PDA

View Full Version : The Manufacture of Mozart



Pages : [1] 2 3

Musicology
09-03-2009, 08:10 AM
Hi there,

I'm a British writer/researcher on the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) and am 15 years or so in to writing a highly controversial book on the subject. I'm based in London.

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view.

In my research over the past 15 years or so I have become more and more certain of all the above. Certain too that the secret fraternities of western Europe (such as the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, the Illuminatists) have invented idols of their own, of which Mozart was one, so that they could, by controlling their mythical status in the academic world, shape and even define our 'education' far more than is generally realised.

Best wishes

It is not an easy thing to accept that our cultural education is largely nonsense. But this is truly the case with the history of music as far as Mozart is concerned. The sheer volume of evidence is now overwhelming. Mozart, 'genius of Salzburg' was really a musician of no great talent. His story begins long before his birth and his myth was being manufactured even decades after his death. By the elites who controlled culture during his own time and beyond it. The scale of corruption, the exaggerations and falsehoods that form part of 'Mozart studies' are so many that it took years to appreciate they were part of a cultural Counter-Reformation that was begun long, long before Mozart's time.

In fact, the Jesuit Order, created a few years before the Council of Trent in the 16th century, rose to become the schoolmasters of Catholic Europe, utterly dominating education, censorship, etc. It was within this context that the 'Counter Reformation' began. A Counter Reformation which included control of publishing, even of art and culture itself.

With growing protests against Jesuit domination (coming even from within the Catholic Church itself) it was clear by the early 18th century that the days of their control were numbered. The mass of complaints against the quality of their education, their corruption in politics and in other areas, were so many in Portugal, France, Germany and elsewhere that their explusion from those countries was certain. Starting with Portugal, then France, and finally culminating with their outright ban by the Papacy in 1773. But not before they had set in motion a new strategy of educational control. The 'Enlightenment' (of which their employees, Voltaire and Rousseau were the two foundations). This entirely shifting the emphasis of learning and literature across most of Europe. The life and career of Mozart are to be understood in this context. Mozart's father (himself Jesuit educated) is only one of the dozens of links which lead to the inescapable conclusion that Mozart's career was almost entirely manufactured. He was no musical genius and wrote, at most, half a dozen works of his own. These on no great musical value. The truth hidden, buried under the propaganda.

The truth is dozens of early 'Mozart' works are not his. That's a plain fact. A fact recognised (grudgingly) in textbook after textbook. But the lies and exaggerations continued. Even the operas 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (1786), 'Don Giovanni' and the 'Magic Flute' are not by Mozart. In fact, Figaro is a hastily made arrangement of a work first written to a German text by others the year before as we can see if we actually examine the manuscript today held at the National Library in Vienna. A work arranged by Mozart's colleague Lorenzo da Ponte and staged in Mozart's name in Vienna that year. But not a work by Mozart. Mozart was a musical fantasy created by those who, in the name of 'Vienna, city of music' sought to control musicology, and they did so. Using the talents of composers whose names are today hardly known. Vienna hardly knew this man. It was all invented. He was the creation of fraternities of the late Holy Roman Empire. The Requiem, the Clarinet Concerto, the Piano Concertos, hundreds of symphonies, sonatas, and even operas are not by Mozart. And the lies continued to be told by publishers and propagandists even in to the earliest biographies.

For almost 200 years the science of musicology has been hijacked by those who now control the 'music industry'. An industry which never questions the assumptions on which the Mozart myth is based. The result has been the destruction of the science of musicology itself. A science first founded by the German JN Forkel. A science which warned against commerce taking over from art by its ruthless appeal to mass culture. (It was Forkel who first brought the attention of the musical world to the ignored works of J.S. Bach and which the Viennese were ignorant of, even in the late 18th century). Musicology, the study of music of high quality that is of value for music students, was overwhelmed by the rise of the cult of Mozart. And, today, despite his giant reputation of Mozart (together with that of Haydn and Beethoven - whose own stories are little known) the result is a generation of students who know virtually nothing of music by Mozart's own contemporaries. Dumbed down by the dominant myth of 'Amadeus'. A pack of lies foisted on innocent students of musical history.

We do not know if historical fact and a total revision of musical history by those preside over this, one of the great myths of western civilization. But one thing is sure. From a documentary point of view (i.e. after detailed study of the musical manuscripts themselves and many other areas of research) the Mozart domination of music is a grotesque distortion of reality which deserves to be exposed.

Have you heard of Vanhal ? Myslivececek ? Wranitsky ? These are only three of about 40 unknown composers who wrote the music today attributed to Mozart. The truth of which has been hidden, buried under mountains of half truths and foisted on students who know no better. The rest, as they say, is the mass media. The corporate fraud that is Mozart.

Regards

yanni
09-03-2009, 03:14 PM
My only disagreement is on your –and Dan Brown’s- “All roads lead to Rome” convenient focus on the identity of “the manufacturer”:

Compared to “arts and sciences” and relative institutions (coincidentaly all under a Cochin or "Cassini" or "Caussin" or Cocchi(!) at the time) serving the interests of the Royal House of France, church, including Rome, had a secondary role only.
(Following Galileo, even Rome understood and adopted “sciences” and they were themselves into the use of art for their propaganda fide long before.)

When you carefully examine each and every of my “Saint Germain” aliases, you’ll realise that british interests were not neglected when they (Strict Observance) partitioned “their world”, thus you’ll be able at least to explain Gluck’s irish successes at the time of Luis XVI and wife “removal” (and also strengthen your rather weak "transition of power to other societies" post 1773 argument).

I say “at least” because the “cover up” was and remains much broader than just music, so broad in fact as to still tip today the balance between “truth” and “common good” in favour of the latter, as all “too big to fail” lies still do.

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

Having said all that:

I still don’t believe he called all the shots after 1787: He was quite old already and his Russian “personae” had won him over, he had disagreed with Necker, given up France and his conscience propably troubled him. (His "Raynal" identity and itinerary still troubles me nevertheless!)

“Other forces” had the upper hand by then, knew all about him, whereas he still wanted to keep the family’s royal secret intact, was insitutionaly and privately indebted, thus staged his “deaths” (but propably not those of his eternal IOUs).

“Moz-art” (or Dali's obelisk ridden elephants) says it all but so does the silence of another “Collini”, scholar on enlightment, and many others as well, inlcuding many silent descendants

If you want to have your book ever published you might think it over-where Truth ends- again.

Your thoughts.

Cheers.

stlukesguild
09-04-2009, 07:40 PM
Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.:rolleyes: Shakespeare was an Italian of Jewish descent, Leonardo DaVinci was African, Michelangelo was a lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarf and the music of Mozart (and undoubtedly Haydn and Beethoven as well) was produced by a consortium of composers with the goal of inventing the German/Austrian "genius" to counter the Italian/Catholic domination of music (as if Bach, Handel, Telemann, and Gluck had not already achieved this:nod:). The reality is that disputing such arguments are a waste of time... and most of us here are not that familiar with musicology and the history to counter the proofs presented as "facts"... nor do we have the time nor desire to verify such assertions... yet undoubtedly these same proofs can be easily shredded by the average first year student of musicology. I've seen the same conspiracy theory presented at any number of music discussion boards... and the same rapidly countered with facts to the contrary by those who do know their music history. The OP knows this is true which is why he is pathetically reduced to attempting to sell his wacked-out theories on an internet site devoted to literature rather than attempting to presenting the same in a serious gathering of musicologists.:brickwall

Petrarch's Love
09-04-2009, 09:42 PM
I think that I will now turn to my ipod, put on the headphones, turn the volume up quite high and listen to the "Jupiter" symphony by ______ while reading The Tempest by ______. All are welcome to treat the blanks in this post like a madlib while I am busy enjoying good music and good poetry.

Drkshadow03
09-04-2009, 09:46 PM
Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.:rolleyes: Shakespeare was an Italian of Jewish descent, Leonardo DaVinci was African, Michelangelo was a lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarf and the music of Mozart (and undoubtedly Haydn and Beethoven as well) was produced by a consortium of composers with the goal of inventing the German/Austrian "genius" to counter the Italian/Catholic domination of music (as if Bach, Handel, Telemann, and Gluck had not already achieved this:nod:). The reality is that disputing such arguments are a waste of time... and most of us here are not that familiar with musicology and the history to counter the proofs presented as "facts"... nor do we have the time nor desire to verify such assertions... yet undoubtedly these same proofs can be easily shredded by the average first year student of musicology. I've seen the same conspiracy theory presented at any number of music discussion boards... and the same rapidly countered with facts to the contrary by those who do know their music history. The OP known this is true which is why he is pathetically reduced to attempting to sell his wacked-out theories on an internet site devoted to literature rather than attempting to presenting the same in a serious gathering of musicologists.:brickwall

So what you're really saying is that you're in fact Mozart sent here to the future with the help of time machine that Michelangelo invented so that he could party with other lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarves?

Gilliatt Gurgle
09-04-2009, 11:12 PM
Musicology,

I too had heard something of this, but I believe some of your facts need to be tidied up.
To begin, it was not the Jesuits who controlled the Mozart marionette from behind the curtains, it was the Knights Templar. Yes; I am aware of the fact that history informs us that the order was formally disbanded in 1312 by Pope Clement V.

However, it is believed that Pope Clements’s sister carried out a lustful tryst with the Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Through their indulgence, the Beethoven lineage was established. It was Johann van Beethoven, a devout follower of the Templar principles and father of the famous composer, who had developed an odd penchant for manufacturing composers of the time. Johann soon took notice of the young Austrian upstart.

Johann utilized Diderot, Grimm and their ilk to serve as the “strings”; parlaying contemporary compositions to Mozart in an effort to fabricate the sham. In time, Mozart took an interest in the bootlegged music that lay before him and soon learned to compose his own original pieces. Though Mozart’s musical endeavors never really panned out, it provided much fodder for discussion at the local beer gardens.
The American band known as the “Monkey’s” chronicled a similar road to success.

Gilliatt

stlukesguild
09-05-2009, 01:31 AM
So what you're really saying is that you're in fact Mozart sent here to the future with the help of time machine that Michelangelo invented so that he could party with other lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarves?

Exactly!:banana::banana::banana:

Musicology
09-07-2009, 03:52 PM
I mean, simply, that politics, banking, business and the mass media are not the only areas that have been corrupted in European history but, of course 'culture' itself. We like to pretend that we understand classical music, that it has escaped forgery, hoaxes and fairy stories. But it has not. In fact, the elites who controlled music seem to suffer from 'amnesia'. They forget convenient facts. If you ask the average music lover to name a composer who was contemporary with Mozart in Vienna they look at their watch and have an urgent appointment ! The amazing ignorance has been caused by the control of musicology by the entertainment industry, the 'music industry', and the takeover of musicology itself. A fledgling science in the early 19th century which has been wrecked by the titanic myths of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

The truth is (and I've spent many years studying the documents and the literature) is that Mozart was manufactured. He did not write most of the works attributed to him. This fact is even acknowledged in dozens of publications, though buried away in footnotes and in eulogistic biographies. I do not expect people to believe this. It's amazing. But the fact is that truth has the habit to getting the final say. And on this issue, Mozart, the film 'Amadeus' is fiction. You should make yourself aware of the composers whose names have been erased from music history, who contributed towards the manufacture of Mozart's iconic status. It's a remarkable story. Dozens of them. What does that tell us about the myths we believe in.

Fortunately, reality is open to cross-examination. It's not the Mozart industry. Try musical reality !

Here's a 2 hour interview given a few months ago to the Swedish radio station Red Ice - hope you find it interesting as a general introduction to this subject of Mozart and his myth -

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/04/robert-newman-mozart-myth.html


So what you're really saying is that you're in fact Mozart sent here to the future with the help of time machine that Michelangelo invented so that he could party with other lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarves?

Exactly!:banana::banana::banana:


No, that's not what I'm really saying. What I'm really saying is that there is a side of the Mozart story you may never have heard. The one of musical reality and of history.

Civilizations need myths. One of our myths if the 'genius' of Mozart.


I think that I will now turn to my ipod, put on the headphones, turn the volume up quite high and listen to the "Jupiter" symphony by ______ while reading The Tempest by ______. All are welcome to treat the blanks in this post like a madlib while I am busy enjoying good music and good poetry.


Why do we believe as we do ? In the case of Mozart it's because nobody has ever examined and cross-examined the whole story. Till now.

As a cultural myth Mozart is 'cute'. It virtually dominates our musical 'education'. It exists in the mist of mythology. But our stupendous ignorance is the result. We can hardly name anyone around at his time. It's almost ridiculous. No, the musical works of 'Mozart' were the product of many composers of the late Holy Roman Empire. So says the evidence beyond fair and reasonable doubt.

But it's good that you are prepared to listen to both sides, rather than just one. The 'Jupiter' is a fine symphony. But it's not by Mozart.

Regards


My only disagreement is on your –and Dan Brown’s- “All roads lead to Rome” convenient focus on the identity of “the manufacturer”:

Compared to “arts and sciences” and relative institutions (coincidentaly all under a Cochin or "Cassini" or "Caussin" or Cocchi(!) at the time) serving the interests of the Royal House of France, church, including Rome, had a secondary role only.
(Following Galileo, even Rome understood and adopted “sciences” and they were themselves into the use of art for their propaganda fide long before.)

When you carefully examine each and every of my “Saint Germain” aliases, you’ll realise that british interests were not neglected when they (Strict Observance) partitioned “their world”, thus you’ll be able at least to explain Gluck’s irish successes at the time of Luis XVI and wife “removal” (and also strengthen your rather weak "transition of power to other societies" post 1773 argument).

I say “at least” because the “cover up” was and remains much broader than just music, so broad in fact as to still tip today the balance between “truth” and “common good” in favour of the latter, as all “too big to fail” lies still do.

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

Having said all that:

I still don’t believe he called all the shots after 1787: He was quite old at the time and his Russian “personae” had won him over, he had disagreed with Necker, given up France and his conscience propably troubled him. (His "Raynal" identity and itinerary still troubles me nevertheless!)

“Other forces” had the upper hand already then, knew all about him, whereas he still wanted to keep the family’s royal secret intact, was insitutionaly and privately indebted, thus staged his “deaths” (but propably not those of his eternal IOUs).

“Moz-art” (or Dali's obelisk ridden elephants) says it all but so does the silence of another “Collini”, scholar on enlightment, and many others as well, inlcuding many silent descendants

If you want to have your book ever published you might think it over-where Truth ends- again.

Your thoughts.

Cheers.

Hi there Yanni,

I claim no expertise on the life of Rousseau and Grimm although I have a great deal of musical and historical information to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the icon of Mozart was manufactured by fraternities of the 18th century. So too his giant (and fictititous) musical talents. In point of fact the merger of the Jesuit Order with the occultist fraternities is a fact of history. We see the opera 'Magic Flute' is really a Rosicrucian opera. We see example after example of Freemasonic influence in the career of W.A. Mozart. The truth is that virtually all of his early music was written by others. The truth is that nobody in Vienna knew of Mozart the 'great' virtuoso, not even the writers on music of the time. The stories are almost ridiculous.

Take a simple example. In Vienna in 1793 a 2 volume work was published by musicologist Heinrich Koch dealing with concertos. Mozart is nowhere mentioned. Not once. And there is plenty of evidence for the massive fraud that was his 'reputation'. Even his own librettist (Lorenzo da Ponte) says that Mozart was 'unknown' to the Viennese. A city where he spent the last 10 years of his life. And there are a thousand other facts you may be aware of. The posthumous creation of the Mozart myth was a cynical manipulation of musical reality. It buried the lives and careers of dozens of composers. 'They' took over music publishing, performance management, etc. so that we end up with the idols of Easter Island. The pantheon of 'great' composers and a million miles away from historical and musical reality.

The Vienna of 'Mozart' was an ignorant place. Why, they never even knew the music of J.S. Bach and cared nothing for J.N. Forkel, the founder of the science of musicology. Within 20 years there was a new idea - the 'music industry'. The rest, as they say, is history.

Hope you enjoy the following radio interview I gave a few months ago on this subject. It will at least introduce you to the sheer volume of evidence -

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/04/robert-newman-mozart-myth.html

yanni
09-08-2009, 02:14 AM
All I am saying is that your "manufactured Mozart" will benefit if you study carefully my research on the "manufacturer", still at the center of "our universe", music included.

All I am saying is that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera.

He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg)

"Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)

*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!

Musicology
09-08-2009, 09:36 AM
Thank you Yanni,

There are two parts to this thing.

