said to have been written by Beethoven was made in association with Kapellmeister Luchesi, who is recorded as helping him in a funeral cantata for the Bonn based English diplomat, George Cressner. What sort of editing out of history are you happy with ? No, you hear of Neefe but common sense floats out of the window here on a massively distorted scale.

For your information, Luchesi was invited to become Kapellmeister at Bonn because of his recognised musical abilities. Invited by Count Durazzo, ambassador of Austria in Italy. And a Luchesi who was to transform the wayward reputation of Bonn within a decade of his arrival, the Hofkapelle and its music rising to be rated as the 3rd best in Germany at the time of Luchesi's retirement. This from a position of poor standard due to incompetent leadership under the drunken Beethoven. But of these things you seem blissfully ignorant. Ignorant too that the two cantatas of state today attributed falsely to Beethoven (the cantata on Joseph's death and that on the accession of his successor) were works of state performed at Frankfurt, and not the products of any music school student. Here too common sense has disappeared and you become a consumer not of fact but of airbrushed and almost ludicruous versions of history.

It was Mozart who, in 1782, wrote that he expected to become Kapellmeister at Bonn through his friend the later Elector and brother of the Emperor Joseph 2nd. But Max Franz was unable to keep this promise. And rightly. Since Luchesi was by this time a citizen of Bonn, and had married and lived there. Working in fact for almost 20 years. This fact unrecorded and ignored by German musicology ever since - with few exceptions. What is this but blatant manipulation of 'history'. As for Luchesi himself, well, he too airbrushed out of music history at this hugely critical time in music history. Small wonder that Italian musicians are enraged at this duplicity !

No, it's your understanding which is wrong, since facts themselves have a nasty tendency to remind you. Which you must either come to terms with or continue to ignore by wearing your 'Mozartean spectacles'.

[DavidRoss]

Everyone--

Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves?  His complete disregard for facts and truth, his rejection of two centuries of Mozart studies by legitimate scholars, and his repeated insistence on the veracity of his crackpot claims, with no support other than his own proclamations, half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies, merits nothing but ridicule.  He's like the Michael Moore of Mozart!

[ChamberNut]

Everyone--

Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves? 

Just keep in mind that Mr. Newman may have some "multiple personalities" working on GMG, feeding him questions to help him on his smear campaign.

[robnewman]

Just keep in mind that Mr. Newman may have some "multiple personalities" working on GMG, feeding him questions to help him on his smear campaign.

Yes, such as, perhaps, ChamberNut right here on this forum ?

[robnewman]

In reply to Guido's question -

/

ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI

To confer iconic status on an revered artist or composer has consequences. One of which, over time, is the inevitable distortion and diminishment of the role of his own contemporaries, another the blurring of social, religious and artistic times in which lived and often a lack of appreciation of the interaction between all of these. The great significance of Mozart's musical contemporaries has tended to be diminished, marginalised, or often turned in to cardboard caricatures or props at the expense of the ever expanding myth of the hero himself and have, in still other cases, been suppressed or ignored altogether. A classic case in point is the life and career of the composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).

This problem of 'hero status' is not easily resolved. In fact, it's not until it's acknowledged to be a problem we are able to see there's something of an inevitability about the effects of hero worship. Far less appreciated is  that biographical distortion is a side-effect of this ongoing 'canonisation' process. Especially so in the case of Mozart. Since we are, in Mozart's case, dealing with both biography and also with propaganda constructed to support his iconic status in the decades following his early death in December 1791. We are able to detect an underlying cause of biographical corruption in the constructing of a pantheon of great composers of which Mozart is widely believed to be a member. This being a process, we must agree, which can have strange effects which tend, over time, to play tricks on our ability to appreciate reality itself. Some might call this phenomenon 'the fruits of idolatry'. We might compare it to strange, visual effects on the horizon of hot desert, where a mirage can form, obscuring and visibly distorting the object we have in view, detaching it from its true context, so that, in extreme cases, it appears to float in a haze without context and with little prospect of appreciating from where it came nor its true distance from us, the observer. In the case of music history, the  benefits of learning our subject by reference to members of a pantheon of hero composers are real but they may be offset and seriously diminished as a consequence of the existence of a pantheon itself. So the whole notion of 'great composers' can and should be seen as  both a solution but also as a real problem.

ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI, THE QUINTET KV581 AND THE CONCERTO KV622 - ATTRIBUTED (BY TRADITION) TO W.A. MOZART

That these two great works (KV581 and KV622) should traditionally be attributed to Mozart and have for 200 years been published in his name should be counterbalanced by appreciating that neither were published in his lifetime. Their eventual publication first occurring years after his death. That is, after 1800, when Andre, publisher at Offenbach is said to have first acquired their autographs together with many others - this after protracted negotiations that lasted almost a decade with Mozart's widow, Constanze. This improbable scenario, together with the fact these autographs have long since disappeared (in circumstances which stretch our credulity to breaking point) may be said to be the rough outline of the history of these two great works from a Mozartean perspective. We might add that the average music lover has little, if any, appreciation of works already existing in the same forms (clarinet quintets and clarinet concertos) composed by Mozart's musical contemporaries. Indeed, a hallmark of 'Mozart research' (whatever that means) being the extent to which he and his musical reputation exists within a context which is minimalist in context, consisting of cardboard cutouts to the drama with which we are all familiar in 'Amadeus' - figures who play only an incidental and largely insignificant token appearance in the unfolding Mozart drama. It's possible to note that dozens of talented composers have fallen victim to the rise of this Mozart myth. Amongst them important composers such as J.B. Vanhal, J.C. Bach, J, Myslivececk, A. Luchesi, G. Paisiello, J. Fiala, A. Salieri, Giovanni Paisiello, H.A. Gelinek, Forster, Theresia von Paradis, Viotti, and a whole host of others, all of whom are known to have interacted with Mozart and all able to be proved of considerable importance in creating the music today attributed to him. These are able to provide a little known context within which the subject of these two pieces can be considered. Amongst which I would like to include and briefly present as a candidate for him being their  true composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).

In order to do so briefly I'd like first to call to your attention two events that occurred 18 and 19 years after Mozart's death. Events which, at first, you might think have little if any relevance to this question. But which, I hope, will provide much needed context in attempts to resolve this issue of the determining the composer of both these great works. First being the well known  dedication associated with published versions of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, the 'Eroica', Op. 55.  A work completed (so we are told) around 1803/4. Now, this famous symphony has long been associated by biographers with Napoleon Bonaparte. But the dedication itself dates from almost 5 years after its completion , first appearing in the London edition of  the full score in early 1809. A dedication to a fallen hero. A testimony, in fact, to an event which had only recently occurred. Not that of the death of Napoleon. But, rather,  the death of little known musical colleague, friend and long time working associate of Beethoven himself, Antonio Casimir Cartellieri.

The second event I'd like to briefly refer to was the first recorded performance given in England in 1810 of 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto, this commented on in a London newspaper of the time as being, 'the latest product of that factory of Andre at Offenbach and not, in fact by Mozart at all'.

Now, let it be agreed from the outset that the main composer of both this Quintet and this Concerto were one and the same person. This, stylistically, analytically, seems beyond dispute. Let it further be agreed there exists in Mozart's hand, a short introductory section of this Concerto (a work intended for Basset Horn, but not Clarinet). And let it further be agreed clarinetist Anton Stadler, friend of Mozart, has long been associated with this piece and even with loss of both autographs. (The general belief being that he, Stadler, premiered the work in Prague and elsewhere in Bohemia during the year of  its composition, in 1791. (The same Stadler is also generally credited with having participated in the premiere, years earlier, of the Serenade for 13 Woodwinds, KV361). So association of Stadler with both the Quintet and the Clarinet is not disputed. Nor can it be disputed the short Mozart 'sketch' of this Concerto begs an explanation. Just as does a sketch in Mozart's hand of the 'Paris' symphony (KV297) - a sketch to the finale of that piece seen by various researchers as being a late attempt by Mozart to produce a new version near the end of his life, around 1789  - long, long, after its Paris premiere of 1778.

