Discussion on Fugue

[Robert Newman]

Few subjects in music are so misunderstood as 'fugue', even by those who have qualifications in music theory. In fact, it's possible to show that since the mid 18th century the tremendous importance of 'fugue' has often been deliberately suppressed, taught wrongly to students, and often systematically corrupted and downplayed by those who, for their own reasons, do not wish to recognise or convey its vital importance in polyphonic art. The word 'fugue' is today being wrongly defined as an extinct musical style brought to a peak by composers of the late baroque such as J.S. Bach. Or it's a word often used to describe a sort of music whose relevance is neither obvious nor essential for modern composers and musicians. It may be both of these things but, in point of fact, the subject of 'fugue' may be the true foundation of all polyphonic art.

Those who disagree with this fugue centred musical view will ask -

'If 'fugue' is so massively important to polyphonic art why is it still not clearly defined and why has its definition and its rules always been so highly problematic they have largely been superseded by other, more modern approaches to polyphonic music ' ?

and -

'If 'fugue' is really a fundamental and essential truth of all polyphonic music where is the evidence of its existence before the 16th and 17th centuries' ?

Well, if we were asked to say how important 'freedom' is, or how important 'democracy' is, or how important many things are, we might very well fail to define those terms also. Yet they are of course vitally important. The same is true of 'fugue'. For, although we all realise we are dealing here with a dynamic and powerful subject we seem unable to define it in every respect. So the fact that 'fugue' resists dogmatic definition in no way changes the fact that it is massively important. That it may in fact be vital.

There is indisputable evidence that polyphonic music existed in remote antiquity and was well known to ancient societies. Music theory was certainly taught in the schools of ancient India, in China, in Egypt, in ancient Turkey, in classical Greece. And it was taught according to rules. We know too that huge choral competitions were run in ancient Greece and that music, mathematics and literature were actually the 3 essential components of education.

By the 12th century of the modern era various early musical writers are refering to rules already governing the writing of music for simultaneous but different singing parts. (It's highly significant that, at this time, the musical interval of the third was seen as novel - the principal intervals being only the octave, the fifth and the fourth). So 'fugue' existed, though its significance was at that time still little understood.

(Nobody would dispute that gravity existed long before Newton wrote about it. Nor would anyone deny that DNA existed in ancient Greece or ancient Egypt though the details of both were almost unknown at that time also. The same is surely true of 'fugue').

The closer we study music the more we are drawn to this subject of fugue. So that by using the lessons of 'fugue' composers aim to compose 'from the inside out' (rather than vice-versa). Bach's 'Art of Fugue' was, in fact, not so much a treatise on an already outmoded form of music by an old and irrelevant Kapellmeister who happened to live in Leipzig in the 1740's but was/is really a masterful treatise on polyphonic composition as a whole with this subject of 'fugue' as its essential centre. It is this view of things which is today poorly appreciated and little understood.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pVadl4ocX0M


//

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Mr. Newman,

Music is one of the four cornerstones of the *Quadrivium* aka *the four roads* of the classical liberal arts which comprised of Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music.

You have hit on a bone of contention that a former composition pedagogue whom I studied under had with his colleagues at an *un-named* music conservatory. He stressed that a good composer has utter mastery of the fugal form.

Cheerio,

CD

 

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Corno Dolce,

Yes, and it's very revealing to look more closely at the history of music in the 18th century. (The one which tends never to get a hearing, I mean). The impact of Bach's pedagogical legacy was potentially massive but it was systematically and deliberately resisted, hidden and marginalised by the academic 'status quo' in Europe of that time. Fugal theory of the kind we know from Bach and his associates was really a big threat to teaching elites of the Holy Roman Empire who, as you may know, up until 1773 controlled music teaching in most music colleges and universities. Bach represented a threat to their monopoly and to their dogmas in his publications such as the '48' and in the 'Art of Fugue', especially in Germany. So his works and his legacy were grudgingly acknowleged but in practice watered down for decades, faintly praised, if at all, described falsely as 'the end of an era' and not its beginnings, and then put to one side, but in practice soon counterfeited, substituted and even diminished in the eyes of other theorists and even by charlatans such as Abbe Vogler and others. (Vogler even went as far as to attempt poor substitute versions of many of Bach's chorales). The theories of Rameau were often taught in their place and schools such as those of Mannheim were undoubtedly founded to counteract the threat that Bach and his kind of music presented. These were of course acts of deliberate cultural propaganda which severed much of the 19th century from musical reality.