1. W.A. Mozart was a 'manufactured' genius of music. That is, the story we read of him is almost completely false.

2. Other people deliberately manufactured Mozart's musical reputation, 'his' works and his giant cultural reputation. Starting with the full complicity of his own father, Leopold Mozart, himself a Jesuit educated member of these same fraternities. In fact the first 25 symphonies of 'Mozart' lack any evidence of being attributable to W.A. Mozart. A fact already recognised by Mozart researchers in footnotes to their own publications. The same is true of the first 7 of the 27 'Mozart' piano concertos, which are actually works by J.C. Bach and others. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yet they and hundreds of other works were attributed to Mozart until the 20th century. This fakery and exaggeration continued all the way through his official career.

Your scheme of having so many aliases for Rousseau, Gluck, etc. is, I must say, slightly confusing. I do not say it is right or wrong. But I am simply saying the documentary and historical evidence shows Mozart was not a musical genius and am providing evidence 'his' music was composed by a network of fraternity members from the time of his childhood up to and even beyond the time of his death in December 1791. The invention of the musical 'superman' Mozart was used to gain control of music publishing, performance, and, eventually of musicology itself. Across Europe and beyond. And it remains true today.

yanni
09-08-2009, 10:25 AM
Your scheme of having so many aliases for Rousseau, Gluck, etc. is, I must say, slightly confusing.

Saint Germain's "puzzle", artfully built and carefully maintained till now, was hard to crack indeed. Afterall, apart for his sidekicks in philosophy and art ( including music) he was France's chief "agent" and "royal treasurer" for quite a while.

Musicology
09-08-2009, 11:41 AM
There is no doubt that the creation of Vienna, as the 'city of music', was engineered by the suppression of MANY composers whose names are today hardly known. Names such as Vanhal, Myslivececk, Cartellieri, to name only 3. In fact, the fakery extends even in to the career of Josef Haydn and Ludwig van Beethoven. Involving composers such as Hasse and others. So that the Italian origins of much of this 'classical' music has been greatly suppressed. And that of numerous Bohemian composers.

In the case of Beethoven textbooks routinely ignore Beethoven's own music teacher at Bonn (Andrea Luchesi) who was Kapellmeister there. Entire textbooks have been written on Beethoven's early years which omit to mention his name ! And this is typical. Yet Luchesi was the principle teacher of the chapel there for over 20 years ! It's truly amazing.

There is definitely a link between these celebrated composers and St. Germain/Cagliostro and other occultists. Through patrons such as Lobkowitz, the princes of Oettingen/Wallerstein, Donaueschingen and others in Bohemia (Prague). And this overseen by others such as Abbe Georg Vogler. This was a cultural network and it controlled the music publishing business. Up until 1773 these industries had been directly Jesuit controlled. After that date by the Illuminatists and other fraternities. And involving the Mannheim musical establishment. The 'history' of music (so-called) of the 18th century in particular is as corrupted as that of banking, politics, business and anything else. In the case of Mozart his earliest admirers were, almost without exception, members of fraternities. Later, Goethe, a well known Illuminatist. And many others. It was a general rule that fakery, exaggeration and downright fiction went in to the earliest Mozart biographies on a huge scale. The music business, by 1783, was completely in the hands of the Illuminati. Especially in Vienna. And the same was true across much of Germany and beyond. It's this context which is routinely airbrushed out of books on Mozart in Vienna. The truth is that Mozart was an idol manufactured so that control could be obtained of publication, performance, and even of textbooks. So that our 'education' would be controlled. And so that pure fiction would take the place of fact. This at the cost of literally dozens of composers whose names (and whose music) has been deleted from the record.

We want to believe that Mozart's music is stylistically very recognisable. But how many have heard Vanhal, Righini, and dozens of others ? These must be 'airbrushed' out of the record. So that the 'industry' will continue to preach the 'genius' of Mozart. It's an amazing story.


Your scheme of having so many aliases for Rousseau, Gluck, etc. is, I must say, slightly confusing.

Saint Germain's "puzzle", artfully built and carefully maintained till now, was hard to crack indeed. Afterall, apart for his sidekicks in philosophy and art ( including music) he was France's chief "agent" and "royal treasurer" for quite a while.

I am very interested in this. And I think it may very well be true. My instinct tells me that it is true. And I speak having examined the life/career and reputation of Mozart for almost 15 years. In the Mozart case the fakery, exaggeration and suppression of musical fact is amazing in quantity.

I would be specially interested in knowing about your views on Grimm, because Grimm has close association (as you know) with the Encyclopaedists. And there is no doubt that the Jesuit links to the Encyclopaedists are real. In fact, Robespierre was a great supporter of Rousseau's 'Social Contract' (1762). And Robespierre was a Jesuit educated tyrant. As we all know. The links between the 'Enlightenment' and a Jesuit Order operating through fraternities are too huge to be dismissed.

yanni
09-09-2009, 02:25 AM
I am very interested in this. And I think it may very well be true. My instinct tells me that it is true. And I speak having examined the life/career and reputation of Mozart for almost 15 years. In the Mozart case the fakery, exaggeration and suppression of musical fact is amazing in quantity.

I would be specially interested in knowing about your views on Grimm, because Grimm has close association (as you know) with the Encyclopaedists. And there is no doubt that the Jesuit links to the Encyclopaedists are real. In fact, Robespierre was a great supporter of Rousseau's 'Social Contract' (1762). And Robespierre was a Jesuit educated tyrant. As we all know. The links between the 'Enlightenment' and a Jesuit Order operating through fraternities are too huge to be dismissed.

You have but to read suggested thread "Poe decoded" herein and then continue to "Melchior Grimm (revisited)", "Jean Jacques Rousseau, an alias", "Abbe Raynal, another alias of Rousseau-Saint Germain" and finally my brief commentary on Gaston Leroux re his "Opera phantom" being my multifaced hero.

(Check dates of burning of Paris Opera while a Gluck play was staged, add in a few of Leroux's "barrels", translate his name to "The Red= Rosso, Rossini, Cocchini, Kokkini", compare it to "Mozart" Nozze's history and then judge for yourself.)

It's a long and complicated reading, agreed, but it will not be improved anytime soon, no sweetened summary for the average reader wil be prepared: My own goals (as laid out in above recommended threads) have been fully reached, my curiosity satisfied, all missing dots were explained and connected, the story "closed" succesfully.

Your "Jesuits" fixation(?) has already been addressed above but I'll give it another try:

Religion, like philosophy and art, has always, from beginning of time, been a tool in the hands governing any and all societies, "revelations, visions, commandments", "social theories, right and wrong, morals" and relative prommotion and glorification by "the arts" (always in need of more earthy necessities) being manipulated accordingly, old theories replacing new, documents falsified, older art "treasures" often confiscated, hidden, burned banned, redrawn etc.
Past and present "Joint ventures" (between state and church) excluded, the Church never had a clear "will" of its own. Even "allmighty" Rome had to succumb and adjust policies to more or less accomodate the religious split, a problem deeply affecting Bourbon France and their strong links to Florence and lower "Italy". Eversince Concino's intrusion!!

Why would Rome be any different, especially after 1773???

("Rome" was thoroughly investigated, including "american" links: A secondary and accommodating role only!)

The fact that the Holy Roman emperor(Mary Antoinette's brother) promoted the Church in Rome while his sister's France promoted "Gluck, Rousseau, Grimm etc" is by itself proof enough!

Cagliostro's choice to last "preach" in Rome can only be labelled "incredible" today because, up until now, "Saint Germain" remained a carefully maintained "mystery" and "Myth", his strong "Rome" connections" and "influence" being reduced to the "unknown stranger" who "managed", diplomaticaly, to save him from execution and have him thrown to jail for life.

Even that (him dying in jail) must now be questioned!

Cheers.

PS 1. My "Gioachino Rossini" (first used by Gioachino Cocchi in Rome, 1746, Bajazette) comment failed to reach its target I fear.
PS2. My invitation to all concerned, music scholars included, to prove me wrong still stands. "Insticts" may well serve as their motive to beginne doing so, preferably using "hard evidence" whatever this may today signify. "Deeply musical" comments and observations cannot be answered by the undersigned who is "not qualified" in Music matters

Musicology
09-09-2009, 08:30 AM
Thank you Yanni for these comments. They are certainly very interesting.

In reply to your two points on a 'Jesuit fixation' and on why Rome would be any different after 1773 I can say this.

1. No organisation has had a more massive domination of European education, culture and publication than the Jesuit Order. An order which was newly founded in the late 16th century and which managed the Counter Reformation which emerged from the Council of Trent. They became, by around 1700 the indisputable 'school masters of Europe'. At least, of the Holy Roman Empire. They were also the confessors of kings, the controllers of what literature and what music was published (and what was not). They were also managers of a vast building programme of churches and statues, art and culture across a vast area of Europe. They controlled sites of religious pilgrimage and presided over a massive programme of reviving Catholic devotion. They were in total control of music and the arts across the Holy Roman Empire. It's this plain fact which makes them unique. But, at the same time, the links with occultism (e.g. Rosicrucianism) were very real and they stretch back almost to the time when the Holy Roman Empire was first formed.

Huge complaints poured in from across Europe against the Jesuit educational system. They knew they were deeply unpopular. They taught in Latin, for a start. And they refused to teach history. Their standards were poor. And all of Europe knew it. It was Germany whose standards of education were far superior. A fact recognised by the French at the time of the French revolution. A France which had kicked out the Jesuits in 1762 and Portugal 3 years earlier. The final banning of the Jesuit Order in 1773 was predictable. In fact, the Jesuits went underground from 1773 onwards. Shortly afterwards emerged the Illuminati. Which, by 1783 were in total control of the same publishing interests as the Jesuits themselves. No coincidence, since, of course the Jesuits began at a Jesuit university. With Weishaupt. There is indisputable proof that the aims of the Illuminati were one and the same as the Jesuit Order, in taking control of what is taught, believed and performed. This influence, now hidden behind the move towards 'secularism' is known today as the 'Englightenment'. But it was, of course, funded and supported by the same elites of Europe. As we see in the Encyclopaedists and in the 'Enlightenment' generally. Voltaire was Jesuit educated, for a start. His links with the Jesuit establishment are plain. Rousseau also. These are not coincidences. The two main philosophical pillars of the 'Englightenment' (so-called). They are a deliberate plan to control secularisation in the same way that the Jesuit Order controlled academic society before 1773. Mozart's career emerges out of this transition. In fact, it was one of its products.

The Jesuits went underground with a continuation of their 'Counter-Reformation'. Beyond 1773. Such, I believe, is very plain. And the same Order (as you know) were revived in 1814, at the time when Europe was carved up on the map at the Congress of Vienna. Napoleon came from Jesuit Corsica, where they had been banished from Portugal and France. Again, a clear proof of a transition from overt control of western Europe to covert control.

So, in answer to your question of whether Rome would be different beyond 1773, the answer is surely yes. From 1773 Jesuit interests and those of the papacy were very different. After all the Papacy banned them that year. And Napoleon DID invade Rome. And DID keep the pope captive unless he agreed to restore them again. These are not imaginings but historical realities.

Baron Grimm, Voltaire, Rousseau, Baron van Sweiten and others, these are names all closely associated with Mozart's career. And the list of Jesuit educated supporters of his career (and of Illuminati colleagues and associates) is trully massive.

I am very interested in what you write. Again, your research is complementary to my own. But it seems to me that the Counter Reformation never ended. It continued. It is, in fact, the entire reason for the rise of occultism with Freemasony, with the Illuminati, and with these strange characters of 18th century history such as Rousseau and Mozart, Casanova and Cagliostro.

It is not simply Protestant versus Catholic. It also involves occultism. A factor which existed from the very earliest days of the Holy Roman Empire and which, through Venice, led to the founding of the British Empire, the British banking system. The 'New World Order' is a union of elitist interests (including monarchies, elites, rich privileged bloodlines, corporate interests etc. etc) all headed up, inevitably, by the papacy. Of this I am completely sure. And including corrupt churches and entire governments and their contractors. Such is the lesson from the 18th century and I believe it remains true today in the scale of control of the media, and even of the textbooks we read. A classic example is the fairytale story of W.A. Mozart.

Thank you for very interesting comments on Rossini.

It's not my aim to defend the indefensible. The bigotry of Catholics and of Protestants is dead. Let's just get to the truth of these things. Which seems to me our duty, whatever our culture and our education may be.

Looking forward to reading your posts.

Regards

yanni
09-09-2009, 11:36 AM
If you are indeed aiming at getting "to the truth of things" and avoid any "bigotry" –and not use this site and my research as a platform to serve your interests, always motive #1 btw- you'll do well to go a little deeper than that to prove your point 1.
As I did, before I even dreamed of “expressing opinions”.

What was your point 2?

Cheers

Musicology
09-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Yanni,

You agree that you know nothing of music. And I know very little of your own knowledge. I am glad to know you have ideas about Grimm/Rousseau etc. But I admit I am struggling to understand your last post. Cocchi is definitely important in the Mozart story and I am glad you remind me of this. As you can see, I am already aware of Cocchi in the Mozart story. He was part of the network of the legend of Mozart.

As far as 'expressing opinions' is concerned, please feel free to do so. I am free to do so and will share my views with anyone. You see we are on parallel paths. It's the only way for us to learn. We are now in the 21st century and not the 18th or any other century. Your findings are unique. So are mine. Let's co-operate as closely as we can. I am so happy to do this with you.

I have looked at Cocchi's career in Rome in 1746. You mention that he called himself at this time 'Giacino Rossini'. Can you please tell me your documentary reference to this ?

I know he staged 2 operas in Rome that year -

''L'ipocondriaco risanato'' (Carlo Goldoni) - Roma, Teatro Valle
''Bajazette'' (Agostino Piovene) - Roma, Teatro Aliberti o delle Dame

But I see no reference to 'Rossini' there. Can you please show me this ?

Also, you refered yesterday to the 'modern' harmonies which are found in the musical score of Figaro in Vienna (1786). We pointed this out in the Figaro book (2008) and were the first to do so. I freely shared this with you when I sent you the book on Figaro. So, we exchange our own findings. Freely and happily. Yes, these were musical harmonies which undoubtedly come from the system first pioneered by G. Valloti (1697-1780). Which the real W.A. Mozart of Salzburg knew nothing about. (You may be aware Andrea Luchesi, pupil of Cocchi, studied with Valloti in Italy before he became Kapellmeister at Bonn Hofkappelle).

The person/persons who composed this 'Figaro' music were definitely aware of Valloti's musical theories. These ideas of Valloti were 'new' at the time in Vienna and are further proof this music is not by W.A. Mozart. Figaro was actually written by a network of composers which included Andrea Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky, and others. That opera existed a year before Mozart and da Ponte claimed to have composed it for Vienna. As already said, the truth of this has been covered by the mythical story of Mozart.

I really believe we have to get away from the prejudices and dogmas of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Or our knowledge becomes useless. The plain fact is the Holy Roman Empire's elites have perverted the entire history of music and of culture. The proofs are clear and obvious. A man who uses countless aliases is proof of this fact. So, yes, I am very glad that you have done this remarkable research. I strongly believe your research is very important. And yes, I am struggling to understand the reason for this intrigue in the 18th century. But one thing I know for certain - the life, career and musical reputation of W.A. Mozart was falsely manufactured. And the implications of this fact are enormous.

I too have lots of information which we can share. The best research is to give credit where it is due. History belongs to us all. And we are both entitled to share truth, wherever we find it.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century. And I am so glad we can exchange our views.

Very best wishes.

Regards

yanni
09-09-2009, 12:57 PM
Re "Rossini"
Here is a copy-paste from "italian opera" site on Cocchi

Bajazette
(Roma, Teatro delle Dame, 1746)

LIBRETTO A STAMPA

FRONTESPIZIO
Bajazette, Dramma per Musica da Rappresentarsi Nel Teatro delle Dame Nel Carnevale Dell'anno 1746 /(musica di Gioachino Rossini) ;
PUBBLICAZIONE
In Roma : per il Bernabo e Lazzarini, 1746 ; testo in italiano (59 p. ; 16 cm) ;
Paese di pubblicazione : Italia ;

Re the rest of your post: Cocchi, ie Saint Germain etc etc was -and still is, imo-a true "force majeure" of his time, his supremacy in all fields within his "interests" amazing.

He was "very high" in the court and the diplomatic corp of France but had the relative "delicate secret" to protect and, as such, was vulnerable.

Well aware of the value of arts, sciences and religion in governance,he- like others of his time and ours-studied them thru. He excelled in all as he had to, if he was to control those fields, as his duties demanded.

He furthermore was a founder of modern day economic theory (as Rousseau initially as well as Abbe Raynal, Graslin and Hennin-royal treasurer later on).

I have repeatedly stated that I am neither a music scholar nor a historian (my profile states I am a retired engineer) but, to prove my point and yours,
music scholars "rarely" are "historians" (I have seen no web study connecting music to politics and history, not even in a timeline manner) neither do historians spent time studying music. One has to be something else, basically "commited". I am.

