Talk:Andrea Luchesi

The dispute begins (2005)

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)

Poor Robert has changed his policy and has recently started to post under the pseudonym "ColleenGail726". Now and then he even unintentionally signs his ramblings with "Robert". What a hoot this man is!--Suessmayr 06:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as being banned from on-line-forums is concerned, Mr. Newman has surely broken every record. 'ColleenGail' has already gone down the drain as well.--80.74.149.115 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

---

I would like to comment further on the factual accuracy and style of the above claims.

The claim that orthodox scholarship has denied Lucchesi's existence is absurd. He is a historically verifiable person who is mentioned in Mozart's letters, for instance. If he is not mentioned in particular books, it is because he is of no importance to their subjects.

Newman claims that it is indisputable that Lucchesi taught Beethoven, but this is a mere assertion without evidence. Contemporary accounts derived from Beethoven's own recollections say that he was taught by Neefe. There is plenty of historical evidence that this was so, which may be found in any Beethoven biography. Airy declarations of what the Kappelmeister must have done are not historical evidence, and neither Newman nor Taboga have provided anything more than declarations.

Newman's paragraph on the number of symphonies attributed to Mozart shows he knows nothing about Mozart. Early uncertainty about which symphonies were composed by Mozart (or Haydn), much of it derived from the acts of unscrupulous publishers, was almost entirely cleared up in the 19th century, and their worklists settled at that time. It is grotesquely misleading to intertwine these problems, little of it the composers' doing, with any present-day claim of large-scale fraud.

More importantly, Newman has no idea of how many symphonies are currently attributed to Mozart. His misapprehensions are elementary and could be cleared up with a quick look at the standard work by Neal Zaslaw, or even a glance at the Grove encyclopedia. 41 is emphatically not the standard number of Mozart's symphonies; it is the relic of a numbering system applied by an early 19th-century publisher, and is used less and less today because of its inaccuracy. Only a complete amateur would today think Mozart is attributed with exactly 41 symphonies. He actually wrote some 70 or 80 symphonies, the uncertainty being more in what counts as a symphony than in any doubt that he composed them. See Zaslaw.

Extensive inquiry of Mr. Newman on the Beethoven board finally elicited an admission that there is no evidence that the symphonies held at Modena were the same ones inventoried at Bonn in 1784. The Bonn inventory contains no incipits or other evidence to connect the sets; it is merely an assumption. There is room for further investigation here, but it cannot be carried out by people who start with the assumption that Mozart perpetrated a giant fraud. If the inventory securely dated as 1784 contained the incipits of symphonies said to be composed to Mozart in 1788, that would be a significant discovery. In its absence, there is little to say.

As for Luchesi having a high reputation which later vanished, that is the common fate of many, many composers of past and present.

Kalimac (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Followup

The theory by Giorgio Taboga that Luchesi wrote Haydn and Mozart's works was listed in the Wikipedia for about a year in the article Luchesi authorship controversy. This listing was, in my view, a kind of political compromise between advocates of this theory (see above) and the mainstream view (which is that Taboga is totally wrong, in fact, a crank).

I was reasonably happy with this compromise until I started reading the complaints of unhappy readers, in particular on the Talk page of Luchesi authorship controversy. These complaints, evidently by sensible, well-informed people, said that we were giving far too much prominence to a crackpot theory. I also did a little more reading in the one English-language Taboga site, and found that his claims are even wilder than I had thought -- for instance, he thinks Haydn didn't write any of his symphonies! This led me to conclude that the Wikipedia was giving the theory far too much respect. So now, I've changed my mind, apologizing to the people I've dealt with above in case they ever read this. I now judge that the Wikipedia would not serve its readers well if it offers any credence or support at all to Taboga's theory.