Which brings us to Cartellieri. A boy who (apparently) ran away from home and is first recorded as being a music student of Antonio Salieri, in Vienna ! Writing there a string quartet (which still survives dedicated to him). And who, after a period with Count Oborsky (associated with Mozart's career) eventually comes to Vienna again and, in 1795, had already written major works. A Cartellieri so talented (and yet so almost completely unknown today) who was rated so highly he shared the first concert ever given by Beethoven in the Austrian capital, in 1795. And so phenomenally gifted in the works performed on that single occasion that he was quickly recruited from Oborsky by Prince Lobkowitz, at whose palaces (in Vienna and later in Bohemia) he was to work for the rest of his short life. The composer of concertos (4 alone for clarinet) and symphonies, chamber music and much else, including two remarkable oratorios, one of them performed to general astonishment in Vienna. Again a symphony in C Minor, this years before that of Beethoven, who was to be very closely associated with him from 1795 onwards. The same Lobkowitz who was a patron to Mozart. The same Lobkowitz who for years after Mozart's death staged early performances of 'Mozart' operas at a specially built theatre on his estates in Bohemia. The same Lobkowitz who was patron of the churches in Prague where many of 'Mozart's' church works were stored after Mozart's death. And a Cartellieri who worked on editing and revising music of the Lobkowitz archives for the rest of his own life - the public acclaim going to Beethoven. That the 'Mozart' concerto is in fact an early work of Cartellieri is further indicated by the amazing skill and depth of Cartellieri's music. A sample of which has already been posted here, the early concerto in G Major for Flute. I dare to say that if you were to listen to quartets, sonatas, sextets, concertos and even symphonies of Cartellieri (these amazingly not known for almost 200 years) you would readily agree that Cartellieri was of huge value to one of Mozart's most famous patrons, Prince Lobkowitz. (In fact, it was at the Palace of Lobkowtiz in 1795 where Beethoven and Cartellieri gave their joint concert in Vienna that year). And it was in to the service of Lobkowitz that Cartellieri's son entered in to musical service after the sudden death of his father, in 1807. (Employed as a music librarian and deputy Kapellmeister. The same place as many Mozart manuscripts were stored).

That Cartellieri is the true composer of the Quintet and also the Concerto becomes more and more likely if you listen to his music. That these two works finally appeared in print in 'Mozart's' name only in the first years of the 19th century is, again, indicator of the fact that much work was done on 'Mozart's' music by the likes of Cartellieri before it ever came to first publication, and this posthumously, for Mozart had of course died in 1791. So the decade of 'negotiations' for sale of 'his' manuscripts is little more than an elaborate ruse. For, in this decade 1791-1801 we witnessed the manufacture of dozens, even hundreds of works today falsely attributed to Mozart.

Finally (since this post must be short) the 4 clarinet concertos of Cartellieri (and the many clarinet quartets) have only recently been recorded for the first time. Created in direct response to demand. Add to this the remarkable fact that 'consultant' for Cartellieri's clarinet works was none other than, yes, the very same Anton Stadler. The Anton Stadler associated, as already said with 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto and 'Mozart's' Clarinet Quintet.

The full story of these and other works would require a post of far greater length that I have little time to provide. Suffice to say that, in my considered view, the true composer of both works was not W.A. Mozart, by Antonio Casimir Cartellieri, yet another composer whose name and achievements are today virtually unknown, obscured by the Mozart industry and consigned to the dungeons of our appreciation. But which, I hope, you will at least hear some of before forming a judgement on this issue.

Regards

[robnewman]

Everyone--

Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves?  His complete disregard for facts and truth, his rejection of two centuries of Mozart studies by legitimate scholars, and his repeated insistence on the veracity of his crackpot claims, with no support other than his own proclamations, half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies, merits nothing but ridicule.  He's like the Michael Moore of Mozart!

Well, thank you David Ross. We look forward to your crackpot reply to this subject. Or, even better, none at all !  

[Holly]

You say Beethoven's 'nominal' tutor was Luchesi.  Holly, if Luchesi was not the real tutor of Beethoven you are making him the first Kapellmeister in music history who was NOT the tutor of music pupils at a Hofkapelle ! Since the teaching of pupils IS a principal job of a Kapellmeister. But has that too escaped you  ? Furthermore, the association of Ch. G Neefe with the education of Beethoven was confined to one single year (1783-4) at which time Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was taking leave for 1 year in Italy. Why then is Neefe portrayed as Beethoven's 'teacher' when, in plain fact, it was Andrea Luchesi who was, for close to 20 years, the Kapellmeister at Bonn ? And how is it, Holly, the name of Luchesi has been so often airbrushed out of Beethoven biography when, in plain fact, he, Luchesi was of immense importance ?  Indeed, the very first work said to have been written by Beethoven was made in association with Kapellmeister Luchesi, who is recorded as helping him in a funeral cantata for the Bonn based English diplomat, George Cressner. What sort of editing out of history are you happy with ? No, you hear of Neefe but common sense floats out of the window here on a massively distorted scale.

