260. TO RIES.

Vienna, April [March?] 30, 1819.

DEAR RIES,--
I am only now able to answer your letter of December 18th. Your sympathy does me good. It is
impossible for me to go to London at present, being involved here in various ways; but God will, I
trust, aid me, and enable me to visit London next winter, when I shall bring the new symphonies
with me.
I every day expect the text for a new oratorio, which I am to write for our Musical Society here, and
no doubt it will be of use to us in London also. Do what you can on my behalf, for I greatly need it.
I should have been glad to receive any commission from the Philharmonic, but Neate's report of the
all but failure of the three overtures vexed me much. Each in its own style not only pleased here, but
those in E flat major and C major made a profound impression, so that the fate of those works at the
Philharmonic is quite incomprehensible to me.
You have no doubt received the arrangement of the Quintet [Op. 104, see No. 238] and the Sonata
[Op. 106]. See that both, especially the Quintet, be engraved without loss of time. There is no such
hurry about the Sonata, though I should like it to appear within two or three months. Never having
received the previous letter to which you allude, I had no scruple in disposing of both works here;
but for Germany only. It will be at any rate three months before the Sonata appears here, but you
must make haste with the Quintet. As soon as you forward me a check for the money, I will send an
authority to the publisher, securing him the exclusive right to these works for England, Scotland,
Ireland, France, &c., &c.
You shall receive by the next post the Tempi of the Sonata marked in accordance with Maelzel's
metronome. Prince Paul Esterhazy's courier, De Smidt, took the Quintet and the Sonata with him.
You shall also have my portrait by the next opportunity, as I understand that you really wish for it.
Farewell! Continue your regard for me,

211. TO HOFRATH VON MOSEL. 1817. SIR,-- I sincerely rejoice that we take the same view as
to the terms in use to denote the proper time in music which have descended to us from barbarous
times. For example, what can be more irrational than the general term allegro, which only means
lively; and how far we often are from comprehending the real time, so that the piece itself
contradicts the designation. As for the four chief movements,--which are, indeed, far from
possessing the truth or accuracy of the four cardinal points,--we readily agree to dispense with
them, but it is quite another matter as to the words that indicate the character of the music; these we
cannot consent to do away with, for while the time is, as it were, part and parcel of the piece, the
words denote the spirit in which it is conceived. So far as I am myself concerned, I have long
purposed giving up those inconsistent terms allegro, andante, adagio, and presto; and Maelzel's
metronome furnishes us with the best opportunity of doing so. I here pledge myself no longer to
make use of them in any of my new compositions. It is another question whether we can by this
means attain the necessary universal use of the metronome. I scarcely think we shall! I make no
doubt that we shall be loudly proclaimed as despots; but if the cause itself were to derive benefit
from this, it would at least be better than to incur the reproach of Feudalism! In our country, where
music has become a national requirement, and where the use of the metronome must be enjoined on
every village schoolmaster, the best plan would be for Maelzel to endeavor to sell a certain number
of metronomes by subscription, at the present higher prices, and as soon as the number covers his
expenses, he can sell the metronomes demanded by the national requirements at so cheap a rate, that
we may certainly anticipate their universal use and circulation. Of course some persons must take
the lead in giving an impetus to the undertaking. You may safely rely on my doing what is in my
power, and I shall be glad to hear what post you mean to assign to me in the affair. I am, sir, with
esteem, your obedient LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN.
At this time Maelzel and Beethoven were on friendly terms. They arranged to visit London together,
proposing to take the Panharmonicon with them, and Maelzel eased Beethoven’s financial straits by
urging on him the loan of 50 ducats in gold. For the Panharmonicon Beethoven composed the
‘Battle Symphony’, commemorating the Battle of Vitoria (21 June 1813). Maelzel suggested using
patriotic themes, Rule, Britannia and God Save the King; he also provided the overall compositional
plan and sketched in detail the drum marches and trumpet calls of the French and English
armies. Maelzel further induced Beethoven to score the piece for orchestra, with a view to obtaining
funds for the journey; thus scored, it was performed at a concert in Vienna on 8 December 1813 in a
programme that also included Beethoven’s Symphony no.7, and the marches by Dussek and Pleyel
(by the Trumpeter). The concert was repeated on 12 December, and the two yielded a profit of over
4000 florins. But Beethoven took offence at Maelzel’s having announced the battle-piece as his
property, broke completely with him, rejected the Trumpeter and its marches and held a third
concert (2 January 1814) for his sole benefit. Maelzel departed for Munich with his Panharmonicon,
including the battle-piece arranged on its barrel, and also with a full orchestral score of it, which he
had obtained from compiling the instrumental parts without Beethoven’s concurrence.
When Maelzel had the orchestral piece performed at Munich, Beethoven entered an action against
him in the Vienna courts. Beethoven also addressed a statement to the musicians of London,
entreating them not to support Maelzel, who arrived there in 1814 and performed the Battle
Symphony the following year.