As a consequence, I've reduced Luchesi authorship controversy to a redirect, in effect deleting it, and making a small paragraph in Andrea Luchesi pointing out the existence of Taboga's theory and the fact that it has achieved no acceptance among musicological professionals. The link to the English-language Taboga article is there, so anyone who wants to learn about Taboga's views still can. I believe that this is all that the Wikipedia should be doing concerning this theory. Opus33 15:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversy continues: RobertNewman111

The life and career of Andrea Luchesi is NOT the subject of ongoing study by any musical expert. In fact, it's quite scandalous that the editors of Wikipedia have several times allowed this subject to be portrayed as a 'conspiracy theory promulgated by one man.

Andrea Luchesi was for 10 years the true teacher at Bonn of the young Ludwig van Beethoven. In plain and indisputable fact Kapellmeisters had as one of their chief duties the teaching of music. Such a plain fact has been systematically 'airbrushed' out of textbooks for reasons that are unworthy of discussion. Secondly, Andrea Luchesi was one of thje finest musical talents in Europe. That is why he was appointed to the post that he ended up holding for a total of 21 years - Luchesi being, in fact, the last Kepellmeister at Bonn Chapel, the musical centre of one of the great chapels of musical Germany. It was this very post that Mozart sought to have in 1784 but failed to obtain.

Professor Taboga has made many outstanding contributions to this fascinating and little appreciated area of musical history. He has produced strong evidence that many works today attributed to Haydn and Mozart were, in fact, falsely attributed. He has urged Mozart and Haydn scholarship to study the various 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' works held at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy. And he has correctly pointed out that, to date, NO SUCH STUDY BY MOZART OR HAYDN SCHOLARS HAS YET OCCURRED.

The subject of wholesale fakery in the careers of Haydn and Mozart is, of course, a serious one. But, to date, editors of Koechel and other 'experts' on Hadyn/Mozart have done NOTHING to reply to the points made by Taboga, Bianchini. Trombetta, Newman and others - all of them suggesting wholesale fakery in the careers of Haydn and Mozart. Until such time as a reply is made to the many articles made by Taboga on this issue and until 'exerts' get off their backsides to study the Modena material and other evidence of blatant fakery in the lives of these two 'Viennese heroes' it is not fair that Taboga should be described as having been rejected by music scholarship. The simple truth is that the 'experts' have had years to get to Modena, Regensburg and other places on these issues but have failed totally to prove their 'expertise' on this issue.

The number of works falsely attributed to Haydn runs in to many dozens. The same is true of Mozart. Andrea Luchesi did not compose all of these works. Nobody has ever said so.

I ask Wikipedia and their editors to treat this matter fairly. To publicise the FACT that 'experts' have NOT studied these issues. Therefore they are NOT qualified to regard them as false or unfounded.

The above contribution is by User:RobertNewman111.

Hello, Well, we'll see what editors think, but my own line right now is: no way. The Taboga link, when examined, suggests to me we've got a classic case of a crank, and we're not going to damage the credibility of this encyclopedia by giving it serious prominence. I believe (though I'm not certain), that this policy would be supported by a consensus of WP classical music editors. Yours sincerely, Opus33 17:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Opus. No way. This is a fringe theory with no standing in the academic community, and Wikipedia is not the right forum for publishing fringe theories. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Antandrus. Wikipedia is not, categorically not, the place for this. If we continue to get this material shoved at us, we are liable to flip. Moreschi ^Talk 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversy continues: IfAny

Dear Opus33,

I’m addressing you as the wizard who has the ability to make articles disappear, re-appear or be transposed. The request is: please revert your last changes.

Let me clarify the request. You state that your action was a consequence of “repeated” “complaints, evidently by sensible, well-informed people”. So, let’s examine these complaints. There are 3 (!) of them in the Luchesi authorship controversy talk page:

1 - by 200.193.250.191: sensible? Well-informed? I can’t tell. 2 – by Djkuula: he/she didn’t probably remark that ‘famous idiot’ is not a definition of Haydn by Taboga but comes from a book printed in 1823 (v. footnotes 21 and 28). Sensible? He/she (rather correctly) points out that the style of the final paragraph looks too emphatic, although we could allow for some enthusiasm in a researcher who has discovered interesting information . Well-informed? We can’t tell. 3 – by 209.30.164.107: sensible? He/she finds the article disturbing. Labelling the editors as crackpots isn’t particularly graceful. Well-informed? Maybe, but the reference to professional literature could come from almost anybody.