Can you point to any concrete evidence that LvB was actually taught anything by Luchesi?  It's not good enough merely to assume it, as you do.  As far as I know, Beethoven never referred to him in correspondence or in any notes or other material.  At least Beethoven said that he never learned anything from Haydn.   Maybe he thought that Luchesi was such a useless composer that it wasn't worth commenting on him.  If you cannot conjure up any hard material to show a connection perhaps you could tell us about any traits of Luchesi's musical style that LvB emulated in his music.  You ought to be able to do this if your thesis is correct that great composers can only result from having benefitted from an education provided by great tutors. 

[robnewman]

Can you point to any concrete evidence that LvB was actually taught anything by Luchesi?  It's not good enough merely to assume it, as you do.  As far as I know, Beethoven never referred to him in correspondence or in any notes or other material.  At least Beethoven said that he never learned anything from Haydn.   Maybe he thought that Luchesi was such a useless composer that it wasn't worth commenting on him.  If you cannot conjure up any hard material to show a connection perhaps you could tell us about any traits of Luchesi's musical style that LvB emulated in his music.  You ought to be able to do this if your thesis is correct that great composers can only result from having benefitted from an education provided by great tutors.  

I can point to concrete evidence by the truck load that what we are traditionally taught of the 'holy trinity' of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is riddled with errors, examples of suppression, and the wholesale omission of Italian, French and Bohemian composers in the creation of their status. But in answer to your specific question, yes, for in 1772 was publication at Bonn of sonatas by Luchesi, the contents of which clearly and indisputably anticipate 'Beethoven's style' by well over a decade. I can point you to many, many Italianate works of Beethoven from the Bonn period which were learned by Beethoven during his time at Bonn. And I can of course appeal to common sense. I can also point you to the destruction of many of Beethoven's Conversation Books, this shortly after his death, which has left us with a void, biographically, in many aspects of Beethoven's early life, and which only slowly have German, Italian and other researchers been filling in recent decades. Why, the subject may even be of interest to you (?). In which case I can refer you to the archives of Bonn library, to the remnants of the Bonn Hofkapelle archives at the Estense Library in Modena, and to the documented achievements of Luchesi at Bonn Hofkappelle and (later) at the German National Theatre in Bonn, this founded in the last years of Luchesi's life there in that same city. To indicate that Luchesi was not the principle music teacher of Beethoven is so silly that it's only rivalled by the nonsense that it was Ch. G. Neefe - a blatant lie found in textbook after textbook.

[Herman]

Not a scintilla of evidence. Just as I predicted: Mr Newmna thinks Cartilieri is really cool, much cooler than Mozart, and so some of Mozart's coolest works just have to be by Cartelierri.

[robnewman]

Not a scintilla of evidence. Just as I predicted: Mr Newmna thinks Cartilieri is really cool, much cooler than Mozart, and so some of Mozart's coolest works just have to be by Cartelierri.

The crystal clear relationship between Lobkowitz and Mozart, between Lobkowitz and Cartellieri, between Cartellieri and clarinet concertos/chamber music, between the known posthumous work on 'Mozart' works by Lobkowitz, and by the very contents of Cartellieri's music (much of it totally unknown to you) are of course clear evidence that evidence is not something in which you are remotely interested, it seems. To say nothing of Anton Stadler. No, of course, let's ignore it all. LOL !!

Was there ever a generation of musical 'couch potatoes' like this one ?

[Herman]

My dear fellow, again you have some data, but no sense of history. Of course all these people knew each other, did (music) business together. Look a little further and there are dozens other people in that socio-artistic web. It was a small world. Your data however give no indication there was something sinister going on. Actually your little piece gives every indication the clarinet cto and quartet were written by Mozart  -  the Stadtler business. The fact that countless other composers also wrote clarinet pieces doesn't mean they also wrote Mozart's cto. It just means the clarinet (or it's near predecessor) was a hot instrument at the time.

[Brian]

This is one of the great ironies of music history IMO. Mozart's genius only came to full flower in the second half of his career, and even then he wasn't shy of quickly writing some formulaic stuff to make a quick buck. However if you listen to classic FM you'll find that there is still a large audience for the early galant formula Mozart. Undemanding foot-tapping happy-go-lucky and sentimental music. Similarly a lot of people prefer those ra-ta-ta-ta motoric drive Haydn symphonies over his more lyrical and sublime work, for which you don't really need HAydn, since lots of lesser contemporaries churned out the same kind of ra-ta-ta stuff.

This reminds me of a quotation from Hurwitz:
"The classical period was one of those moments in history where the style itself was so powerful that composers of relatively modest ability, with a little luck and a few good ideas, could write some outstanding music."