As no music scholar, I really don't much care to prove the obvious, that "Gluck" was behind the -still puzzling-modern harmonic solutions of MS A of Figaro's Nozzes, brutally then manipulated by the next "author"...

I also don't particularly care for another "obvious": That,starting with Caccini's Novela Musica and continuing thru with Antonio and Gioachino Cocchi, Rousseau, Gluck and Rossini nr 2, music history does seem to surface totally different, in a more familiar manner, I would add, than the one written by "music scholars".

...and, not to forget, I do have a music (opera) herritage: my grandfather Giovanni Cocchini, tenor, toured Europe 1895-1900 (sang in a all major italian theaters including Busseto) in same opera group a while with Battistini and my grandmother's Stella (maiden name Constantinou) diploma from Milano is signed by Verdi's nephew, manager of La Scala where she also performed. Grandpa founded National Greek Melodrama 1901, sang with Elvira de Indalgo, Athens1919, died drinking 1925. Inbetween 1922, a decisive year (musically)!

As I write above, my only disagreement .....etc.

Cheers.

Musicology
09-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Thank you Yanni,

The owners of the 'Italian Opera' website are good friends of mine. (Bianchini/Trombetta). In fact, they wrote the Figaro book with me last year !!! So, thank you for this information. They would no doubt like to include you as their friends. They too are very active in Mozart studies.

I can assure you the Counter Reformation (which emerged from the Council of Trent) is massively important, musically, and it led, eventually, to two different schools of thought. One was the regularising of Roman Catholic church music by Palestrina. The 'official' approved music. But the other, within a few decades, was the early origins of opera. In Italy (as you correctly say). This development of opera was very much a feature of the Counter Reformation and the Jesuit involvement in spreading opera is indisputable. This designed for mass culture. So the creation of a musical superman 'Mozart' became inevitable.

Around 1800 (around 10 years after Mozart's death) the science of musicology that had been founded by Forkel was consumed by its rival, the mass appeal of the 'music industry'. Which presides, till now, over ''musical history'' - so called. And which profits from the fictional myth of W.A. Mozart. The cost of this academic deception is truly massive. It (the Vienna trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) has suppressed virtually the whole of 18th century musical history. And has buried the achievements of so many composers. It's a fact more and more people are starting to realise.

So, thank you so much for sharing your views on Rousseau, Grimm, etc. These are really fascinating. And yes, I strongly believe you have found something very important.

I note Grimm is said to have been born in Regensburg. Well, Leopold Mozart's first employer was a dignitary of the Thurn and Taxis empire in Regensburg. It was an important place in Mozart's career. He visited there in 1790, I believe. Weishaupt fled to Regensburg. But Grimm (Baron Grimm) is a shady character, for sure. Rather like Baron van Sweiten (a known Illuminatist). Both are portrayed as important 'patrons' of Mozart.

There is no doubt much of what we learn of European history (and especially musical history) is really fiction.

You may also be interested in some unusual facts about Constanze Mozart's second husband, the Danish diplomat, G. Nissen. He worked as a censor and had close links with the Illuminatists and also with Regensburg. In fact, he worked there before he married Mozart's widow. Also, the theatre manager for 'The Magic Flute', Schickaneder came originally from Regensburg.

Regards

Here is the playbill of Rousseau's opera 'Le Devin du Village' (1752). Interesting to consider possible links with Cocchi here, yes ? It was a text which 'Mozart' is said to have used in German language (with very few changes) for his own opera in Vienna. ('Bastien und Bastienne'). There is no evidence the 'Mozart' version was actually performed during his lifetime (contrary to popular belief). It was the early 19th century before it was first published as a 'Mozart' work.

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

yanni
09-09-2009, 01:45 PM
"Rousseau" and "Cocchi" (and Grimm and Gluck) are one and the same person. Ask your italian friends (just to see them blushing).

Music exploitation never dies.

Regards.

stlukesguild
09-09-2009, 10:53 PM
There will always be those for whom some vast, ornate, and Machiavellian conspiracy theory holds far greater attraction than the pure and simple truth. They will latch on to every proof in favor of their pet theory however improbable or questionable, while rejecting every proof to the contrary as yet another element of historical falsification. Thus it is with our amateur "musicologist". The "Mozart Conspiracy" would have us believe that thousands of musicians, politicians, aristocrats, and acquaintances as well as shadowy groups such as the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, etc... all conspired to falsify the historical records concerning Mozart without a single voice of dissent... and to what end? To establish a Viennese or German hegemony of music... to seize musical dominance away from the Italians... in spite of the fact the J.S. Bach, Handel, Telemann, Schutz, Gluck and others had already largely achieved this goal? And the arguments in favor of this unlikely scenario? A few questionable documents. Some others misinterpreted. An argument for the artistic genius of any number of unknown composers, and an argument that it was impossible for a single, talented composer to have created so many works of unquestionable genius, but rather, that his artistic oeuvre must have been the result of the efforts of a collection of ghost writers.

Of course the artistic achievements of J.S. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Richard Strauss and any number of other composers undermines the whole argument against the possibility that Mozart's oeuvre could have been the product of a single artistic genius. Bach alone far surpasses Mozart in the vast scale, complexity, and breadth of his artistic output to say nothing of artistic merit. Schubert easily rivals Mozart for the sheer genius of an oeuvre cut tragically short. Of course our conspiracy theorist/musicologist can always take his theory even further and argue that not only was Mozart the product of a consortium of composers, but Haydn and Beethoven as well. And Bach, Schubert, Wagner, Brahms? O, hell; let's throw them in there too. In fact the whole of Western music may be one vast conspiracy worthy of Dan Brown's fictive efforts.

But then there are the nagging questions. How did a consortium of composers create an oeuvre for Mozart that was stylistically consistent? How did they succeed in turning out a body of work for Haydn and the young Beethoven that was nearly equal in artistic merit... and yet clearly different in such a manner that any experienced musical fan can recognize Mozart's "voice" vs Haydn's? And how is it that the endless professional musicologists and music historians whose career can be "made" by the discovery of a single unknown work by Chopin or Schumann or a single unknown composer of real merit has never uncovered what surely must be the greatest career making story in the whole of musicology? How is it that these unknown composers have nothing to their own name that in any way rivals the works attributed to Mozart?

Again, our amateur "musicologist" knows that his theories challenge almost any test of credibility or logic. Our "musicologist" also knows that any true knowledgeable "musicologist" would have little difficulty in refuting any the proofs or arguments presented here. Undoubtedly, that is why he presents his arguments here and not at a musical forum where he might be rapidly challenged with the truth. I make no claims to expertise in musicology or 18th century musical history. I am experienced enough, however, with classical music to be more than doubtful about claims that the artistic output of Mozart or Haydn (etc...) are the product of a group of rather unknown and forgotten composers who never wrote anything under their own name even approaching the level of the work they offered to another. I am also experienced enough with conspiracy theorists whether we are speaking of the true identity of Homer or Shakespeare, the JFK assassination, the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, 911, etc... to take anything they have to offer at face value... especially when it goes contrary to logic, probability, and the facts as presented by those who are most certainly experts in the field.

I withdraw from any further comment. Argument with a "true believer"/conspiracy theorist is a useless endeavor. Please feel free, however, to carry on.:banana::banana::banana::banana::goof::goof:

Drkshadow03
09-09-2009, 11:04 PM
There will always be those for whom some vast, ornate, and Machiavellian conspiracy theory holds far greater attraction than the pure and simple truth. They will latch on to every proof in favor of their pet theory however improbable or questionable, while rejecting every proof to the contrary as yet another element of historical falsification. Thus it is with our amateur "musicologist". The "Mozart Conspiracy" would have us believe that thousands of musicians, politicians, aristocrats, and acquaintances as well as shadowy groups such as the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, etc... all conspired to falsify the historical records concerning Mozart without a single voice of dissent... and to what end? To establish a Viennese or German hegemony of music... to seize musical dominance away from the Italians... in spite of the fact the J.S. Bach, Handel, Telemann, Schutz, Gluck and others had already largely achieved this goal? And the arguments in favor of this unlikely scenario? A few questionable documents. Some others misinterpreted. An argument for the artistic genius of any number of unknown composers, and an argument that it was impossible for a single, talented composer to have created so many works of unquestionable genius, but rather, that his artistic oeuvre must have been the result of the efforts of a collection of ghost writers.

Of course the artistic achievements of J.S. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Richard Strauss and any number of other composers undermines the whole argument against the possibility that Mozart's oeuvre could have been the product of a single artistic genius. Bach alone far surpasses Mozart in the vast scale, complexity, and breadth of his artistic output to say nothing of artistic merit. Schubert easily rivals Mozart for the sheer genius of an oeuvre cut tragically short. Of course r conspiracy theorist/musicologist can always take his theory even further and argue that not only was Mozart the product of a consortium of composers, but Haydn and Beethoven as well. And Bach, Schubert, Wagner, Brahms? O, hell; let's throw them in there too. In fact the whole of Western music may be one vast conspiracy worthy of Dan Brown's fictive efforts.

But then there are the nagging questions. How did a consortium of composers create an oeuvre for Mozart that was stylistically consistent? How did they succeed in turning out a body of work for Haydn and the young Beethoven that was nearly equal in artistic merit... and yet clearly different in such a manner that any experienced musical fan can recognize Mozart's "voice" vs Haydn's? And how is it that the endless professional musicologists and music historians whose career can be "made" by the discovery of a single unknown work by Chopin or Schumann or a single unknown composer of real merit has never uncovered what surely must be the greatest career making story in the whole of musicology? How is it that these unknown composers have nothing to their own name that in any way rivals the works attributed to Mozart?

Again, our amateur "musicologist" knows that his theories challenge almost any test of credibility or logic. Our "musicologist" also knows that any true knowledgeable "musicologist" would have little difficulty in refuting any the proofs or arguments presented here. Undoubtedly, that is why he presents his arguments here and not at a musical forum where he might be rapidly challenged with the truth. I make no claims to expertise in musicology or 18th century musical history. I am experienced enough, however, with classical music to be more than doubtful about claims that the artistic output of Mozart or Haydn (etc...) are the product of a group of rather unknown and forgotten composers who never wrote anything under their own name even approaching the level of the work they offered to another. I am also experienced enough with conspiracy theorists whether we are speaking of the true identity of Homer or Shakespeare, the JFK assassination, the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, 911, etc... to take anything they have to offer at face value... especially when it goes contrary to logic, probability, and the facts as presented by those who are most certainly experts in the field.

I withdraw from any further comment. Argument with a "true believer"/conspiracy theorist is a useless endeavor. Please feel free, however, to carry on.:banana::banana::banana::banana::goof::goof:

You know, only Elvis would say something like this . . .

stlukesguild
09-10-2009, 02:02 AM
You know, only Elvis would say something like this . . .

Shhh... don't let on.

yanni
09-10-2009, 05:51 AM
Musicology

Your italian friends face one problem only in their effort to reclaim Vienna's (Mozart) music as their own (of italian origin): Said problem is named Gioachino Cocchi, "still unknown" because of his "size" and their efforts to reduce him.

Otherwise, their praiseworthy agenda could (and should imo) also include the "italian" origins of "german" modern opera music (Cocchi being the same as "swiss Rousseau, "german Grimm" and "bohemian Gluck".)

Whenever they do decide to do it (change their agenda and "revise" their policy of concealing Cocchi) please let me know: I'll be delighted to contribute the wee bit of my re knowledge.

Best regards.

PS As agreed I will email you timeline and explanation on "Mozart's" Nozze.

Musicology
09-10-2009, 09:58 AM
"Rousseau" and "Cocchi" (and Grimm and Gluck) are one and the same person. Ask your italian friends (just to see them blushing).

Music exploitation never dies.

Regards.


My Italian friends already know that the Mozart story is nonsense. They are not blushing. They are just amazed at how ignorant the world wants to be.


You know, only Elvis would say something like this . . .

Guess what Drkshadow ?

You should really start to read the alternative versions of what you have been taught. I bet you don't know any music composers of Mozart's own time - just for a start. How about studying the actual Mozart story in detail, as I and my many colleagues have done ? Instead of just accepting everything you are told. The Mozart story is fiction. It was invented. Plain and simple. I have studied this subject for over 15 years. I've read hundreds of books and articles. I formed my views gradually. The truth is that no idea is true which is not cross-examined. Mozart is a giant cultural myth. This music was NOT written by W.A. Mozart. It was credited to him by a large network of other composers. So says the actual evidence. This fairy story supports a giant industry. Millions of bucks. But it was a fraud 200 years ago and it's a fraud today. A fraud supported by the elites of the time.

Was it a conspiracy ? Yes, of course. Why not do yourself a favour and realise the history of music is just as corrupted as the history of politics, banking, religion, and everything else ? What makes you believe what you are told in the mass media ? Is it because you have never considered that it's cultural propaganda ? But this is fact number 1. The rest requires you to examine these things fairly. And people just don't want to question what they read. The music industry took over from the science of musicology. And you want to believe the music industry, the tourist industry, the chocolate industry, the concert industry, right ? It's very sad. We have to get real. We have to stop being couch potatoes. The best researchers are waking up to the scale of misinformation in our textbooks which contradicts the plain facts of musical history.

You refer to J.S. Bach. Yes, the genuine article. And guess who was totally ignorant of Bach in the late 18th century ? The 'musical city' of Vienna. Speaks for itself, right ? The show business world of the music industry simply suppresses facts. It reinvents itself. And to heck with reality. 'Everything you've heard is true', says the trailer for the film 'Amadeus'. In fact, everything you've heard is baloney.

It has nothing to do with Elvis. It has to do with YOU and growing up and the facts of history. Compared to mass culture and the dumbing down of reality itself.


Musicology

Your italian friends face one problem only in their effort to reclaim Vienna's (Mozart) music as their own (of italian origin): Said problem is named Gioachino Cocchi, "still unknown" because of his "size" and their efforts to reduce him.

Otherwise, their praiseworthy agenda could (and should imo) also include the "italian" origins of "german" modern opera music (Cocchi being the same as "swiss Rousseau, "german Grimm" and "bohemian Gluck".)

Whenever they do decide to do it (change their agenda and "revise" their policy of concealing Cocchi) please let me know: I'll be delighted to contribute the wee bit of my re knowledge.

Best regards.

PS As agreed I will email you timeline and explanation on "Mozart's" Nozze.

Well, Yanni, nobody is saying all this music is Italian in origin. In fact, we are saying the very opposite. Much of it comes from Bohemian composers and from Italians and other nationalities. Josef Myslivecek was Bohemian. So was Paul Wranitsky. So was Anton Wranitsky. So was G.B. Vanhal and many others. So, no, we are not saying it all came from Italy. We are saying the opposite. It came from many sources. But the actual musical ideas originated in Italy. As everyone knows. Opera came from Italy. So did the sonata, the symphony, the string quartet, etc etc. Italians and Bohemians were massively dominant in Germany and Austria. And today hardly any of them are known. 'Mozart' was a project. Using a stooge from Salzburg. To manufacture a musical 'superman'. Although the actual music comes from many, many different sources at different times of Mozart's life. Involving many composers. Even some of them working after the time of Mozart's death.

This required a network. And those networks already existed within the Holy Roman Empire. It was a project of the Counter-Reformation. To give the glory to Vienna and to 'Mozart' as a genius. When, in fact, it was used to get control of music history, publishing and performance. In the same way that Shakespeare's plays were not written by William Shakespeare. It (like Mozart) was a project to gain control of culture. And the Mozart project was brilliantly successful. They took over the science of musicology. 'They' being the men who control the music industry till today.

So we grow up to believe sheer nonsense.

Yes, I agree that many Italians were involved. And many Germans, Bohemians and other nationalities. The story has hardly been told. The history of music is as corrupted as the history of politics, of banking, of show business and of any other sphere of human activity. They create the idols and they want us to worship them. It's really that simple. And big money is involved in this massive cultural deception.

yanni
09-10-2009, 03:00 PM
Musicology,

Your "manufactured" notion finds me in agreement (the next music "prophet" and how to promote him sortof) and....

...so would, perhaps, your "Jesuit support" allegation for the specific "manufactured" case (the SJ order acting under orders from the Austrian court perhaps?) because such "next prophet creation" could, perhaps, be explained historically(Prussia and France already enlightened long before and, after 1773, cooperating in their "overseas adventures", Austria, long past their years of glory, trying hard but still unable to subdue "new ideas" from penetrating their spoils in northern Italy etc. )

A palatable in its convenience theory but coming, as it is, from the same “reformist” italian sources that refuse to expose their holy Cocchis(!) to sunlight and select instead to keep them protected, it raises huge questions generally (and forces me to look elsewhere for the truth as “half truths” and “bigotry” have so much in common. )

Further to your reformist friends hiding their Cocchis, of notice your own in accord omission to include "generally unknown and ignored" Gluck in your list of bohemians, all his minors. How conventional of you!