As a wizard, you may be in a position to know the quantity of readers of the article, so we could estimate the percentage of complaining unhappy readers on total readers. Maybe you are also aware of some wiki-statistic data showing that unhappy readers complain more than happy ones. All that would provide interesting references, but let’s come back to arguments.

• Peer review: Taboga’s works have been published basically as books and articles in history magazines or universities-related publications. It isn’t customary to publish the names of peer-reviewers, but we may presume that some review has occurred before publication. In any case, I found and provided the name of an esteemed peer reviewer, but this information has apparently been ignored.

• Acceptance by the academic establishment: Quite unfortunately, the use of the English language in Luchesi related publications and documents is extremely limited: apparently Taboga is not too conversant with the language, but also almost all previous documents are in German, Italian and French (to a much minor extent). However this may be an explanation for the lack of knowledge by the general public, but we cannot believe that experts are not aware of the Luchesi case.

In fact, while a relatively few ones have started studying Taboga’s (and his predecessors’) findings, a large majority of experts has apparently decided to stay silent on the matter. The result is what Robert Newman is extensively describing above: in more than fifteen years, no Mozart/Haydn experts have found substantial faults in Taboga’s works. (Of course, let’s forget non-scientific comments like: “different from the tradition” or “not worth considering”)

As examined above, neither the reference to the complaints nor the other arguments are compelling to hide the article. The NPOV problem which was pending should be solved, as it may be perceived by somebody as an attempt to kill the article by recourse to formalities. I was coming back a few days ago to discuss the compliance with the Wikipedia rules, but found out that the article had been made practically inaccessible.

I believe that a prospective reader may search Wikipedia and expect to find the information that is now hidden and it’s an editors’ duty to make it available. So please revert to the previous text of both Luchesi-related articles and let us find an acceptable way to provide such information. May I add that I’m astonished at the use of the word ‘crank’ for this case; it is defined in this same Wikipedia as “a pejorative term for a person who
1. holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false,
2. clings to this belief in the face of all counterarguments or evidence presented to him. “
Now, para 1 may apply, but para 2 is totally inapplicable to this case in lack on any serious counterarguments or evidence. Even worse, the use of pejorative terms may discredit the neutrality of authoritative editors. Also the term ‘conspiracy theory’ you have inserted now is often understood as pejorative (quote from the relevant article: “The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration.”) . IfAny

Hello IfAny,

The thing to do, to restore the Taboga material, would be to find the peer-reviewed material he's written and let me (and other editors) know where it got published. It would have to be peer-reviewed by musicologists, since clearly specialist knowledge is needed to handle this sort of thing. The one web link seems to involve an academic affiliation that isn't musicological (Quaderni del Dipartimento di Matematica Statistica).

Yours truly, Opus33 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

==

Easy to check reviewers, as anybody may find their comments printed in the book they have reviewed:

• Luigi della Croce, musicologist I already mentioned in the controversy talk page, wrote an introduction to the book ‘L’assassinio di Mozart’ (published by Akademos, a specialized publisher, Lucca, 1997)

• Bruno Pasut, Kapellmeister at St. Anthony in Padua for twenty years and author of musicians’ biographies, wrote the introduction to the book ‘L’ora della verità’. (This volume of 200 pages -with a consistent amount of notes and references- printed in 1994 may be of interest to those who wish to make their own judgment on the reliability of Taboga’s approach. It covers the first part of Luchesi’s life and it’s obviously limited to the knowledge status reached in 1994)

IfAny 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Opus33,

I've added to the references a musicological journal with academic affiliation (Auton. University of Barcelona). The article is in Italian with an abstract in Spanish/ French/ English/ German by Jordi Rifé i Santaló.