)()()()

A Mechanical instrument of the Orchestrion type. It was invented by Johann Nepomuk Maelzel and
first exhibited by him in Vienna in 1804. The instrument was designed to play orchestral music, and
various accounts describe it as capable of imitating the sounds of the french horn, clarinet, trumpet,
oboe, bassoon, German flute, flageolet, drum, cymbal and triangle. The sounds were actually
produced by various flue, reed and free-reed organ pipes, as well as air-driven percussion devices.
The Panharmonicon achieved popularity in a period when such mechanical curiosities had great
public appeal and were frequently taken on tour; Maelzel’s instrument had many imitators,
including a virtually identical instrument (made by a fellow Viennese, Joseph J. Gurk) exhibited in
Germany and England in 1810 and 1811.
Maelzel’s Panharmonicon was taken to the USA in 1811 and was exhibited throughout the eastern
states between June that year and June 1812 by the Boston organ builder William M. Goodrich,
after which it was shipped back to Europe. In 1824 Goodrich built a replica of the instrument for a
Boston museum, which again was exhibited in various places for a year.
The repertory of the Panharmonicon consisted largely of popular marches and overtures, as well as
pastorales, rondos and similar pieces. Music by Haydn, Mozart and Cherubini (as well as many
lesser composers) was also performed on the instrument, the most remarkable example being
Beethoven’s ‘Battle Symphony’ (Wellingtons Sieg, 1813), originally written for Maelzel’s
instrument and later transcribed for orchestra.
The Panharmonicon was a tour de force of musical instrument technology which later resulted in
the Orchestrion . Another instrument of this genre was the Apollonicon .

()()()()()

in order to get a publicity hit for his Panhamonicon, Maelzel convince Beethoven to accept his
program for a stereophonic battle symphony for twp automota celebrating Wellington's victory over
the French army near Victoria in Spain on 21 June 1813.

Maelzel collected army songs and trumpet signals, listed the restrictions on his music machins, and
made a sketch of the architecrure of the synphony. Beethoven finally agreed and delivered the
score, his op. 91 with short time, so that Maelzel could program the drums of his machines. But
time passed fast in Napoleon's era: Maelzel soon realized that putting the pins of the drums would
take too much time. He went back to Beethoven and convince him to transcribe the composition for
two orchestras and he volunteered to orgnanazi an “all star fastival” (as we would say today). He
got everybody who had a name and a rank in the musical life of Vienna to accept the role in a
performance for the benefit of the victims of the battle of Hanau. For this purpose, he was able to
get the main hall of the Vienna University.

The first performance on * December 1813 became a tremendous success, in fact, the biggest
triumph of beethoven during his life; the battle symphony had to be repeated on 12 December and
six times in 1814. But since the symphony had been transformed into a normal composition, there
was, in Bethoveen's mind, no more p;ace for a mechanician. He paid back to Maelzel the money he
had invested in the enterprise and considered him out of the game. Mzelzel wes very upset, because
he had hoped to earn enough money for a trip with his machines to Amsterdam and London. So he
stole the orchestra score and had the work performed twice at Munich on 16 and 17 March 1814.
Beethoven was furius about it. He feared that Maelzel might ruin his chances in London- he saw
good prospect for his composition in England and he had dedicated it to the prince wales. So
beethoven filed a suit against Maelzel.

Maelzel certainly had questionable features in his character, but he never could have been as bad as
Beethoven described him. )

Maelzel was, however, already in Amsterdam, and there he was faced with a shocking discovery: a
Dutch mechanician had found the solution for the chronometer- the metronome with a sliding
weight at the top of the pendulum.
In 1817 Maelzel made peace with Beethoven : each paid half of the lawyers costs.

()()()()(
Enthused, Beethoven (according to Moscheles, upon Maelzel's suggestion) wrote the
composition The Battle of Vittoria in 1813, commemorating the victory of the Duke

of Wellington over the French forces, for this new instrument. Beethoven stated that
he had already conceived the idea of a battle, which was not practicable on the
Panharmonikon. However, Moscheles is probably more accurate, since the front page
of the Panharmonikon score states, in Beethoven's hand, that it was "written for Hr.
Maelzel by Ludwig van Beethoven." However, early in 1814 Maelzel and Beethoven
quarreled. Feeling injured, since the piece he had asked for had led to a huge
resurgence in Beethoven's popularity, Maelzel began making plans to take the
Panharmonikon and the composition to England. Maelzel surreptitiously obtained so
many of the parts for the battle as to be able to have a pretty correct score of the
work written out. He produced it in two concerts in Munich in March 1814. When
Beethoven in Vienna learned of this, he was outraged. Excited in temper, he initiated
a lawsuit against Maelzel (by this time on the way to the far reaches of Europe). At
the same time, he hastily had a copy of the Battle prepared and sent to the Prince
Regent (the future George IV) of England, in a mad chase across Europe, in hopes of
thereby preventing Maelzel from producing the piece. As Thayer notes, it was a
costly and utterly useless precaution; Maelzel did not receive any incentives to offer
orchestral concerts, and the score sat buried in the Prince's library, was ignored and
never acknowledged. These antics further disrupted work on the final revisions of

Fidelio.