As such I strongly refuse to accept your scapegoat of convenience, Rome, very much doubt your (undeclared I notice) intentions to truly find the originator of “Mozart’s” Figaro’s Nozze (obviously, now more than ever, “Gluck”) and have the following to add:

Mozart, along with your "counterreformists" (for me unknown) patrons used, (post a.D.1784), the same, already tested, method as the other side (your reformists) previously, serving naturally their own cause: The promotion of enlightment through....youknowwho, a giant of a personality when compared to midget Mozart, backed moreover by the french "royal treasure" he himself controlled (as "Pierre Michel Hennin") since October 1768 at least. (Before that "Hennin" served as charge d’affaires of France “next to” the King of Poland) and not by the meagre resources of Vienna (previous landlord of Poland, Bohemia included) supporting Mozart, the next music prophet.

The same pattern (including bohemian assistants and the often used "ala pastichio" or "adaptation of older pieces") in both cases , but....music culture.....or rather how can a piece be staged and made sound so "wonderfull" as to influence the audience to fulfil the dark purposes of the-directing-composer (and his sponsors) needs a lot more than just "music". “Gluck” had it, Mozart didn’t (not in his lifetime at least, one more reason validating your-and mine-"manufactured" theory).

The rest of the story leading to the answer of "who the composer of Mozart's Nozzes was?" must wait for quite a while, I fear, I simply dont have the time (or true interest, I am already convinced!!) now, anyhow and, alas , musicology "cannot" produce details of Gluck’s role as Vienna’s music manager too (for a short while, early 1750's, no further details available on the web) .

Coming thus to your "But the actual musical ideas originated in Italy. As everyone knows. Opera came from Italy. " :

I can't be sure where musical ideas came from, neither am I able to trace mankind to its roots, I do suspect however that
a)Adam did offer Eve his appleleftover with a song, and..
b) Caccini's Novela Musica had its origins in greek tragedy (tragos grk for-sacrificial-male goat) and its "chorus" and...
c) Renaissance went hand in hand with neoclassicism, brought to Florence from the East to then travel to France together with Concino Concini, the Caccini father and daughter and their spiritual mentor and relative “Jesuit” father Caussin* (later “of the Holy Court”), much like an "orchestra" (to be easily traced for roots to the greek word "Orches")...

…a convenient word to close the subject with:

Theater AND melodrama were "invented" by the ancient greeks: They had “them” (orches),I assume, “we” don’t!

*....and at the time, or shortly before, another member of the family served the Medicis (Cosimo I, if I remember) as prime minister.

stlukesguild
09-10-2009, 11:06 PM
You should really start to read the alternative versions of what you have been taught.

You mean we should read the versions rejected as sheer fiction by 99.9% of those who have the most experience and knowledge in the field? I suppose if they made for a good literature...

I bet you don't know any music composers of Mozart's own time - just for a start.

CPE Bach, Carl von Dittersdorf, Michael Haydn, Joseph Haydn, Luigi Boccherini
Antonio Salieri, Joseph Martin Kraus, Christoph Gluck, John Field, Johan Stamitz, Carl Stamitz... Of course... admittedly I have an affinity for listening to the work that affords the greatest pleasure and this is not to be found in the work of any third-rate composer you argue created they works of Mozart.

How about studying the actual Mozart story in detail, as I and my many colleagues have done?

Or why not study all the whacked out theories upon the events of 9-11 or how the Knight's Templar went underground and resurfaced as the Dutch East Indies Company and funded the French, American, and Russian revolutions?

The Mozart story is fiction. It was invented. Plain and simple. I have studied this subject for over 15 years. I've read hundreds of books and articles. I formed my views gradually.

And yet the whole of musical academia rejects these same ideas... for what reason? To perpetuate a myth? Why? Why would the serious academics not jump upon what would certainly be a career-making discovery... excepting that the notion is sheer idiocy?

The truth is that no idea is true which is not cross-examined. Mozart is a giant cultural myth. This music was NOT written by W.A. Mozart. It was credited to him by a large network of other composers. So says the actual evidence. This fairy story supports a giant industry. Millions of bucks.

How does it support a huge financial industry? Do you wish for us to believe that The magic Flute would suddenly disappear from the repertoire if it were discovered that it had be composed by another? And you still fail to explain how some vast shadowy conspiracy of composers was able to produce a unified body of brilliant music for a figure-head... and then achieve nothing of even near equal merit independent of this conspiracy.

But it was a fraud 200 years ago and it's a fraud today. A fraud supported by the elites of the time.

Ah! A reverse of the Shakespeare conspiracy in which the lunatics argue that no middle-class actor could have produced such brilliance... only an educated aristocrat. I'm still not getting how it matters to the 'elites" whether Christophe Gluck, Antonio Salieri, Johan or Carl Stamitz composed Mozarts' symphonies. Music and art in general were certainly not looked upon by most aristocrats as something of great merit.

Was it a conspiracy ? Yes, of course. Why not do yourself a favour and realise the history of music is just as corrupted as the history of politics, banking, religion, and everything else ? What makes you believe what you are told in the mass media ? Is it because you have never considered that it's cultural propaganda ? But this is fact number 1. The rest requires you to examine these things fairly. And people just don't want to question what they read. The music industry took over from the science of musicology. And you want to believe the music industry, the tourist industry, the chocolate industry, the concert industry, right ? It's very sad. We have to get real. We have to stop being couch potatoes. The best researchers are waking up to the scale of misinformation in our textbooks which contradicts the plain facts of musical history.

We have entered the Twilight Zone.:eek2:

You refer to J.S. Bach. Yes, the genuine article. And guess who was totally ignorant of Bach in the late 18th century ? The 'musical city' of Vienna. Speaks for itself, right?

Actually... it doesn't say much of anything about anything other than the fact that J.S. Bach was not afforded anything approaching the level of recognition due until well after Mozart. His reputation was actually quite eclipsed by that of his own son, CPE Bach. Such occurrences are not uncommon, Vermeer was largely forgotten until the late 19th century. Gluck, Salieri... hell the whole of medieval music has been largely forgotten until recently. Where were any comments upon Josquin des Prez, Carlo Gesualdo, Johannes Ockeghem, Hildegard of Bingen, or endless others until recently? By the way... Mozart was certainly not unaware of Bach. His fugues certainly informed the contrapuntal structure of the finale from the 41st symphony.

It has nothing to do with Elvis. It has to do with YOU and growing up and the facts of history.

Ah yes... the typical "true believer" who recognizes that the whole rest of humanity are but infantile fools who cannot see the vast conspiracies before their eyes.

'Mozart' was a project. Using a stooge from Salzburg. To manufacture a musical 'superman'. Although the actual music comes from many, many different sources at different times of Mozart's life. Involving many composers. Even some of them working after the time of Mozart's death.

This required a network. And those networks already existed within the Holy Roman Empire. It was a project of the Counter-Reformation. To give the glory to Vienna and to 'Mozart' as a genius. When, in fact, it was used to get control of music history, publishing and performance. In the same way that Shakespeare's plays were not written by William Shakespeare. It (like Mozart) was a project to gain control of culture. And the Mozart project was brilliantly successful. They took over the science of musicology. 'They' being the men who control the music industry till today.

Yep... the twilight Zone.:lol:

Drkshadow03
09-11-2009, 12:24 AM
Guess what Drkshadow ?

Are you trying to tell me my TV, my Betsy, has been LYING to me all these years?!





You should really start to read the alternative versions of what you have been taught. . . . Was it a conspiracy ? Yes, of course.

X-Files.



It's very sad.

Oprah!


We have to get real.

Dr. Phil.



We have to stop being couch potatoes.

The Biggest Losers.


And guess who was totally ignorant of Bach in the late 18th century ? The 'musical city' of Vienna. Speaks for itself, right ? The show business world of the music industry simply suppresses facts.

The History Channel.


the dumbing down of reality itself.

Fox News!


Ha! I knew my TV never lied to me!

Musicology
09-11-2009, 05:26 PM
StLukesguild,

Yes, I mean we should get to know the subject on which we post. If we wish to be consumers, that's great. You obviously do. But if you wish to discuss this subject, by discussing history and the actual documentary evidence, yes, please do so. I am ready when you are. And then form a considered, fair judgement. 99.9% of those in the music industry are paid to do nothing but churn out the same old myths. And that's true in virtually every sector. As you surely know. 99.9% of the human race have no time except to pay their mortgages and accept sheer nonsense. What's new ? And all civilizations have their myths. Always have.

CPE Bach, Dittersdorf, Josef Haydn, Luigi Boccherini, Salieri, Kraus, Gluck, Stamitz, etc. All of these (with the exception of CPE Bach) have very dubious careers. None of them wrote music of exceptional quality but in the case of J.M. Kraus (who asssisted Mozart and even wrote the march in the opera 'Idomeneo') there is an exception. Kraus was a Jesuit educated musician of talent who assisted in the manufacture of Mozart's career. In fact the two men met in Vienna. Kraus lived only a few yards away.

As for studying other theories, why not recognise the 'official' theory of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory. As the official report (3 times) says. But you haven't read it, have you ? So you subscribe to 'official' conspiracies and I do not. They tend to be nonsense. As history shows.

You say the 'whole of musical academia rejects these ideas'. Yes, to perpetuate a myth. It pays bills. And mortgages. It fuels the music industry. They are not paid to think differently. Are they ? Much easier to talk sheer nonsense about Mozart and the tooth fairy than learn about the 120 other composers of his time, their works, and their own lives. Who takes the time to cross-examine the legend ? Let's invent a musical 'superman' whom we have controlled from the start. Enter - Mozart - the 'wunderkind' who writes operas before breakfast but who nobody actually knew in Vienna. Who never went to school a day in his life and who studied under no teacher of composition or harmony at any time in his entire life. Wow ! THAT Mozart ??? Whose fantasy life was largely invented posthumously and the vast majority of whose works were not published in 'his' name till decades after his death. The sheer volume of musical misattributions in his name is almost comical. It compares with nobody else in the entire history of western music. Really, you should be a little more modest with this secular icon of musical religion. History matters. Try reading some.

That the Magic Flute uses the music of other composers is a plain, indisputable musical fact. Don't you even know this ? Do you know where the theme comes from for the Overture of that opera ? Just that ? Let me give you a clue. It's a famous pianist who came to live in London. And it's not by Mozart. Have you heard of a composer named Paul Wranitsky ? (His opera 'Oberon' was staged in Vienna at the same theatre BEFORE 'The Magic Flute'). Try listening to it sometime. You might get a few surprises. It hugely influenced the content of the Magic Flute. Didn't know that, right ? (Try Clementi). Oops.

There are no 'lunatics' except those whose reading is confined to mass culture.

You say elites did not look on music as something special. Yes, that is true. But it changed. It changed with the manufacture of one Josef Haydn, then Mozart and with L v Beethoven. Mozart was a figure whose 'works' could be and were 'controlled'. By the very elitist people who oversaw the manufacture of his reputation in the first place. The same people, the same fraternities whose music industry and whose patronage started to take over from musicology itself. From around the time of the death of J.N. Forkel. The result ? The musical icons you worship today. And it's the Easter Island pantheon of demi-gods. Whose true story you hardly know. And whose story it seems you care not to know. The music industry has converted you. You trust them. Look no further than their twilight zone of 'experts'. Where are these 'experts' ?? They don't exist.

The 'twighlight zone' to which you refer is the mass culture you seem quite happy with, in the case of W.A. Mozart. 'Everything you've heard is true', says the trailer to 'Amadeus' when, in fact, everything you've heard is a pack of lies, exaggerations and downright frauds. So says the mass of the musical and other evidence. Try it sometime. You will be surprised to learn what I am saying is correct.

You refer to J.S. Bach. Yes, the genuine article. And guess who was totally ignorant of Bach's phenomenal achievements in the late 18th century ? The 'musical city' of Vienna. - Speaks for itself, right? I mean, nobody can fool you, right ? A generation of dumbos. But not as dumbo as our own.

I think it's very accurate to say we are all fools in most of our lives. We are fools most of all who refuse to listen to other people who have spent a large part of their life studying a specific subject. And who have the arrogance to believe what we have always been told, without seriously questioning the basis on which it was first constructed. That is foolish, for sure. And in the case of W.A. Mozart, this is the case. Do not ask me to fix your car engine. I am no mechanic. But, yes, in this subject, I think I know as much as you. And, with respect, I've studied it in great detail. The first 10 years or so with the same attitude as yourself.

The 'Twilight Zone' is your own chosen attitude. It's nothing but a silly smear. And you know it. You've read a few forum threads and you think you know what you are talking about ! On what grounds do you argue like this when the twilight zone is your own ? You are 'defending' what you do not know and have never studied. May I suggest you are really the one in the twilight zone and that those who can teach you deserve the same respect you give to 'Amadeus' and other Mozartean fictions of popular culture ? Do this for yourself, and I think we may see you change your view on this icon of western 'civilization', so-called. Since the truth, as they say, is not that of mass culture. And never has been.

What is sad, really sad, is the dumbing down of history, of reality, by idols little different from those we might see on mediaeval pilgrimages. These foisted on a dumbed down society in the name of musical culture. With their almost total ignorance of the history and music of that time. And it shows.

The legend of Mozart is a fiction for the musical underachiever. A story you have never heard. But help is at hand -here's something worthy of listening to.

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/04/robert-newman-mozart-myth.html


Regards

Jozanny
09-11-2009, 05:59 PM
I enjoy listening to classical music, but freely admit I am not a student of the genre, and after reading all this nonsense, I am glad that I do not try to study everything.

Scheherazade
09-11-2009, 06:09 PM
W a r n i n g

You do not have to agree with other members but please do not disregard their right to be on this Forum posting as much as yourselves.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning and members resorting to such "attacks" will receive infraction points.

Musicology
09-12-2009, 05:27 AM
I enjoy listening to classical music, but freely admit I am not a student of the genre, and after reading all this nonsense, I am glad that I do not try to study everything.


Great ! I am glad you don't try also !! Since, those who study a subject are able to say what is nonsense and what is not.

The mass media tells us one thing and reality is another. Sound familiar ?

Regards

10 THINGS YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MOZART

1. W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) never spent a single day at school in his entire life.

2. Mozart never studied music at any school. He was at no time under any recognised teacher of composition or harmony.

3. The belief that 'Mozart was taught by his musical father, Leopold, in Salzburg' is fiction. In fact, Leopold Mozart was a failed philosophy student who came to Salzburg from Augsburg. He walked out of his classes in Salzburg and was finally taken on in the Salzburg orchestra as a 4th violinist. This after a period of working in Regensburg. The most minor post. There he remained for a decade. (4th violin is the simplest part of all). In 10 years of service with this orchestra he only rose to the position of 2nd violin. He knew virtually nothing of composition. Nor did he teach harmony or composition to anyone.

4. In the year of Wolfgang's birth (1756) Leopold Mozart published a textbook on Violin in his own name which later became famous. This, you might think, is proof of Leopold's musical abilities. In fact, the contents of this book (which was later published in Germany, Holland and France) are taken from an unpublished tutorial made by the Italian virtuoso violinist, Giuseppe Tartini (1692-1770).

5. Leopold Mozart had good 'connections' with the fraternities of his home town of Augsburg. His Jesuit education brought him connections and it secured him jobs. One of which was to act as the Salzburg agent for various music publishers. Among them was the famous firm of Breitkopf, a major music publisher. This is why all kinds of music have been wrongly attributed to Leopold Mozart. In fact, Leopold Mozart did not study composition or harmony at any time of his life also.

6. Shortly before his first European tour Leopold Mozart received a sudden promotion, from the post of 2nd Violinist to 'Deputy Kapellmeister' at Salzburg. A responsible job. But given to him only as a token position. A few weeks later he left with his son for tours outside of Austria. This promotion made many people in Salzburg angry. In fact Leopold stayed away from Salzburg for close to 7 years on various tours. It got so bad there is a record at Salzburg explaining that Leopold was still, officially, the Deputy Kapellmeister.

7. A letter exists from Mozart's father (writing to the famous music teacher Padre Martini, in Italy, Bologna) shortly before their tour of Italy. In this letter (written from Salzburg) Leopold writes to explain his son knew almost nothing of music or composition and asking Martini if he could help his son. The 'help' lasted a few weeks at most. In fact, Mozart's entrance exam to the music institutue which was taken in Bologna is filled with basic musical errors. But the entrance certificate was given. 'Out of friendship'.