You can restore the material.

Yours truly, IfAny 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello IfAny, I'll have to find it first, and take a look. Please be patient. Opus33 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be found at: http://www.raco.cat/index.php/RecercaMusicologica/article/viewArticle/42839/0 IfAny

I have been waiting for the approaching end of Opus33 wikibreak before replacing the ‘conspiracy theory’ paragraph with his previous text of the ‘authorship controversy’, which looks definitely more neutral; as I suggested in the talk page of the ‘authorship controversy’, let’s keep the NPOV banner there for a while, hoping to find a consensus on how to present the whole matter, with constructive advice/suggestions from readers/editors. I’m considering a possible re-editing of the text, e.g. with a more evident separation between documentary evidence and the related reconstruction of events, which could eventually lead to re-incorporating the controversy article in the main one. IfAny 11:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice for IfAny

Hello IfAny, Sorry to be so long in replying.

My judgment right now is that the Luchesi authorship controversy is likely to be deleted. If you want to save it, a suggested course of action would be:

• Contact User:Antandrus and ask that it undergo an official "AFD" hearing. If you don't, it will probably be dropped without further discussion.
• Rewrite the article, so that every sentence ends in a footnote saying where in Taboga's writings it came from. To make a footnote, type first <ref>, then the citation with page number, then </ref>. Then, at the bottom, type <references/>.

The reason I'm saying this is that the Wikipedia is quite hostile to "fringe theories", but scholarly sources are likely to carry some weight in justifying an article's survival. I hope this is helpful. Yours truly, Opus33 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is being considered for deletion now at an AfD hearing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luchesi authorship controversy. I hope people on both sides would welcome your opinions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of Taboga references

The recent nomination of the Luchesi authorship controversy article brought about a resounding consensus that it is an egregious fringe theory, and is furthermore not notable. By extension, I wondered whether Wikipedians no longer consider Taboga's researches to be reliable sources. For this reason, I removed references to them from this article. I hope this is acceptable. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Really, this Taboga business is ridiculous non-notable junk. I imagine his latest theory is that "Richard Wagner" is really the pseudonym of Luchesi's long-lost son. We simply don't want to know. Moreschi ^Talk 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"The writer also aims at re-situating, within the contemporary Germanic context, the largely unknown figure of the composer A. Luchesi. Professor Taboga offers various hypotheses and conjectures, sustained by a detailed and methodical body of work. Each step of his argument is carefully maintained within reasoned scientific logic, shaped by the contribution of highly pertinent documented material." This is an excerpt from the abstract (mentioned above) by Professor Jordi Rifé i Santaló, University of Barcelona. I wouldn't have found better words.

I would only add that removing the references to published works by Luchesi's main biographer from this article doesn't look as reasoned logic.

Regarding the deletion of the 'controversy' article I'm trying to understand the procedure followed before making any comment; this is rather time consuming for a non-expert. Thanks for your patience.IfAny 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Taboga... or Newman?

Just my 2 cents, I would kindly remind everyone that this issue is not so much a plight about verifying the credibility of Taboga's research. What we must remember is that this issue is and always has been (in various forums) Robert Newman's fanatical personal campaign to push this theory into the mainstream of classical music discussion. No Robert Newman, no issue. Who is Robert Newman? Certainly not someone who should be shaping the official Wikipedia article about Mozart, Haydn or Luchesi. Kurkikohtaus —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

This looks like this has already been handled over the years on this subject by knowledgable editors, but would just like to add that the so-called "Robert Newman" (and his/her various socks on other internet forums) has been pushing this agenda completely within what Wiki calls FRINGE, and it has been done w/o any hard evidence. I was reading through some topics on various forum pages and it does look like he gets the boot pretty regularly. I don't see any successful additions regarding this .... nonsense ... on the Mozart article, so that's good. In my opinion, the only way this guff ever gets published is via a vanity pressing, which would not be especially cheap - but, if a source is ever credited as a RS on this made-up controversy, it should raise suspicion immediately and should be investigated as to how the paper/magazine article/book was published. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