Far from being unknown, the pedagogical achievements of Bach were well known (even to his critics). We know for certain that Italian theorists knew of Bach. And yet, although Bach was familiar with the music of his contemporaries how many of them were able to credit him ? Virtually none. He and his legacy was suppressed and increasingly presented to music students of the 19th century as 'old fashioned', 'irrelevant' and 'outdated'.

Bach was pointing forwards and not backwards.

Regards

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Mr. Newman,

Thanks for a cogently written homily. JSBach is the supreme master of the fugue - no doubt about it! Did you know that Shostakovich was in Leipzig at the *Bach Conference* in the 1950's? After he had been there throughout the Conference and had retirned home he sat down to write *his version* of the 48.

Cheerio,

CD

 

[Robert Newman]

Hi there CD,

No, I didn't know there was a direct link between Shostakovitch and Bach's '48'. Thanks for saying this. Fugue as we know it is fascinating and it seems to have endless possibilities in all fields of music.

Best wishes

Robert

 

[jawoodruff]

I was never under the impression that fugues were 'being wrongly defined as an extinct musical style brought to a peak by composers of the late baroque such as J.S. Bach.'

 

[Robert Newman]

OK jawoodruff,

May I ask what you think the general view of music schools, music teachers and composers was to Bach's music and those of his associates in Bach's lifetime actually was in Europe ? And what was their view of Bach's legacy in the second half of the 18th and even in to the 19th century in such supposedly musical places as, for example, Italy, Prague and Vienna ? Within territories of the vast 'Holy Roman Empire' I mean. Their silence is deafening, isn't it ? Perhaps there were many concerts of Bach's music in all these great places ? Places where his publications were highly respected and used. If so, I'd love to know of them. Perhaps music schools and colleges highly valued his pedagogical works after all ? But history suggests differently, doesn't it ?

If Bach wrote nothing but the enclosed single piece in his entire life would he not be one of the most phenomenally talented composers in the entire history of music ? This is the majestic opening movement to his 3rd Orchestral Suite. I add it here to show just how massive the suppression of his talents and of his entire legacy was during his lifetime and for many decades after it.

J.S. Bach
Orchestral Suite No. 3
Overture

http://www.mediafire.com/?muwlmwn3zjd

Regards

Robert

 

[jawoodruff]

You have to think of the musical landscape at the time of Bach. Composers were beginning to transition to a newer stylistic period (Rococo and Classical). And many of Bach's contemporaries did indeed view him as being backwards looking. As for the revival in his music, Mendellsohn is historically credited with having MUCH to do with that. And the results of that are evident in the fact that Bach's popularity has been huge ever since. As for current views, Bach's contrapuntal techniques and voice writing are largely taught to students. I attended college just a few years ago - my theory teacher (who may or may not be a Bach fanatic) was very adamant in having his students pursue perfect 'Bachian' part-writing and voice leading. His fugal prowess also precedes him these days. No other composer, maybe with the somewhat exception of Beethoven, is linked to the fugue in the same way as Bach. Beethoven's fugal work, though nice to listen, meander away from the form to larger pastures.

I think the one composer that was highly prized during the period of Bach was Handel, yes?

 

[Robert Newman]

Jawoodruff,

I notice, with respect, you haven't really answered the questions - perhaps I haven't asked them clearly enough. So here goes again -

1. What evidence are you aware of that Bach's music and teachings was being acknowledged outside of Leipzig during his entire lifetime by music teachers, colleges or other composers within the 'Holy Roman Empire'?

2. What evidence exists from the major 18th century centres of European music - Vienna, Prague or Italy - of Bach's legacy being performed, praised, discussed or even taught in Prague, Vienna or Italy during the entire 18th century, either before Bach's death in 1750 or in the next half century or so ?

You refer to Felix Mendelssohn singlehandedly reviving interest in Bach's work. And you note to your credit that justice is being done since that time. Yes, but that process began only from 1829 onwards, almost a century after many of Bach's works had been written and more than 70 years after Bach's own death ! Also Mendelssohn (a man who was free from dogmatism) records himself he was bitterly resisted when he tried to perform the St Matthew Passion alone. Such was the attitude !

These, to me anyway, are the historical facts. We may therefore say on good grounds that Bach's tremendous legacy was marginalised, downplayed and repeatedly suppressed during his lifetime right across Europe and for literally decades after his death - this contradicted by no evidence I am aware of. Unless of course you have some to share with us ?