8. The famous story of Mozart writing down from memory a mass he heard at the Vatican in Rome is pure fiction. In fact, the work was an Allegri mass which was already known in Vienna. A copy was kept at the Vienna cathedral and had already been made by the father and son before they arrived in Rome. In fact Mozart visited that church in Rome not once, but twice, and each time had the manuscript in his hands as he sat listening to the performance. The score which Mozart made has never been seen and has never been in the catalogue of Mozart works. In the early 20th century was a report that it had been found in a German library. But the finder pointed out that it was filled with crude musical errors. It disappeared shortly afterwards and has never been seen since.

9. In 1768 Mozart (now 12 years old) was in Vienna with his father. The Viennese musicians did NOT believe in the talents of W.A. Mozart and they openly said so. This angered the father and he managed to get an interview with the Emperor and Empress of Austria. They tried to repair the situation and commissioned the young boy to write an opera for them. 4 months later, they returned from Salzburg with the 'new' music. The opera's name was 'La Finta Semplice'. (Surely this would prove the 'genius' of the young boy). But no sooner was the manuscript presented to the opera manager Affligio than he noticed that it was music in the style of Gassmann and others. The boy clearly knew almost nothing of its contents. And this scandal caused Affligio to cancel the performance, saying that this music was NOT by the boy Mozart. An investigation of the case was started by the Emperor and Empress and they decided that the father and son should not be paid. The opera was NOT by Mozart. Empty handed they returned to Salzburg. Some years later Giuseppe Affligio was singled out for revenge. He was arrested by enemies and accused of 'forgery'. A charge he strongly denied. But his enemies were so great that they destroyed him. He was found guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the island of Elba. Where he died a few years later still protesting his complete innocence.

10. With only one exception not a single symphony of 'Mozart' before the year of 1778 (age 22) shows any sign of being composed by Mozart. The first 7 piano concertos of 'Mozart' (all written before he was 21) are NOT by Mozart. They are arrangements of works by other composers including J.C. Bach. This was finally proved in the 20th century.

//

These are a few of literally hundreds of facts which, today, are little known about the legendary Mozart. The myth of Mozart as a 'musical genius' hides the reality of his career and is responsible for robbing many talented composers of the 18th century from any recognition. The facts of musical history are hidden by the Mozart industry. And the above examples are only a tiny fraction of evidence from his early years. The Vienna years of 'his' greatest triumphs is another story. (1781-1791).

Let me leave you with a quote by J.S. Bach -

'I assure you there is no substitute for hard work, for detailed study, and if you believe otherwise you may become famous and you may even become celebrated, but what is that ?'.

In the early 19th century the publishing business and the sheer power of the performance industry, together with the posthumous publication of works in 'Mozart's' name made him an icon of western musical history. This myth manufactured over decades. Close to 600 works appeared after Mozart's death which, in fact, he never wrote. The full story of this manufactured career has hardly been told.

Near the end of his life, while on a short tour, Mozart is recorded as having been completely amazed when he heard a performance for the first time of this beautiful work in a church. By J.S. Bach -

Johann Sebastian Bach
'Sleepers Awake'
Cantata 140
Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra and Choir
Director - Ton Koopman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzewr27_ns&feature=PlayList&p=919C8D8C502DF532&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=50

'It was', Mozart recorded, 'something from which I can learn'. Decades later Bach was 'rediscovered'. But by that time the music industry have taken over.


Regards

yanni
09-12-2009, 06:46 AM
Tel Asiado chose to conclude thus her article on "Gluck" in Mozart Forum:

Gluck's historical importance rests on his establishment of a new equilibrium between music and drama, and his greatness in the power and clarity with which he projected that vision. He dissolved the drama in music instead of merely illustrating it. His convincing operas exerted a strong influence on his younger contemporary Mozart, into the 19th century, and perhaps beyond. One wonders if they discussed opera in specifics at their meetings, an interesting angle to note if Gluck ever imparted his operatic concepts to Mozart.

Also of note the introduction to her article:

J.A. Hiller.."Wochentliche Nachrichten" (24th October 1768): "Gluck's imagination is immense. The confines of all national music are thus too narrow for him: out of Italian and French music, out of that of every people, he has made a music that is his own; or rather, he has sought in nature all the sounds of true expression and conquered them for himself." (Surprise-surprise: Mr Hiller-prussian or austrian?-fails to mention "german" music. Actually, "german Gluck" never composed any of his melodramas in his native language.)

1768, remember, was the year Pierre Michel Hennin was appointed treasurer to the King of France (as I write in previous post)

Not that I fully agree with T.Asiado, mind you: "Gluck" did not dissolve the drama in music, he made music fit (melo)drama instead, giving priority to lyrics. Nevertheless, a worthy conclusion re the eventual provenance of "Mozart's" Figaro.

Of parallel interest btw (to "Rousseau"-Figaro and his true story) is Goethe's Dr Faustus (who somehow managed to escape eternal condemnation)! It took Goethe some 30 years to conclude as above!

Cheers.

PS Nobody seems to care about Dali and his obelisk ridden elephants in this forum!

Drkshadow03
09-12-2009, 09:40 AM
Hey Scher or whatever moderator deleted my post! I realize that St. Luke added a snarky response after mine, but my question was legit. I am genuinely interested in knowing how the chocolate industry fits into all of this.

So let's try this again.

Musicology, how does the chocolate industry fit into your theory about Mozart?

Musicology
09-12-2009, 02:21 PM
Hey Scher or whatever moderator deleted my post! I realize that St. Luke added a snarky response after mine, but my question was legit. I am genuinely interested in knowing how the chocolate industry fits into all of this.

So let's try this again.

Musicology, how does the chocolate industry fit into your theory about Mozart?

Drkshadow,

Among the million offshoots of the Mozart industry (which includes a vast recording industry, the tourist industry, the virtual control of musicology, etc. is this well known brand of chocolates) - which I added to my interview on the Red Ice Radio broadcast (as a light hearted example of gullibility and sheer hype) -

http://www.mozartkugelnchocolateballs.com/

It is not part of the theory. It is an example of pure commercialism.

Drkshadow03
09-12-2009, 02:55 PM
Drkshadow,

Among the million offshoots of the Mozart industry (which includes a vast recording industry, the tourist industry, the virtual control of musicology, etc. is this well known brand of chocolates) - which I added to my interview on the Red Ice Radio broadcast (as a light hearted example of gullibility and sheer hype) -

http://www.mozartkugelnchocolateballs.com/

It is not part of the theory. It is an example of pure commercialism.

Heh. You learn something new everyday.

Musicology
09-12-2009, 04:12 PM
They are quite famous ! And they taste very nice. Austrian chocolate. High quality stuff !!!

yanni
09-13-2009, 03:52 AM
See Dali's sculpture of Alice Cooper's brain with a Chocolate Eclair covered in ants

Jozanny
09-16-2009, 02:51 AM
Great ! I am glad you don't try also !! Since, those who study a subject are able to say what is nonsense and what is not.

The mass media tells us one thing and reality is another. Sound familiar ?

Regards

10 THINGS YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MOZART

1. W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) never spent a single day at school in his entire life.

2. Mozart never studied music at any school. He was at no time under any recognised teacher of composition or harmony.

Regards

Music,

There is a professor I listen to on the radio who is an animal behaviorist. She is funny, and autistic, but mildly so. She cautions against falling in love with our own theories, which is perhaps worth heeding. I cannot rebut your belief system with facts, I do not have the time, and read music reviewers as a tone deaf observer--but would ask this--why take so much effort to convince me?

I can see debating this love of yours in Mozart forums, or with luke, but I am basically pot luck picks outside of certain literary periods and disability issues. The love of your conviction isn't mine, and perhaps that is worth taking into consideration.

Musicology
09-16-2009, 09:31 AM
Music,

There is a professor I listen to on the radio who is an animal behaviorist. She is funny, and autistic, but mildly so. She cautions against falling in love with our own theories, which is perhaps worth heeding. I cannot rebut your belief system with facts, I do not have the time, and read music reviewers as a tone deaf observer--but would ask this--why take so much effort to convince me?

I can see debating this love of yours in Mozart forums, or with luke, but I am basically pot luck picks outside of certain literary periods and disability issues. The love of your conviction isn't mine, and perhaps that is worth taking into consideration.

Hi there Jozanny,

I suppose when one has studied a subject for a long time from many different angles one obtains a detailed knowledge of it. Which, in my case, applies to the life, career and 'superman' status of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791). The reason I examined these things in such detail is because I don't like being lied to in the name of 'culture' and 'history' and 'musical history'. It seems to me that we should be taught what is true, and accurate, and honest. That we should at least criticise what is widely believed if there are reasons to do so. But the opposite has happened. Mozart is of course an industry. And it is not used to criticism.

I wondered, myself, how this pack of lies came about. And why. It took me several years to realise that beyond reasonable doubt the whole thing was a fairy story. And yet, as a youth, I had been as drawn to Mozart as any other student of music. (It was a subject I studied as a youth). It seemed impossible such a thing could possibly have been invented. It made no sense. So I decided to devote lots of time to examining the whole thing, in much detail. The fruits of which I'm still putting together into a form that can be understood by ordinary music lovers.

The only conclusion I can make is that certain people wanted 'control'. Control of what ? Control of the music industry. By invention of a musical character, a career, so amazing, so apparently true, that 'they' would literally come to dominate textbooks with it. As these same elites had controlled publishing and music publishing before Mozart's time. And so it happened. In effect, the actual study of music history was hijacked. It was deliberately hijacked, by the same elites who had created the story. So that in place of musicology we started (from around 1810 onwards) to get the version of something else - the 'music industry'.

I did not understand these things. Could they possibly be true ? But they started to make more and more sense as I examined the actual records (musical and non-musical). About 10 years in to making a vast number of notes they became only more and more clear. The music industry, publishing, even performance had been corrupted by this. The rise of icons which are really fictions. In the case of Mozart a project of superb music credited to him that had been composed by a network of other composers whose names are today hardly known. Which was completely possible at a time when an Empire (the Holy Roman Empire) existed. So that Mozart biographies rarely give us any context and we are ignorant of Mozart's own contemporaries. And kept ignorant, deliberately. This with the same objectives we find in politics, banking, the mass media etc. The 'control' of what is taught and believed in matters of musical history. To the exclusion of what is real, what really happened, etc. etc. And people today are paid to write on this stuff, to tell us the 'story'. Supported by what seems to be a mass of documentary evidence. When, in fact, the documentary evidence was always bogus from the very beginning. A massive fraud in the musical/cultural sense.

We are lied to about these things. And these cultural areas are as badly corrupted as virtually all others. I am certain of it. So are various other musicologists and researchers with whom I've been in contact. Mozart was an invention.

'Ah, yes', the defenders of convention will say, 'And how are you going to prove this ?'. Well, that has been my aim over the past 5 years or so. To show from musical, historical and other evidence how and why this was done.

Does it matter ? Well, again, yes, I think it DOES matter. Even here, in matters of music, we have those who cynically pervert reality. Suppressing reality and inventing one they can control. The 'Mozart industry'. And, at the very least, we should try to give credit where it is due.

Our encyclopaedias, our reference books, our own education, is under assault from those who have invented fictions and who broadcast them. Does that matter ? Does it matter that 'news' is often blatantly biased and plain wrong ? To me it matters.

Anyway, music deserves better.

But, when I am not involved in this project I like to listen to music by Bach and composers of the late Baroque (which I specially like).

You should read some of the critics of my work !! It's really funny sometimes.

Sorry if this doesn't answer your points fully. I guess I will never really get used to what I've seen and scribbled down over these years.

Regards

yanni
09-17-2009, 01:35 AM
Seeing that you still focus on your "Holy Roman Empire" version (in your reply to Jozanny) I will now answer your previous:

I would be specially interested in knowing about your views on Grimm, because Grimm has close association (as you know) with the Encyclopaedists. And there is no doubt that the Jesuit links to the Encyclopaedists are real. In fact, Robespierre was a great supporter of Rousseau's 'Social Contract' (1762). And Robespierre was a Jesuit educated tyrant. As we all know. The links between the 'Enlightenment' and a Jesuit Order operating through fraternities are too huge to be dismissed.

"Grimm" did not just have "close associations" with the encycloaedists but was in full control of each and everyone of them (as their censor, protector and sponsor) and, furthermore, wrote himself the music related articles of the french encyclopaedia. As such he is the first "musicologist" on record, particularly in what concerns his "poem lyrique" (his definition of what is today known as "opera", ie the means to pass a clear message through music-not necessary anymore today, the "job" being done through other means, e.g. TV, "greed management" etc)

Neoclassicism was seen as a much better alternative to Rome's catholic dogma at the time and as such the "encyclopaedist movement" prevailed in Europe until 1791 excepting Austria who,1784-1815, returned to roman catholicism.

As head of France's Secret du Roi, "Grimm" associated with all fraternities, including Weishaupt's Illuminati. When the documents of this society came to light, 1784, he had to "kill" some of his aliases to protect himself. (That's how Mozart inherited "Gluck's" music archives through Salieri).

Following Napoleon's fall the Illuminati resurfaced (controlled by Great Britain) to replace the "enlightened monarchists" (encyclopaedists) of exhausted France and Prussia.
"They" took over control not just of music.

In this transfer of control "Jesuit" influence was minor and so was Rome's.

Musicology
09-17-2009, 11:14 AM
Yanni,

The history is very clear. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) witnessed the rise of a huge new policy within the Roman Catholic Church to roll back the effects of the Reformation. A 'counter reformation'. Why do you think Bach had to be eventually 'rediscovered' ??? Entrusted to manage this vast process of suppression and exaggeration was the newly created Jesuit Order. Who literally dominated academic continental Europe over the next century in schools and colleges. Nobody argues with that plain fact. Nor do they deny that the Jesuit Order were the confessors of kings and princes. Nor do they deny that they controlled censorship and book/music publishing, right across the Holy Roman Empire. And they were managers of culture and of popular piety. For example, they presided over the painting of churches, new statues etc. in Germany and in Bohemia etc. Their CONTROL was almost total. That's the plain fact of history. And it lasted right up until they were finally evicted from Portugal, France and later banned completely, by the papacy in Rome. This huge span of Jesuit domination was very real. I am not exaggerating it. The history of opera can be understood by realising that its pioneers (in Italy, in France and elsewhere) were none other than the Jesuit Order. That too is a plain fact. Who pioneered opera and popular theatre more than the Jesuits ?

This same Jesuit Order, being unable to reply to the writings of the Reformers (such as Luther) could only pretend they did not exist. Could only work on a cultural/educational level to block out history. (The Jesuits did NOT teach history in their schools, for example). Nor did they allow students to speak in their own native language. They controlled the import of all books. They were the corporate control of our times. And the complaints got louder and louder. Their system of education was useless. And within a century this was common knowledge.

This same Jesuit Order KNEW they were deeply unpopular, even with the Holy Roman Empire. Their new strategy evolved (and it really began around 1720) which was to merge themselves (behind the scenes, of course) with a new movement in the Holy Roman Empire towards secularisation. That is why the pioneers of the later 'Englightenment' were themselves closely associated with the Jesuit Order. Voltaire, for example. Diderot. And many, many others. At the time of the French Revolution the Jesuit educated tyrant Robespierre was a great admirer of the 'Englightenment' Encyclopaedists, as already said. Because they all came from the same origin. The 'Englightenment' was a carefully controlled NEW strategy of the Jesuit Order. Which emerged fully after 1773. But which was constructed/organised in the decades BEFORE 1773. Using France as a cultural base. The influence of French things was huge, culturally, by the time of Mozart's arrival in Vienna. Again, what of Beaumarchais ?

The differences were simple. The Jesuits now allied themselves with the occultists of Europe. Infliltrating the Freemasons etc. and of course through the Rosicrucians and other secularised fraternities. Of course it was a Jesuit university which manufactured the Illuminati. Through Weishaupt. The dean of that university (a Jesuit university) was the patron of Weishaupt himself.

By the 1780's, with the Jesuit Order now officially ended and gone underground the Illuminati now took their place. Exactly. It was they, the Illuminati, who now started to control publishing and opera, exactly as the Jesuits had done before 1773. Because one was a continuation of the other.

You refer to Baron Grimm. But Grimm came from Regensburg. It was to Regensburg that Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, fled. The links between the Jesuit Order (now underground after 1773) and the Illuminati are clear, obvious, unmistakable. By the time of Mozart's arrival in Vienna in 1781 the Illuminati now controlled virtually EVERY music publishing firm in Germany. They controlled the 'Reading Societies'. Some of the most major publishers of 'Mozart's' music were indisputably Illuminati. Let me name just a few of them. In Vienna was Artaria. In Bonn was Simrock. In Vienna was also Hoffmeister (himself an Illuminatist). And so on. All of these central to 'Mozart's' career.