As you can see from the edit history, we haven't had to deal with any of this "Luchesi wrote Mozart" stuff for about three years. There are probably several other classical music editors who, like me, keep watch over the article just in case... Opus33 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify Mozart's death

You've got a heap more problems than just Newman/Taboga claiming that Mozart didn't write what Mozart claimed he wrote. You've also got the problem of Mozart's death, which was clearly faked, but not by Mozart. Mozart is in fact easily found post December, 1791, if anyone wants to look. He was using the nom de plume of Georg Nicholas Nissen, allegedly a Danish diplomat stationed in Vienna, and he was living openly with his wife, Constanze Weber Mozart. That this was an alias and not a real person is proved by the existence of another famous Dane, also a diplomat, one well-known to the US Marines: Nicholas Nissen, who rescued them, quite literally, from the Shores of Tripoli. The story of the real Nissen was given in the book, Jefferson’s War, by Joseph Wheelan, published in 2004 by PublicAffairs and still in print.

As a roving performer, Mozart not only had no use for 25-odd piano concerti, he had neither the time, nor, judging by various embarrassing piano sonatas, the skill. Pace Paganini, no roving performer writes more than a handful of concerti, there is no need. Moreover, pace Paganini (more or less a contemporary), the purpose of a concerto is to display the soloist. The purpose of the "Mozart" concerti is clearly to show off the orchestra as a whole, with the piano in the lead. That's more properly what a kapelmeister would write on a semi-annual basis for a once-off performance. Mozart had neither the motive, nor the means, to produce what is claimed to be his. Luchesi has both motif, and means. This does not, of itself, mean that Luchesi wrote the works, only that it's unlikely that Mozart did.

There is also the problem of publication. Composer-performers keep solo parts well away from orchestral parts, so that no one could steal the work and pass it off as their own. Beethoven in fact did not put the solo part of his 3rd piano concerto on paper until he had Ries perform it, in 1803, if memory serves. Mozart would have done precisely the same with his scores. So how did it come to be that orchestral parts, kept in this trunk, got matched up with sketchy, incomplete solo parts, kept in that trunk over there? Because that's how composer-performers managed things. None of Mozart's piano concerti were published in his lifetime, so who was the editor who matched up soloist and tutti? Mozart allegedly died all of a sudden, his affairs were supposedly in mess the day he allegedly died. (A story so clearly shot full of holes I am astounded that no one before me has tried.) In fact, Mozart's piano concerti were snuck into print all through the 1790's, never with an editor's name attached. But a kapelmeister would, most likely, put both solo and tutti scores together, and right from the start.

Wiki editors have the despicable habit of deleting what they do not like or understand, instead of archiving it for future reference by someone, like me, who does. It is one thing to insist on references, it is quite another to delete sketches wholesale. The policy of deletion, the policy of knowledge suppression, must cease. Dave of Maryland (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on Mozart's concertos are rather throwaway; Alfred Einstein and Cuthbert Girdlestone, the latter in a several times revised book about the piano concertos- you seem aware of the writings of neither - make an excellent case that Mozart's solution to the concerto problem (as noticed by any real performer-composer: sure, I'd like to be highlighted, but if I can make no better use of the orchestra than accompanying, poorly, a solo caprice, I'm wasting their time, my art, ...) developed (his 1784 con... Well, I'm wasting your time since again... Read the books in question...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Date

Thayer or his sources has/ve 28 May rather than 23? Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

the correct name must be Lucchesi ( as the family comes from Lucca and not "Lucha" )

Hello,

I think the italian version of this article claims the right of a complete country of native speakers. So please change the name to Lucchesi ( pronounced like Lukesi and not as Lutshesi ). Thank you so much

Metzner

Metzner (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)