You also refer to Beethoven and fugue. But you rightly indicate that Beethoven hardly touches 'fugue'. He is forced to qualify rare use of that term. For example, in his sonata Op. 106 ('Hammerklavier') he describes his use of it there as 'fuga con alcune licenze'. (A very liberal version of fugue there, for sure) ! And again, in the quartet Op. 133 he writes 'Grand fugue tantot libre, tantot recherchee' - qualifications we certainly never find in fugue works by Bach or his own circle. This 'fugue libre' and 'fugag con lizence' is of course only a parody of fugue.

So the 19th century went off into chaos about fugue and about much else. A chaos that lasts till now. Its teachers had ignored and systematically thrown away Bach's pedagogical legacy (as had musicians generally in the 2nd half of the 18th century and in the 1st as they chased after their own short-lived fashions). And although Bach went out of his way to be familiar with new music of his own composer contemporaries right across Europe (ranging from Vivaldi to numerous others) can we name even one composer among them who made himself familiar with Bach's ? Once again there is no answer. The same silence. Why, Bach repeatedly tried to contact Handel. This is becoming a familiar story. LOL !!

Regards

Robert

 

[jhnbrbr]

Are you suggesting, Robert, that there was some sort of international conspiracy to suppress Bach's legacy? Isn't it simply the case that his music was "slow to catch on" because, great and sublime though it is, it does not have immediate appeal to the untrained ear, and he enjoyed very little "celebrity" status in his lifetime, even being considered second best for the job at Leipzig, so there was no momentum behind his reputation, and his music remained a minority interest for a long time until people like Mendelssohn started to push it. And wasn't the resistance to Mendelssohn reviving the Matthew Passion as much to do with Mendelssohn (ie anti-semitism) as with Bach? I've even heard it said that Bach himself underrated his own genius, and said that anyone who was prepared to work hard could have achieved as much. It's a scary thought that we might have lost him for ever, but we didn't, and so far as the present day is concerned i would have thought his standing could hardly be higher (and not just with the classical brigade). And while I would agree that fugue is one of the loftiest pinnacles of Western musical achievement, it is only (like the rules of Association Football) an arbitrary man-made convention which has stood the test of time. It's nice to watch a bit of tennis sometimes too!

 

[jawoodruff]

I didn't say that his music was widely played and held in great regard for exactly this very reason. It was not - that is the fact. As I said in my original reply His contemporaries viewed him as being backwards thinking. I think that means, though I can't be sure of its meaning, that they had no interest in recognizing someone whom they themselves consider to be 'behind the curve'. Did this amount to a vast historical conspiracy to downplay the contributions that Bach made to classical music? Hardly.

I used Beethoven's quasi-fugal workings as an example to showcase Bach's supremacy in the genre. (And for a touch of personal humor :grin:.)

 

[Robert Newman]

Are you suggesting, Robert, that there was some sort of international conspiracy to suppress Bach's legacy? Isn't it simply the case that his music was "slow to catch on" because, great and sublime though it is, it does not have immediate appeal to the untrained ear, and he enjoyed very little "celebrity" status in his lifetime, even being considered second best for the job at Leipzig, so there was no momentum behind his reputation, and his music remained a minority interest for a long time until people like Mendelssohn started to push it. And wasn't the resistance to Mendelssohn reviving the Matthew Passion as much to do with Mendelssohn (ie anti-semitism) as with Bach? I've even heard it said that Bach himself underrated his own genius, and said that anyone who was prepared to work hard could have achieved as much. It's a scary thought that we might have lost him for ever, but we didn't, and so far as the present day is concerned i would have thought his standing could hardly be higher (and not just with the classical brigade). And while I would agree that fugue is one of the loftiest pinnacles of Western musical achievement, it is only (like the rules of Association Football) an arbitrary man-made convention which has stood the test of time. It's nice to watch a bit of tennis sometimes too!

Hi there jhnbrbr,

Since most of the 'history' we read in textbooks or see on television is little more than a sanitised record of how and why kings, elitist rulers and popes conspired and still conspire to rule society, and how these elites sought and still seek to control the lives of ordinary people, it's not surprising 'conspiracy' itself (a massive truth of human history) is so laughed at and downplayed by publishers, the media and almost everything else. To the point today where 'conspiracy' is not even recognised when it hits us in the face.