And yes, Grimm in Paris, was closely allied to the Encyclopaedists. But the closer you study the Encyclopaedists the clearer it becomes of their own Jesuit links. Voltaire, as already said. And Diderot. In fact, Rousseau was educated by the Jesuits. Not to see these things is to ignore the 'secularisation' that was now the fashion in the late 18th century Holy Roman Empire. Napoleon was created from Jesuit Corsica and was brought to power by the conservatives of the Jesuit Order to punish the nations who had banned them (e.g. France and Portugal, later Italy and Germany). And the entire career of Napoleon Bonaparte was supported by the now underground Jesuit Order. An Order which was revived in 1814 ! Because that is what the Napoleonic period was created to do. To restore Jesuit influence.

So, at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 the 'Holy Roman Empire' ended. But in its place now came the restoration of the Jesuit Order. Now operating instead of through schools and universities through secular fraternities and through the occultist aristocracy of Europe. For their 'New World Order'. A marriage of 'church and state' now became a marriage of 'Jesuitical church and occultism'. The new strategy of the Jesuit Order.

It is impossible, I believe to examine the history of music and of the fakery that was involved in those times (fakery in the name of music and culture) without understanding the sheer scale of the 'network' that existed across the Holy Roman Empire to achieve these things.

Yes, Grimm was central to the Enyclopaedists. He was also the patron of Mozart in Paris in 1778. Again, proving beyond reasonable doubt that Mozart's career is one facet of the so-called 'Englightenment' movement. The occultic control of publishing, of musical performance, even of the music industry was soon almost total. And they 'the music industry' soon began writing the textbooks, an integral part of which is the myth of W.A. Mozart. So that within a few decades the lies and forgeries were accepted as 'facts'.

The manufacture of Mozart was an essential weapon in expanding the control of culture and music in Europe by these occultic fraternities. After all, Mozart was their own creation. And its cost has been to suppress the facts of history.

Certainly, I am very interested in your views on this person known as Grimm. It was the same Grimm who, after Paris arranged for Mozart to get the commission in Munich for the opera 'Idomeneo'. Another work Mozart did NOT compose. It was actually written FOR Mozart. (In fact, the March in Idomeneo was written by J.M. Kraus, still another Jesuit educated composer).

One of the main managers of the whole fraudulent career of Mozart was Abbe Georg Vogler. Now, there's a story, for sure !

Regards

yanni
09-18-2009, 01:36 AM
Musicology,

I'll only answer this exceptional "pearl" of yours:

The history of opera can be understood by realising that its pioneers (in Italy, in France and elsewhere) were none other than the Jesuit Order. That too is a plain fact. Who pioneered opera and popular theatre more than the Jesuits ?

Why, Florence, Venice and Naples of course, the very birth places of renaissance and neoclassicism and of the "Bourbons" and their later "pact" that started suppressing Jesuits as from 1750 (almost simultaneously to the beginnin of the "encyclopaedist" movement) until their final ban, 1773 (almost simultaneously with the Boston Tea Party.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14096a.htm

Musicology
09-18-2009, 05:42 AM
Have you heard of Count Durazzo of Italy ? The man who worked as a theatre manager in Vienna and the Venetian agent for the Austrian government ? The man who brought Andrea Luchesi to Bonn as its Kapellmeister in 1771 ? He was a principal agent of the Mozart phenomenon in Italy and in Vienna. It was all 'stage managed'.

Here is some music from 1771 by the Bohemian 'close friend' of the Mozart family Josef Myslivececk. Notice its remarkably 'Mozartean' style.

You refer to Venice. Yes, and on Mozart's arrival in Venice you see how he and his father slot into the occultist network (having been introduced in advance through the composer Hasse) to Abbe Ortes, the notorious occultist who wrote the first book on human population control. It was Abbe Ortes who met and spent days with the Mozart family there on their Venice visit.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ortes.htm

Josef Mysliveček (1737-1781)
Overture
'Il gran Tamerlano' (1771)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk

See also 'W.A. Mozart' by Abert (p.125) talking of the role of Ortes in the visit to Venice of the Mozarts.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l6I6BwTMJ3sC&pg=RA1-PA125&lpg=RA1-PA125&dq=ortes+hasse+mozart&source=bl&ots=POkDJRbLOJ&sig=j58JROJWLax9DEgHdAxbbK2WUs4&hl=en&ei=SFmzSqDgJ9KJ4gar3Kl8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=ortes%20hasse%20mozart&f=false

The music of Myslivececk, together with dozens of others such as Vanhal, Righini and others must be 'airbrushed' out of history. And have been ever since. So that Mozart is presented to us in a virtual 'vacuum'. We think, we believe, we 'know' Mozart's style. In fact, the music industry keep us away from the true origins of this music.

yanni
09-18-2009, 06:50 AM
I was quite specifically referring to your "hang it on the jesuits" fixation that led you to such a gross misinterpretation of the opera music origins.

BTW: Count Durazzo shares the same biography "mystery" (no info) with other personalities related to "Gluck", ie Cocchi-Rousseau-Grimm-Chastellux, ie Comte de Saint Germain. He may well be another alias.

Musicology
09-18-2009, 07:05 AM
I was quite specifically referring to your "hang it on the jesuits" fixation that led you to such a gross misinterpretation of the opera music origins.

BTW: Count Durazzo shares the same biography "mystery" (no info) with other personalities related to "Gluck", ie Cocchi-Rousseau-Grimm-Chastellux, ie Comte de Saint Germain. He may well be another alias.

I will make a special thread, Yanni, on the role of the Jesuit Order in early opera. Then readers can judge whether their huge role is a 'gross misinterpretation' of opera origins. I will quote from printed sources to show this is true beyond all doubt.

You now say Count Durazzo 'may well be another alias'. How many aliases do you believe in ? It seems the number of aliases is multiplying rapidly. So Gluck is Cocchini, Rousseau, Grimm, Compte de Saint Germain, and now Count Durazzo of Venice ?

Anyway, aliases are a factor. But you surely agree your scheme seems to be getting more complicated. Is that a fair comment ? Surely you should show us some evidence in support of this view ? What evidence have you that Count Durazzo is the same person as Rousseau ? Nothing is impossible. The issue is whether we can show evidence.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Durazzo -

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:EeIC3kQQXoAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Durazzo+count+durazzo&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Rousseau died in 1778. Durazzo died in 1794. For a start.

But since this thread is on the 'Manufacture of Mozart' it may be a good idea to make another thread ?

I certainly agree with you that by the mid-1780's the British were a focal point of the Illuminati. Since Britain had developed strong links with the occultists of Venice. For centuries. From 1773 onwards the Jesuit order were busy infiltrating occultist groups. That is why 'Freemasony' came from England. It's why the Illuminatists infiltrated these Freemasonic lodges, and is how they came to control publishing during the time of Weishaupt. The creation of the Bank of England would have been impossible without the role of the Venetian oligarchs. So, yes, certainly, this is correct. England became a centre of occultism through its mercantile empire. Funded and even supported by Venice. Casanova and others were agents of this process. So too Beaumarchais and many others. Cagliostrio another.

The occultism which emerged after 1773 finally infiltrated England itself. And yes, the monarchy and the systems of the elites in Europe merged around the time of the Congress of Vienna. There are therefore two different strands. The Holy Roman Empire merging with the British Empire around 1814. Both controlled by the Jesuit Order. And part of this process was the 'Enlightenment'. Since the Englightenment was as welcomed in England as it was elsewhere.

Here are just 3 of about 1,000 references which I have to the huge role of the Jesuit Order in early European opera -

The Jesuits were in plain fact pioneers in opera. They pioneered opera in Italy, France, Germany, and elsewhere. But Yannni wants us to believe differently. Here are just a few of the many published sources -

1. ‘It is nevertheless clear that the Jesuit contribution to music in the 17th century was not insignificant. These worthy fathers created the conditions for composite art forms to flourish, they developed taste and a demand, and in their early presentations they often anticipated later developments, creating mixed dramatic forms before they were seriously considered by more professional theatres.’

‘The Origins of French Opera’ in ‘The New Oxford History of Music’ (Volume 5) p. 200.

2. ‘The Jesuits were very alive to the propaganda advantages of these opera performances and some of their displays could seriously be said to have rivalled the splendour of court occasions. For the royal entry of the King of France into Lyons in 1622 the College de la Trinite composed ‘Pastorale sur les victories de la Pucelle d’Orleans’. Dunkirk in 1640 was the venue for a half play/ballet publishing the glories and the world wide achievements of the Jesuits. And the examples could easily be multiplied’.

(p. 200)


3. ‘Oratorio in Italy must be considered in conjunction with the ‘Counter Reformation’ which aimed at disseminating Roman Catholic doctrine in vivid and arresting ways. The Spanish ‘autos sacramentales’ religious plays performed each year on Corpus Christi Day provided the direct stimulus, as did the 17th century Jesuit dramas’ - (p.324)

In Rome the Jesuits were the major institution in the development of early opera. And so on. The same was true in Bohemia, in Portugal, in large parts of Germany. In France, etc. etc.

I really don't know why Yanni says this is wrong.

But this thread is on the 'Manufacture of Mozart'.

Regards

yanni
09-18-2009, 09:12 AM
I am less surprised by your choice to quote from those very same "sources" you previously labelled as distorted (or something similar, ie still controlled by those "forces" that manufactured Mozart) than by your apparent inability to distinguish between "Florence, Venice and Naples",originators of the poem lyrique ie melodrama ie "opera" (often enemies or in control of Rome as from the 16th century),and your allmighty Jesuits.

Having already revealed the links between-still much respected- jesuit father Nicolas Caussin (‘Pastorale sur les victories de la Pucelle d’Orleans’ ??), the Caccini, "Gluck" and Rossini (nr 2) I see no point in debating the subject further, sincerely expecting a stronger reply to your theory by italian musicologists.

For your information Wikipedia's "opera" does not, not once, include the word "Jesuit".

Musicology
09-18-2009, 10:45 AM
I am less surprised by your choice to quote from those very same "sources" you previously labelled as distorted (or something similar, ie still controlled by those "forces" that manufactured Mozart) than by your apparent inability to distinguish between "Florence, Venice and Naples",originators of the poem lyrique ie melodrama ie "opera" (often enemies or in control of Rome as from the 16th century),and your allmighty Jesuits.

Having already revealed the links between-still much respected- jesuit father Nicolas Caussin (‘Pastorale sur les victories de la Pucelle d’Orleans’ ??), the Caccini, "Gluck" and Rossini (nr 2) I see no point in debating the subject further, sincerely expecting a stronger reply to your theory by italian musicologists.

For your information Wikipedia's "opera" does not, not once, include the word "Jesuit".


My 'almighty' Jesuits do not exist ! The term is your own invention. The plain fact is the Jesuit Order were the chief developers of Opera. So says every major study ever made on the history of European opera. I can provide dozens of titles on that subject alone. Care for some ? In Italy, France, Bohemia, large areas of Germany, and in Austria from the time of the Council of Trent onwards. From the late 16th century, in fact. That same Order had been created only a few years before. They were able to manage operatic and stage performances across the entire Holy Roman Empire. As a vital part of a continuing 'counter reformation'. They were managers in the arts and culture. They also presided over the teaching of music in countless colleges and universities. For virtually 2 centuries. They absolutely controlled music publishing and performance. A fact confirmed by countless evidences.

I am unsure why you have difficulty accepting such facts of musical history - that the development of opera in Italy (including Rome) was due to the 'Counter Reformation' and was presided over by Jesuit colleges and Jesuit centres of learning all over continental Europe. Including Rome. And from there Vienna, Bohemia and elsewhere. For well over a century and a half.

There is really no 'debate'. There is only this thread on the manufacture of Mozart (a subject hardly being discussed by you) which is strangely punctuated by your theory that Rousseau was Gluck or vice-versa and that he was also another person, Count Durazzo, and various other people. For which we are still waiting for some supporting evidence. It's an interesting theory, for sure ! But now you tell us the Jesuit Order were not the pioneers of European opera ! Who then was more important than they in its development ? When, in fact, no organisation was more pioneering than themselves. What is this so difficult to accept ? I have further explained Jesuit involvement in music extended even beyond their ban in 1773, when they became associated (through occultist groups such as the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians and the emerging Illuminati) with music/opera/performance/publishing during the period called the 'Englightenment' and that by your own admission a major patron of Mozart, Baron Grimm, was hugely influential with the Encyclopaedists. And who were the Encyclopaedists if they were not Jesuit educated themselves ?

None of these things are difficult and if you want to debate the scale of the Jesuit promotion of opera in early Europe (or even after 1773) please make a thread and I promise to post articles demonstrating this beyond all reasonable doubt. As for Gluck, he came from Bohemia and was born on the estate of one of Mozart's principle patrons. Prince Lobkowitz. Whose father was himself an early patron of Mozart and whose son staged and 'edited' 'Mozart' operas for years after Mozart's death. Along with two composers, Wranitsky and Cartellieri.

Here is a fair introduction -
You might try this -

Music, History, and Ideas
By Hugo Leichtentritt

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4oLUYWTqsCsC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=jesuit+music&source=bl&ots=JwTLWSji0r&sig=M1SWC5623DC-5uCtP0u1QmJW6JI&hl=en&ei=vv6zSvrpNsGG4gaixvF8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=jesuit%20music&f=false


Regards

yanni
09-19-2009, 11:24 AM
Musicology,

“Opera” was first produced in Florence, late 16th century (see Wikipedia for:Florentine Camerata, Giovanni de' Bardi, Caccini,monody,chordal harmony
….a revolutionary departure from the polyphonic practice of the late Renaissance) to please and glorify -rather than chasten-the Medici. Soon after opera appears in Paris with Francesca Caccini (and possibly her father as well) in the all-sung stage works her father composed for the wedding of Henry IV of France and Maria de Medici in 1600. In 1604 when the entire Caccini family visited France, Henry praised her singing effusively—"you are the best singer in all of France"—and asked her to stay at his court;)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Caccini

Hence the contradictory doubletalk in your-moth infected?-references ….

It is nevertheless clear that the Jesuit contribution to music in the 17th century was not insignificant.

‘The Jesuits were very alive to the propaganda advantages of these opera performances and some of their displays could seriously be said to have rivalled the splendour of court occasions.

….supporting my theory (actually Wikipedia’s) rather than yours.


Having then presented evidence absolving Jesuits of post 1773 events as well and having pointed the finger to “The encyclopaedists” in general (and "sui generis" in particular), I see no reason to your subsequent asking….

But now you tell us the Jesuit Order were not the pioneers of European opera ! Who then was more important than they in its development ?

…other than an effort to introduce your next "explanation",a mix up all of “conspiring” fraternities in a soup (for reasons I dare not imagine!)

By titling your book “The manufacture of Mozart”-thus drawing your reader’s curiosity to the identity of the manufacturer rather than long exhausted “product Mozart”-you now need provide an explanation, don’t you think?

Musicology
09-20-2009, 04:37 PM
Musicology,

“Opera” was first produced in Florence, late 15th century (see Wikipedia for:Florentine Camerata, Giovanni de' Bardi, Caccini,monody,chordal harmony
….a revolutionary departure from the polyphonic practice of the late Renaissance) to please and glorify -rather than chasten-the Medici. Soon after opera appears in Paris with Francesca Caccini (and possibly her father as well) in the all-sung stage works her father composed for the wedding of Henry IV of France and Maria de Medici in 1600. In 1604 when the entire Caccini family visited France, Henry praised her singing effusively—"you are the best singer in all of France"—and asked her to stay at his court;)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Caccini

Hence the contradictory doubletalk in your-moth infected?-references ….

It is nevertheless clear that the Jesuit contribution to music in the 17th century was not insignificant.

‘The Jesuits were very alive to the propaganda advantages of these opera performances and some of their displays could seriously be said to have rivalled the splendour of court occasions.

….supporting my theory (actually Wikipedia’s) rather than yours.


Having then presented evidence absolving Jesuits of post 1773 events as well and having pointed the finger to “The encyclopaedists” in general (and "sui generis" in particular), I see no reason to your subsequent asking….

But now you tell us the Jesuit Order were not the pioneers of European opera ! Who then was more important than they in its development ?

…other than an effort to introduce your next "explanation",a mix up all of “conspiring” fraternities in a soup (for reasons I dare not imagine!)

By titling your book “The manufacture of Mozart”-thus drawing your reader’s curiosity to the identity of the manufacturer rather than long exhausted “product Mozart”-you now need provide an explanation, don’t you think?

Well, no, opera was NOT first produced in Italy in the 15th century. The ancient Greeks already had opera. Didn't they ? I am saying opera (as we know it) began around the time of the Council of Trent in the late 16th century and was, from the very outset, a valuable tool of musical propaganda for the Counter Reformation to roll back the great influence of the Reformation. Across the Holy Roman Empire. There are entire libraries of books on this subject of early opera around the time of the Counter Reformation that began at the Council of Trent. Why not spend a day confirming this for yourself ? Instead of doing a quick search of Wikipedia ?

Have you or any reader here seen/heard a 15th century opera recently ? Care to name one which is being performed at any of the opera houses of Europe or North America these days ? Just one. No ? Again, I am speaking of opera as we know it. The plain fact is the Jesuit Order, from the late 16th century onwards were pioneers in opera and in stage performances across the Holy Roman Empire. Amongst also becoming the schoolmasters of Europe in countless colleges and universities. If this is not true show us differently. As is proved by tons of evidence. Their sheer domination of counter-reformation art and culture in Germany and Austria is a plain, indisputable fact. It was the University of Vienna which was dominated by the Jesuit Order until well in to the 18th century, for a start - refusing to allow non-Catholics to study there. For a start. It was the Jesuit Order who arrived in Salzburg in 1729 with their 'shows' who were waging a Counter Reformation which led to the expulsion from Salzburg of 20,000 inhabitants there who refused to sign up to their programme. Such things are plain facts of European history. Mannheim was a city dominated by the musical regime of the Jesuits. Would you care to have a list of Jesuit educated composers who were influential in 18th century opera. Or, how about a list of Jesuit educated composers who worked in Vienna in the 18th century ? Again, you seem reluctant to accept plain facts.

You point to the period post 1773. But nobody was 'pioneering' opera beyond that year of 1773, were they ?

We are speaking here of the DEVELOPMENT of opera as we know it. An indisputably Jesuit affair in Italy, France, Catholic Germany, Bohemia, France and elsewhere. Which occurred before 1773. As everyone knows, except, perhaps, your goodself.

I note that you have still not started a thread on the development of early European opera. Despite me suggesting it twice. Shall I suggest it a third time ? I have already promised to contribute showing the scale of the Jesuit input in to that formative development. So, how about it ?

As for the 'Manufacture of Mozart' this tells the story of the large numbers of composers who collaborated in the creation of the Mozart myth. Both during his lifetime and posthumously. It's not so difficult to understand. Except, of course, if you wish to tell us that Rousseau was Grimm and about 3 other people at the same time.

The truth is that you are confused on this issue. In the case of Mozart, who was definitely only one person, lots of others contributed to making his status. I suggest that is the same solution. One man was not many people. In fact, many people made the reputation of Rousseau, Grimm and others. The same as happened in the case of Mozart. But you ARE going to show us they were one and the same person, aren't you ? So far, you haven't really shown us anything of the kind.

So, thanks, but my field is the history of music. And, with respect, the history of opera and Jesuit involvement in it is a subject you might profit from making a thread on. As already said 4 times.

As for Mozart, yes, I am happy to stay on the subject of his manufacture here on this thread.

Thanks for your conversation.

Regards

yanni
09-21-2009, 12:49 AM
Musicology,

It's quite clear that a "sine qua non" prerequisite is blocking our conversation.

The truth is that opera was "pioneered" by the reformists in Florence and "they" manufactured Mozart as well (The question "who took him out and why" will remain unanswered I fear)

As for "Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Cocchi, Saint Germain etc etc etc", my relative threads are open to all disbelievers.

My compliments.

Musicology
09-21-2009, 06:50 AM
Musicology,

It's quite clear that a "sine qua non" prerequisite is blocking our conversation.

The truth is that opera was "pioneered" by the reformists in Florence and "they" manufactured Mozart as well (The question "who took him out and why" will remain unanswered I fear)

As for "Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Cocchi, Saint Germain etc etc etc", my relative threads are open to all disbelievers.

My compliments.


There's really no 'block' to our conversation other than our ability/inability to deal with the title of the thread. Our conversation here is on 'The Manufacture of Mozart' (or should be). It's not on the history of European opera or the scale of the Jesuit Order's role in opera. Interesting as those subjects are. And yes, early opera existed before the formation of the Jesuit Order. But its greatest stimulus was undoubtedly the counter-reformation. Nor is this thread on the various aliases of Grimm/Rousseau/Gluck/Cocchi etc. - as interesting as all these subjects are also. Each would merit a thread and I would happily contribute to them as already said. But the subject of this thread is really its title.

The career of Mozart cannot be removed from the time in which he lived. That of the Holy Roman Empire. And of the prevailing ideas of his patrons and other vested interests of the time.

Mozart was the product of both the Holy Roman Empire and of a movement which emerged from it, known as the 'Enlightenment'. A musical Frankenstein. He undoubtedly emerged from the old 'status quo' of the Holy Roman Empire. The later movement known as the Englightenment came from within the conservative existing elites of those times. It was a movement which fused together different elements in the name of 'secularism' and it was patronised and invented by the same ruling classes of the European continent. Now joining with the occultists of Venice. Since the patrons of art in those days were these very elites. It also involved fraternity members of the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati and the whole machinery of propaganda in continental Europe and beyond over the decades which followed Mozart's death in late 1791. It merged occultism with conservatism and its products were exported, published and performed, often beyond the Holy Roman Empire. England is an obvious example. Mozart became the first 'globalist' composer. The creation by these globalists of a reputation which would soon come to dominate music, publishing and even the writings of textbooks on music history as we see today. Because the manufacture of Mozart is really based on a pack of lies, skillfully put together and hardly ever questioned in detail. Despite the fact that its contradictions are huge and even basic. That is why they virtually dominate our 'culture' today. The fact Mozart's musical reputation is based on the talents of many, many other composers is systematically marginalised or ignored altogether. This dumbing down process involves ignoring the lives and achievements of his own musical contemporaries. Who rarely get reference or acknowledgement. Mozart is idolised in a vacuum as a fantasy figure, transported away from the realities of his own time. So that the life, career and reputation of Mozart is rarely called in to serious question. And never has been. The 'consensus' view being that of the 'experts' who today preside over his myth. It's a vast industry. It's 'culture', so-called. The music industry cynically took over from musicology. And this was achieved by the early 19th century. As part of the dumbing down of society generally. So that we, today, read textbooks and we believe what we are reading of Mozart and his career is true. Supported, it seems, by a mass of documentary and other evidence. But, in fact, the documents are often blatantly biased, often fraudulent and plain wrong.

Mozart was not a musical genius. He was simply a stooge. Of no great talent. A musical Manchurian candidate. So says a fair and detailed study of the actual evidence. He was used and abused to achieve the takeover of music, performance, and of culture by the same people who worked to take over everything else. The fact that much of 'his' music is very fine is not disputed. What IS disputed is that he wrote it. He did not. It was supplied to him by others and was in many cases credited to him in the decades after his death. Not surprisingly, the many glowing reports of his talents come, almost wholly, from vested interests who were part of this scam. But they are contradicted by other facts. As for the manuscripts, these can be examined one by one. Many were copied in his own hand. Others forged. Still others manufactured later.

But judge for yourself by considering the evidence from both points of view. The history of music is truly as corrupted as any other area of human history. Within a few decades of the science of musicology having been established by men such as the German JN Forkel it had been eliminated, marginalised, almost ignored, by the rise of the music industry and its myths and fables. These focused on the Viennese trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

Certainly, Italy played a major role. Before, during and after Mozart's time. The Napoleonic period was highly supportive of the Mozart myth. Italian opera was almost completely wrecked by it. So too orchestral music from Italy of the 19th century. Asioli and others were involved in this. So too Salieri. And many others. It's not a nationalist issue. It's globalism and the propaganda of the globalist elites.

yanni
09-23-2009, 01:02 AM
Musicology,

As I said, your book will not be true to its title if you do not reveal the identity of the "manufacturer": Mozart cannot be separated from the preceeding historical events and cultural (music included) developments leading to his "creation".

This leads to Gluck's "modern" music, to Grimm's "correspondence litteraire" on music definition and criticism , to Rousseau's social theories, to Chastellux, Dixmerie, Raynal, Graslin, P.M.Hennin etc, to the Encyclopedists and, ultimately, to the man behind "IT ALL" (and "them" all), comte de Saint Germain, ie Gioachino Cocchi, (son (?)of Antonio Cocchi, friend of Isaac Newton), Goethe's "Faustus".

Having already defined him as the force majeure of his time, I understand any reluctance to "judge" him as he really was, remove the veil of the "unknown prophet", see the man behind the opera phantom's mask.

I was simply hoping that through your Mozart research the hardest to explain part of my hero's life (1787-1814) and character could be better explained.

Moreover:

The Holy Roman Empire was "back stage" post 1773: Main actors in early globalism were England, France, Prussia and Russia.....and their bankers.

Musicology
09-23-2009, 06:48 AM
Musicology,

As I said, your book will not be true to its title if you do not reveal the identity of the "manufacturer": Mozart cannot be separated from the preceeding historical events and cultural (music included) developments leading to his "creation".

This leads to Gluck's "modern" music, to Grimm's "correspondence litteraire" on music definition and criticism , to Rousseau's social theories, to Chastellux, Dixmerie, Raynal, Graslin, P.M.Hennin etc, to the Encyclopedists and, ultimately, to the man behind "IT ALL" (and "them" all), comte de Saint Germain, ie Gioachino Cocchi, (son (?)of Antonio Cocchi, friend of Isaac Newton), Goethe's "Faustus".

Having already defined him as the force majeure of his time, I understand any reluctance to "judge" him as he really was, remove the veil of the "unknown prophet", see the man behind the opera phantom's mask.

I was simply hoping that through your Mozart research the hardest to explain part of my hero's life (1787-1814) and character could be better explained.

Moreover:

The Holy Roman Empire was "back stage" post 1773: Main actors in early globalism where England, France, Prussia and Russia.....and their bankers.


Yes, Yanni,

I agree the 'Holy Roman Empire' was back stage post 1773. Which is precisely what I've been arguing from the start. 1773 changed everything. But the forces which led to that change were slow and deliberate. They were in motion long before Cocchi or Mozart were born. In fact, the Holy Roman Empire disappears from the radar screen at the Congress of Vienna around 1814 just as the Jesuit Order disappears from the radar screen in 1773 and re-emerges at the same time as the Holy Roman Empire disappears.

The period 1773-1814 sees the 'enlightenment' philosophy in full bloom. And during those decades we see the fusion between different fraternities such as the Roscicrucians, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, etc. including of course the Illluminati (who emerged from the Jesuits) and moves towards early globalism. After 1814 the power of monarchies and elite families becomes ever more obvious in human history.

As for revealing the names of those whose music became that of 'Mozart' I've already indicated various names of composers, such as Myslivececk, Vanhal, Luchesi, Cartellieri, Wranitsky, Maria Theresia von Paradis, and numerous others including Cocchi. But the main thing to be established here is not who manufactured the music of Mozart but to show it was manufactured in the first place. Which I can already do. And then to show how it was done. Including, of course, naming names. Beyond fair and reasonable doubt the Mozart story is one of a network of fraternities which existed widely across continental Europe and beyond before Mozart's time of birth. An elitist group who, by the early 19th century had even taken charge of music publishing, musicology (so-called) and who could and did spread the cult of Mozart very widely. To the point where it started to dominate in textbooks and in the wider society. The Cocchi subject is one in which we are both interested and it would be good if we could continue to exchange views on that.

Regards

yanni
09-30-2009, 01:08 AM
"The Cocchi subject is one in which we are both interested and it would be good if we could continue to exchange views on that. "

Indeed but until then (until italian researchers do decide to uncover Gioachino Cocchi's true biography-including his family link to "first italian mason" Dr Antonio Cocchi, a friend of Isaac Newton, Horace Walpole etc etc- until my research on his multiple identities is proven wrong and until french historians decide to do away with their myths on Saint Germain, Rousseau, Grimm etc, until encyclopedias become Encyclopedias etc etc etc) the theory that Jesuits, post 1814, remained in control of "things", better be avoided.

It reads totally wrong to the average reader already and will propably harm your book (unless ofcourse you'll have it produced as a "creative art piece").

I strongly recommend you read on "enlightment" and today prevailing economic philosophy-laissez faire

(There are many sites such as http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/PROGRESS.HTM)

Best of luck anyway.

Musicology
09-30-2009, 05:36 PM
Since the Jesuit Order was created to lead the counter-Reformation, and since it, within 100 years, virtually dominated schools and colleges across continental Europe for almost 200 years, and since Jesuits were the confessors of kings, emperors, rulers and powerful rulers, and since Jesuits were in charge of all censorship, and all publication of books, since they managed arts and culture widely across the Holy Roman Empire before 1773 and since they, the Jesuits infiltrated England through earlier fraternities such as the Rosicrucians, and since they were involved in almost every intrigue possible (in America, South America and as far away as Asia) up until the time that the leaders of Europe finally got rid of them (including the Pope himself in 1773, though only temporarily) I feel entitled to say the 'counter-reformation' did not end in 1773 but simply went underground. Soon controlling Freemasonry and many other fraternities, and from which came the Illuminati. At the very time when they were officially banned themselves. These things are now so well documented that if 10,000 proofs of association of Jesuit intrigue at high level in government, banking, commerce, academia and the arts were provided you might still not see them.

These same Jesuits (despite being 'eternally banned') supported Napoleon from the start and they were restored in 1814, against even their 'eternal' ban from Rome ! Now, if that is not proof of their massive power and influence I do not know what power and influence means !!

Today Jesuit influence is even more massive in politics, the media, the academic world and beyond. They were intimately associated with the move towards a 'New World Order'. And still are. Such are the plain facts as countless sources confirm. Here is just one website dealing with some of their activities. And there are dozens. The immense power and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church in the intelligence community of the USA, the UK and many other nations is not even disputed. There is no 'conspiracy' more obvious and more easy to deny than that which is indisputable. Nor does anyone dispute that the Treaty of Rome, the EU, and the phenomenal wealth of the Vatican is a major factor in our modern times, internationally. That Jesuit universities and colleges provide some of the major politicians in the modern world and that their influence is enormous, almost without equal in the mass media.

All of these things are so plain, so indisputable, so much confirmed by history and are all derived from their influence during the 18th century and even before that time. I think the issue here is why Yanni finds it so hard to acknowledge these facts of plain history. How many leaders of the CIA, government, other intelligence agencies etc, need to be related to the Knights of Columbus, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and the Jesuit Order (who merged them under Weishaupt) that what is obvious may, in fact, not be obvious at all.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/


Regards

yanni
10-01-2009, 01:49 AM
How many leaders of the CIA, government, other intelligence agencies etc, need to be related to the Knights of Columbus, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and the Jesuit Order (who merged them under Weishaupt) that what is obvious may, in fact, not be obvious at all.

Now, if that's not convincing argument, I don't know what is!

Strain yourself no further, Musicology, I had enough!

Cheers.

VidaLoca
10-01-2009, 04:12 AM
Today Jesuit influence is even more massive in politics, the media, the academic world and beyond. They were intimately associated with the move towards a 'New World Order'. And still are. Such are the plain facts as countless sources confirm. Here is just one website dealing with some of their activities. And there are dozens. The immense power and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church in the intelligence community of the USA, the UK and many other nations is not even disputed. There is no 'conspiracy' more obvious and more easy to deny than that which is indisputable. Nor does anyone dispute that the Treaty of Rome, the EU, and the phenomenal wealth of the Vatican is a major factor in our modern times, internationally. That Jesuit universities and colleges provide some of the major politicians in the modern world and that their influence is enormous, almost without equal in the mass media.


Hmm..I suspect you are a member of this organization and with this you try to get some atention.

Musicology
10-01-2009, 04:28 PM
Hmm..I suspect you are a member of this organization and with this you try to get some atention.

And I suspect you are a member of this organisation yourself and with this you try to get some attention.

If I'm a member of this organisation would I be showing evidence of its collusion, it's massive influence within the cultural world (and other areas of human history) if my first loyalty is to defend them and to hide the facts of their involvement from view ? !!!

The links are so massive, so indisputable that they cannot be invented. They can only be buried, suppressed and denied. And that's pointless because the facts remain the facts.

I do not see the logic of your argument.

Regards


How many leaders of the CIA, government, other intelligence agencies etc, need to be related to the Knights of Columbus, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and the Jesuit Order (who merged them under Weishaupt) that what is obvious may, in fact, not be obvious at all.

Now, if that's not convincing argument, I don't know what is!

Strain yourself no further, Musicology, I had enough!

Cheers.

You are right ! You've had enough. Some facts are as clear as the sun in the sky. They are ignored and remain meaningless if we stay inside hiding daylight by closing our curtains. In the case of the Jesuit Order (an order which, even today, runs dozens of universities and colleges in the USA alone), and whose history is routinely off the radar screen (so to speak) that we must ask why. A veil descends. It's almost as if we choose not to know. There is, as you say, nothing further to say except to hope you will at some point accomodate inconvenient history within your thinking.