In reply to your question of whether there was an international and sustained conspiracy to suppress Bach's legacy, my answer is a very definite 'YES'. And I think I've sketched a series of proofs of this already. There are many others. But let's leave the modern acknowledged reputation of this great composer to one side for a moment. (I'll return to it at the end of this post).

We could choose 20 great composers at random from, say, 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' - composers whose names are well known today. Not only have these not have left a body of phenomenal music such as Bach did, but hardly one of these will have produced works of phenomenal value to students of music, such as the '48 Preludes and Fugues' and the 'Art of Fugue' - saying nothing of the hundreds and hundreds of masterpieces in every musical form. It's because Bach is today (and rightly) a routine diet for serious students worldwide of harmony, orchestration and harmony by his matchless legacy that we are right to ask about his reception during his own lifetime, and his impact on music teachers and musicians of his own time. Isn't it ? But no sooner do we start to ask the question than we discover to our amazement the pages of history are completely silent. This is fact number one. One of the most amazing (if not the most amazing) composers in human history is somehow 'airbrushed' out of history as far as his own reception during his very own lifetime is concerned ! This fact alone is unique and it deserves an explanation. For, as already said, Bach went out of his way to know and be familiar with the musical works of his own musical contemporaries but not a single example example exists of them (his contemporaries) making the same effort with Bach and his great works - or so it seems.

What can account for this unique situation ?

But it doesn't end there. This attitude towards Bach and his music continued for well over half a century after his death. This too is unique and it's a plain fact. Again, what if we were to compare this with our list of 20 great randomly selected composers ?

We are dealing here (on these two grounds alone) with something unique. Something which begs an explanation.

Surely, the explanation is found rather easily. Bach was not a Roman Catholic. In fact Bach was born and lived during a time when most of Europe was ruled by the 'Holy Roman Emperor', whose Emperor was based in Vienna and whose pope was in Rome, and in a time when the teaching of music was almost entirely controlled - by the Roman Catholic Church - whose teachers were the Jesuits. A time when it was considered to be 'unthinkable' that a non-Catholic Kapellmeister could possibly be of immense importance for students of music everywhere. Besides, these rulers of Europe had their own theories of music. Their own musical theories. There was rivalry. So, for example, the musical theories of Rameau and the theoretical textbooks of Catholic Europe. Do you seriously believe Bach would have been welcomed in their universe ? He was not. So he was 'airbrushed' out of the picture. That story is worth telling.

And there's more. In 1731/2, Bach in Leipzig was still living at a time when hostility between Rome and non-Roman churches (especially those of the reformed faith) was still very much alive. As a single example, in that same year of 1731/2 tens of thousands of Lutheran Christians were expelled from their own homes in the area of Salzburg in the middle of winter, by the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg, for no other reason than the fact they were not Roman Catholics ! THIS shameful persecution and hatred on a massive scale is a plain fact of history and was/is the true context within which we find explanation for the suppression of Bach's legacy. And it's only one of many examples.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:...stants+from+salzburg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

We're all glad the great Jewish composer Felix Mendelssohn was instrumental in righting this massive and deliberate suppression of Bach's near miraculous legacy and that people everywhere (Catholics and non-Catholics) finally see Bach's legacy and can appreciate it's greatness. I am glad too we live now in far more tolerant times. This music, this legacy, is today recognised to be one of the most supreme gifts to the world of all creative art. But to deny that such things really did happen is impossible.

Regards

Robert

 

[Robert Newman]

I didn't say that his music was widely played and held in great regard for exactly this very reason. It was not - that is the fact. As I said in my original reply His contemporaries viewed him as being backwards thinking. I think that means, though I can't be sure of its meaning, that they had no interest in recognizing someone whom they themselves consider to be 'behind the curve'. Did this amount to a vast historical conspiracy to downplay the contributions that Bach made to classical music? Hardly.

I used Beethoven's quasi-fugal workings as an example to showcase Bach's supremacy in the genre. (And for a touch of personal humor :grin:.)

Thanks again jawoodruff. Yes, and today Bach's contemporaries and their attitudes are silenced. Justice has been done.

As far as 'downplaying the contributions Bach made to music' yes, anyone with such attitudes was as we all agree plain wrong.

The plain fact is religious and irreligious bigotry explains why Bach gets almost no reference during his entire lifetime and why, eventually, his greatness was unstoppable. It also explains why his music was virtually unperformed during his entire lifetime in the so-called 'Holy Roman Empire' and it explains why, over half a century later, it took a great Jewish composer to appreciate (and stage) at least one of his great works. Such are the lessons of history. A victory for music and for men of goodwill.

Best wishes

Robert

 

[dll927]

In the academic world, the pendulum swings back and forth. Something that is in vogue now may be passe a few years from now. The "publish or perish" mentality gets in the way.

I'm a retired teacher. Few enterprises are the subject of more academic wheel-spinning than children and educational theories. Get ahold of an anthology-type textbook, and by the fourth chapter somebody is down-grading the guy in the first chapter, and from there on each chapter does so successively. Makes you wonder if any of them know what they're talking about.

At one time, the teaching of music had no "theory" to it. It was basically an apprentice learning situation. Until around the middle of the 19th century there was doubt that a "conservatory of music" was of any use. But never under-estimate the power of the theorists or those who want to gild the lilly.

Being an art, music is one of those things that can be "taught" only up to a point. If the teaching doesn't fall on fertile soil, it won't stick. It is said that Mozart could play a (small-sized) violin by the age of five. Do you think he needed a theorist to "explain" everything to him? Either the talent is there, or it isn't. Yes, the place of "talent" is also much discussed, but you can't get blood out of a turnip or music out of somebody who is tone-deaf.

I live in Santa Maria, CA. Every school in town has its little billboard out in front where everybody driving by can see the latest news. 3/4 of the time, there is a line that says either "no school" or "minimum day". Why? Because the teachers are "required" to spend a great deal of their time absorbing the latest politically correct crap from the pinheads in the "schools of education" who run up to Sacramento and con the (tiny pinheads) legislature to "require" that teachers be exposed to their latest "research". Makes you wonder when the kids are supposed to be learning anything.

 

[Robert Newman]

Hi there dll927,

I agree in much of what you say. In the field of music history (so-called) we have today in place of reality (and this believed by the unsuspecting public) the most outrageously sanitised, exaggerated and even grotesque versions of that music history which are peddled today relentlessly by 'boffins' and by vested interests such as educationalists - i.e. by men (and women) who see their roles not so much in teaching or in stimulating creative thought or historical truth but in imposing on the young a curriculum created by them and their fraternal friends of what are highly selective 'sound bites' which lack connection with each other and which fail to provide any appreciation of reality. In the place of learning and hard work has been substituted within the field of music the catch-all idea of 'genius'. The price of which is, in the end, dull conformity to dogmas and final artistic and academic sterility.

The living proofs of this are easily seen. What is more grotesque than the idea, the paradigm (for that is really what it is) that 'Mozart' was a musical 'genius' when, in actual fact (and contrary to the entire history of music and of composers), Mozart spent hardly a single day in any school whatsoever in his entire life. Is THAT a role model ? In plain fact his general education (let alone his musical education) never happened and if such a thing was repeated today and portrayed as musical 'genius' by his father and supporters it would be found rightly to be a clear case of child abuse dressed up as 'genius'. For the truth is there was no time in Mozart's entire life when he was not being supplied music by other composers - the full story of which has hardly been told but which is becoming ever more clear to those who study the documentary and other evidence from those times. But from this fairy story of 'Mozart's genius' (repeated ad nauseum as 'history' in books, films and in our schools) its consequences have become ever more clear in our own time. Let a youngster strum some tunes on a piano at the tender age of 6. Or let him/her express a wish to perform. To compose. Are they not, (in the eyes of adoring parents and of audiences) soon known as 'the next Mozart' ? The fact that we have today on Youtube 2,000 Korean 'wannabees' who are themselves the 'next Mozart' because they also play a sonata or 500 English 'next Mozarts' makes the bankruptcy of this charade all too clear.

I can tell you in all sincerity and as an honest man (having studied this subject for more years than I care to number) that the biography and career of Mozart (both as a child and as an adult, and at each and every stage of his public career) given to us today and which has been given to us in highly sanitised biographies from the time of his death onwards is mostly nonsense composed by propagandists of the defunct 'Holy Roman Empire', this cooked up, exaggerated beyond all truth, and served to the credulous by vested interests who today still control and wish to remain in control of most of modern academic musicology in Europe and elsewhere. It's really a fairy story for both adults and children. One invented even before Mozart was born and carried out during his own lifetime by fraternity members - being pawned off as a virtual miracle and raised to iconic status in the decades which followed his death in 1791. The true story of Mozart, his life and career is so very, very different. It's one of wholesale fraud.

Now, I know that's strong. But it's truly how I see it. And I'm not alone in saying so.

(Fugue is not really a theory. It is a demonstrated and vindicated approach to music that leads to understanding its inner workings for more than one voice, without which we are merely throwing paint and varnish on musical ideas in the hope that they sound ok. It is at its deepest level the very nucleus of the musical cosmos).

Now, I don't expect you to accept this just by a single post. If at all. But the point I'm making is that the proverb is right - 'genius is 99% perspiration'. It requires hard work and devoted study. But that is precisely what the myth of Mozart contradicts.

Sorry if all this sounds too severe. I speak as a person who has time and time again differed with the 'experts' of musical history. But I have the highest respects for teaching, for teachers and for education generally.

Best wishes

RN

 

[dll927]

Which sort of ties in with the fact that the record companies claim classical music is only a very small percentage of their sales. Why? Because "business" overcame thinking.

Once compact discs came out, the record companies all shot themselves in the foot by "re-mastering" and re-issuing just about every version of recorded music they could find in their vaults. Before long, there were 50 recordings of Beethoven's Ninth, 53 of Tchaikovski's First (piano concerto), 47 of Beethoven's only (violin concerto) and 45 of his other Fifth ("Emperor" piano concerto), etc. etc. Luckily, as opposed to vinyl records, CDs have a tendency to last a while. Result, fewer and fewer sales.

I have little background in "music history", although I could probably compete pretty well with some of the "experts" simply from what I've learned reading brochures packed with recordings. Unless, as you say, most of that is invention. Soometimes we are left wondering just what to believe.

 

[Robert Newman]

No doubt 'civilization' (as its usually defined) can hardly exist without creating and sustaining myths which correspond to and relate favourably to those who first created them and who defend them. These myths are zealously defended. They become in a very real sense orthodoxy and an integral part of our culture. They almost define us as a society. Big business gets involved. And of course there's the tourist industy, the chocolate industry and goodness knows what else.

Not long ago I was in conversation with a person (a highly qualified musicologist) on the subject of Mozart and the modern music industry. He admitted that, for example, the first 25 'Mozart' symphonies (so-called) lack a shred of evidence of any kind of being composed by Mozart (as do the first half dozen piano concertos and dozens of other works recorded and performed in his name) ! And said that the great orchestras and conductors are well aware of it. This conversation was only part of a long exchange on the overall subject of Mozart's career and the actual documentary/historical evidence. And since the subject is so huge we decided to first discuss Mozart's childhood and youth, agreeing to focus first on that period. Well, he readily admitted the exaggerations and falsehoods in this case are very real and always have been - that such things really can be proved. That they're buried in published books (despite still being little known publicly). That it wasn't necessary to show him things he was already aware of, etc. And even agreed they're able to be shown by all kinds of evidence. But it didn't stop him insisting the basic Mozart story is true. In reply to which I asked, 'But what is it, then, that is 'true' about it' ?

At this point he looked at his watch, told me he was in a hurry, and disappeared. (LOL).

I certainly don't want to give the impression that the biographies of all great composers have been fabricated. Not at all. But one can say with certainty that the origins of the so-called 'First Viennese School' (consisting of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) are hugely falsified, inaccurate in many ways and are based on accounts which systematically mislead us. That the careers of both were massively fabricated and depended to a huge extent on the constant supply to them of music they never wrote.

Take for example the period 1750 to 1800. In Germany and Austria at that time there were literally hundreds of Italian and Bohemian musicians about which we hardly hear anything. The Italians had, of course, introduced much of the music known there. Many were in senior posts as Kapellmeisters and teachers etc. Vienna was searching for its own native 'geniuses'. And they finally found them, in Haydn and Mozart. As for how this was done, well, that's another story. In the case of Mozart it was wholesale, systematic, and consisted of blatantly suppressing the musical achievements of various others. Any composer whose music was 'Mozartean' (e.g. Vanhal, Myslivececk, to name just a few) were party to it. Vienna became the 'city of music' through such things. Through compliant publishers and propagandists. An audacious story. But true all the same.

I started looking at this subject in detail around 20 years or so ago with plan to write and publish a highly controversial biography. Discovering later that several people are already doing the same. You'd laugh at the situations it has thrown up.

But yes, in general terms, notes on musical recordings are accurate.

Well, none of this stops a lot of this music being great, for sure. But the story of it remains largely untold.

Regards