We do not live in an age of conspiracy but in one which allows us to expose, to reveal, to declare in the light of day what has become obvious and plain and which has been for so very long systematically and even dogmatically suppressed.


Regards

yanni
10-02-2009, 04:54 AM
Michael Jackson's movie "This Is It" will have simultaneous premieres in more than 15 cities around the world this month.

(Did some research in the meantime: The "Jesuit link" may be noticed in Kenny Ortega's early association with irish-Romancatholic born Gene Kelly.)

yanni
10-05-2009, 02:29 AM
Myslivecek is therefore celebrating a sort of modern premiere outside his native land in Magdalena latest album. And that's saying something: the Bohemian composer who lived in Italy, and whose music stands clearly between Gluck and Mozart, could hardly have wished for a more committed advocate than the Czech mezzo. "With all their italianità, one hears Slavic echoes in his melodies. At a time when most composers wrote à la mode, that lent him a special distinction and earned him the nickname Il divino boemo." And that is just how he sounds - divine, with a hint of Bohemia about him. "But in comparison with the other two composers on the new album - Gluck and Mozart - he naturally has the most traditional style," the singer concedes, "although, like the other two, he made a real contribution to the reform of Baroque opera."

Is "Magdalena" a romancatholic name? :santasmil

yanni
10-06-2009, 06:35 AM
...and yet another question, rhetoric as well in the meantime, must be raised:

Who was really this strange bohemian, Muslivecek,who had such an influence on young Amedeo during his stay in Munich, late 1777?

Quoting Wikipedia (Myslivecek):

In a letter to his father Leopold written from Munich on October 11, 1777, Mozart described his character as "full of fire, spirit and life." According to the same letter an incompetent surgeon burned off Mysliveček's nose while trying to treat a mysterious illness. A letter of Leopold Mozart to his son of October 1, 1777, refers to the illness as something shameful for which Mysliveček was deserving of social ostracism.
In the entire Mozart correspondence, no individual outside the Mozart family was ever the cause for so much outpouring of emotion as what is found in Wolfgang's letter of 11 October 1777.
Mysliveček never married and no names of lovers are recorded. Reports of romantic liaisons with the singers Caterina Gabrielli and Lucrezia Aguiari do not pre-date the publication of the fifth edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954). During the period of his activity as a composer of operas (1766-1780), Mysliveček succeeded in having more new opere serie brought into production than any other composer in Europe. Mysliveček and Gluck were the first composers raised in the Czech lands to become famous as operatic composers, but their operatic output exhibits few, if any, Czech characteristics. Mysliveček's operas were very much rooted in a style of Italian opera seria that prized above all the vocal artistry to be found in elaborate arias .

For an earlier version of Myslicevek's mysterious illness, see "Mozart: A Cultural Biography By Robert W. Gutman": Amadeo met the composer (a devoted jesuit no doubt), allegedly suffering from a venereal decease that had disfigured his face, in the garden of a Munich hospital. The source does not care to address the highly controversial issue of the "disabled czech's" enormous -as above and more-influence on young Mozart.

:angel:

Musicology
10-08-2009, 05:03 PM
...and yet another question, rhetoric as well in the meantime, must be raised:

Who was really this strange bohemian, Muslivecek,who had such an influence on young Amedeo during his stay in Munich, late 1777?

Quoting Wikipedia (Myslivecek):

In a letter to his father Leopold written from Munich on October 11, 1777, Mozart described his character as "full of fire, spirit and life." According to the same letter an incompetent surgeon burned off Mysliveček's nose while trying to treat a mysterious illness. A letter of Leopold Mozart to his son of October 1, 1777, refers to the illness as something shameful for which Mysliveček was deserving of social ostracism.
In the entire Mozart correspondence, no individual outside the Mozart family was ever the cause for so much outpouring of emotion as what is found in Wolfgang's letter of 11 October 1777.
Mysliveček never married and no names of lovers are recorded. Reports of romantic liaisons with the singers Caterina Gabrielli and Lucrezia Aguiari do not pre-date the publication of the fifth edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954). During the period of his activity as a composer of operas (1766-1780), Mysliveček succeeded in having more new opere serie brought into production than any other composer in Europe. Mysliveček and Gluck were the first composers raised in the Czech lands to become famous as operatic composers, but their operatic output exhibits few, if any, Czech characteristics. Mysliveček's operas were very much rooted in a style of Italian opera seria that prized above all the vocal artistry to be found in elaborate arias .

For an earlier version of Myslicevek's mysterious illness, see "Mozart: A Cultural Biography By Robert W. Gutman": Amadeo met the composer (a devoted jesuit no doubt), allegedly suffering from a venereal decease that had disfigured his face, in the garden of a Munich hospital. The source does not care to address the highly controversial issue of the "disabled czech's" enormous -as above and more-influence on young Mozart.

:angel:

Yanni,

I don't know how much of 'Mozart's' music you know. Listen to this from 1771. It's indisputably the style we associate with Mozart. And it was written while Mozart had written NOTHING of this quality himself.

Josef Myslivececk
Operatic Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
Italy
1771


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk

Furthermore, the name of Myslivececk is mentioned more times in the Mozart family correspondence than ANY OTHER COMPOSER !

Finally, read any version of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. It will tell you (in the article on Myslivececk) that MANY works of Myslicececk are suspected as having been written for Mozart by Myslivececk. In fact, you will see in the footnotes the name of a Myslivececk biographer who says this himself ! Dozens and dozens of works. All part of the great scam, the great deception that is 'Mozart'. In fact, the number of works published in 'Mozart's' name that were later acknowledged to be by Josef Myslivececk is an issue also.

Is that enough ? Or shall we continue with living in fairyland ?

p.s. You might also read the notes on the Youtube address above. The debt of Mozart to Myslivecek is so plain that anyone honest can admit it. This IS the origin of much of 'his' music. And I know dozens of examples.

Here are the published comments to the above piece on Youtube -

Great composer! Myslievecek was the most prolific composer of opera seria in Europa (in his time). This opera seria was first performed on 26 December 1771 at the Teatro Regio Ducale in Milan. Undoubtedly Mozart in the 1770s adopted Myslivecek's stylilistic models (for example in his opera ''Mitridate, Re di Ponto'').

KingofNoldors (8 months ago) Myslivecek is a genius! I don't know why his music is fallen into obscurity for almost two century. And I've the suspect that Mozart could be copied something by the composition of the Divin Boemo.

Thrax1982 (8 months ago) No doubt he did, but in 18th century it was more of a compliment than a grave injury as it is seen today. I imagine that vast majority of composers of the era engaged in this sort of copying and borrowing to some extent.

KingofNoldors (8 months ago) Yes, you're right. Copyright doesn't exist in 18th century, and arrangement of a composition by another musicist it's not a shame. However I think that part of Mozart's genuis is due to the capital importance of other compositors, like the great Myslivecek.

egapnala65 (8 months ago) I'm waiting for somebody to post the "Aria in Dis", the main theme of which was used by Mozart as the main theme of one of his Flute Concertos. It even has a Horn obligato.

kirschhofbarokni (8 months ago) Show Hide - Yes, you're right, and I've read something that Mozart loved music of Hasse, and that it had some influence on him as well, but I remember from books, when Mozart said, that Italian opera of Hasse is all the same, only Myslivecek s the good one

kirschhofbarokni (8 months ago) Could you give me more information about the CD and especialy the interprets? I am interested in it very much.
Thrax1982 - I don't know anything abot any cd (it's likely some old radio broadcast), from the info I've managed to gather on the internet the opera was performed in Czech with castrato parts transposed to tenors and basses.
egapnala65 Incidentally the opening of Mozart's 21st Piano Concerto appears in the finale. Interesting eh?

egapnala65 (9 months ago) To think he has been stashed away in obscurity whilst the world has been in thrall to the later, inferior, overtures of Mozart.

yanni
10-09-2009, 01:07 AM
Having jointly sailed past your "jesuit reef", Musicology, I was hoping we would be focusing next on Mozart's "manufacturer", hence my last two rhetoric questions (the first of which btw is purposely "the wrong question", a distraction!) on Musli-vecek (to honour his swiss links).

BTW Tamerlano was first performed not just anywhere in Italy, 1771, but in "Teatro Ducale"*, Milano on the 26th December of the year.
The same date marks the alleged death of "Claude Adrien Helvétius"- (December 26, 1771) founder of "La loge des "Neuf Soeurs....la fille posthume d'Helvétius"

For your information "Myslivecek" was just another alias of "Gluck-Helvetius" (...and "his", per above post, horns introduction was patented by Gluck if I rightly remember)!

Now please answer my first- "wrong"- question rightly!


*On 15 October 1771 Austrian duke Ferdinand married Maria Beatrice Ricciarda d'Este. Festivities arranged for this occasion also included the operas Ascanio in Alba by Mozart(??) and Il Ruggiero by Johann Adolph Hasse.

isidro
10-09-2009, 01:41 AM
One may believe this conjecture my dearest musicology and I have to give you kudos for your remarkable amount of research. But can it not be that Mozart was manufactured by his circumstances and historical context no more than you and I are in ours? Surely he was subject to the cultural histories and idiosincracies that surrounded his circumstances, but can that conclusively prove that he himself did not at all create the music for which he is credited? Yes, they may have nods and threads to past historical events, religious circumstances and the like. But that is what makes up the human psyche, consciously or subconsciously and to a great degree makes us who we are. If his mind did not take all these things together and create musical masterworks from them, then who is to say that you did not come up with these conclusions but that they were planted in your mind by those who did research before? It seems like a psychological certainty that Mozart indeed did write his own texts though of course like the rest of us drew off of those masters that came before him, whose music he heard often in his own upbringing and training and which solidified into his subconscious.

While he may have repeated subconsciously or even consciously some of these it proves only that he is in fact a human being like the rest of us and was forged by the experiences and opportunities afforded him. No?

Musicology
10-09-2009, 03:59 PM
Having jointly sailed past your "jesuit reef", Musicology, I was hoping we would be focusing next on Mozart's "manufacturer", hence my last two rhetoric questions (the first of which btw is purposely "the wrong question", a distraction!) on Musli-vecek (to honour his swiss links).

BTW Tamerlano was first performed not just anywhere in Italy, 1771, but in "Teatro Ducale"*, Milano on the 26th December of the year.
The same date marks the alleged death of "Claude Adrien Helvétius"- (December 26, 1771) founder of "La loge des "Neuf Soeurs....la fille posthume d'Helvétius"

For your information "Myslivecek" was just another alias of "Gluck-Helvetius" (...and "his", per above post, horns introduction was patented by Gluck if I rightly remember)!

Now please answer my first- "wrong"- question rightly!


*On 15 October 1771 Austrian duke Ferdinand married Maria Beatrice Ricciarda d'Este. Festivities arranged for this occasion also included the operas Ascanio in Alba by Mozart(??) and Il Ruggiero by Johann Adolph Hasse.


Yanni,

The subject under discussion is Josef Myslivececk. A person whom you have now decided is yet another alias.

I don't mind playing 'join up the dots' but you are so busy making dots readers must wonder if you have any lines to offer ?


Regards

Musicology
10-09-2009, 04:37 PM
One may believe this conjecture my dearest musicology and I have to give you kudos for your remarkable amount of research. But can it not be that Mozart was manufactured by his circumstances and historical context no more than you and I are in ours? Surely he was subject to the cultural histories and idiosincracies that surrounded his circumstances, but can that conclusively prove that he himself did not at all create the music for which he is credited? Yes, they may have nods and threads to past historical events, religious circumstances and the like. But that is what makes up the human psyche, consciously or subconsciously and to a great degree makes us who we are. If his mind did not take all these things together and create musical masterworks from them, then who is to say that you did not come up with these conclusions but that they were planted in your mind by those who did research before? It seems like a psychological certainty that Mozart indeed did write his own texts though of course like the rest of us drew off of those masters that came before him, whose music he heard often in his own upbringing and training and which solidified into his subconscious.

While he may have repeated subconsciously or even consciously some of these it proves only that he is in fact a human being like the rest of us and was forged by the experiences and opportunities afforded him. No?

Hi there Isidro,


The blind virtuoso pianist and composer, Theresia von Paradis (1759-1824). A Rondo for Piano and Orchestra. Falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart for almost 200 years. Like all the rest. Composer of almost 24 piano concertos (all stolen, all lost). One of the greatest pianists of the 18th century who toured for many years in Europe and was celebrated in Vienna, Paris and London. A woman who, shortly before her death in 1824 said to a friend -

'And do you suppose that I, a woman, would be believed, or that my music would survive, in some form when... But what point is there to dwell on the subject of its loss ? It is not lost - it survives - and you may always hear it'.

So it proves to be. She, (von Paradis) had a major part to play in the creation of 'Mozart's' piano concertos. One of the principal parts, in fact. Along with several others whose names are hardly known.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAyR-Soe4Ac

Regards

Robert (Newman)

yanni
10-10-2009, 01:13 AM
Be a true sport, Musicology, and please answer my rhetoric question #1.

As for "losing the reader":

I was not the one who tried to hang it on the jesuits, neither did I "ommit" Gluck* from my list of bohemian composers, the "little prophet from Bohemia", so "close" to "Jesuits" Holbach(Gluck's mysterious Paris publisher alias, whose "System de la Nature" is often attributed to elder Mirabeau) and Rousseau!

Did you know that Musli-vecek had a twin brother?

Cheers!

*Or was it "Grimm" (who also played the harpsichord, see "Rousseau's" Confessions)?

Musicology
10-10-2009, 05:20 AM
I enjoy listening to classical music, but freely admit I am not a student of the genre, and after reading all this nonsense, I am glad that I do not try to study everything.


Jozanny,

I'm glad you don't also ! With an attitude like yours classical music is the only field of human study that escaped corruption, falsehood, icon builders, hype and downright fiction.

Dream on !

All the best.

Musicology
10-10-2009, 05:33 AM
Be a true sport, Musicology, and please answer my rhetoric question #1.

As for "losing the reader":

I was not the one who tried to hang it on the jesuits, neither did I "ommit" Gluck from my list of bohemian composers, the "little prophet from Bohemia", so "close" to "Jesuits" Holbach(Gluck's mysterious Paris publisher alias, whose "System de la Nature" is often attributed to elder Mirabeau) and Rousseau!

Did you know that Musli-vecek had a twin brother?

Cheers!

Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known. You seem to agree with this. That Mozart was not a 'genius'. At any time.

Yes, Myslivececk had a twin brother. I won't mention that Myslivececk was educated by the Jesuits :eek2: In Prague - the same place where, after Mozart's death, hundreds of works nobody had ever heard of began to be published in 'Mozart's' name. (This took years to achieve. The selection process required a whole group of editors, music publishers and others). It took forgery, theft, invention, and even the writing of bogus biographies.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people. During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts, the careers of many others who are hardly known. This was achieved because the entire music industry was controlled. By the Jesuits and their supporters. Both before 1773 and after it. It involved the supply of music to an organisation who eventually published it in the name of Mozart. Whose story is almost unknown.

The story we have of Mozart's career is of course fiction. But fiction so persistant and so rarely cross-examined that it virtually controls textbooks on music history.

The music itself is often beautiful. That's why it became 'his'. But its story is that of the labours of people whose names (for different reasons) are today little known. Hidden by the 'music industry' and by the 'experts'.

What they wanted was control. Control of the music industry. Control of what is believed and taught. Control of Mozart's life and career at every stage. Even at the expense of reality itself. And they did it. By dominating the field of music publishing, books on music history, and musical performance. So the myth became 'history' and the truth was thrown in the trash. Easier to control a musical icon from Salzburg than to tell the real story of dozens of people.

Now, if people say you are not 'cultured', that you have not studied (and idolised) the music of W.A. Mozart, you can smile.

Why ! Any child who plays the piano these days is described as 'the next Mozart'. There are organisations who believe listening to Mozart increases your I.Q. and those of unborn babies. There are a thousand Korean Mozart wannabeees on Youtube who can play a sonata on the piano. This is 'proof' they are 'geniuses'. The industry loves such hype. It's like those pilgrimages of mediaeval times. Where the icon is carried around like the clay idols of Babylon.

In the late 18th century the founder of the science of musicology, a German named J.N. Forkel, was hated. Why ? Because he taught that the music really worthy of appreciation was not popular but was music that was of use to students of music. In all ages. Including the wonderful and ignored works of J.S. Bach. He warned that commerce was soon going to produce ignorance.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach. Why not ? Because their 'education' so-called, was built on heroic myths. He (Bach) had to be 'rediscovered' by them in the 19th century. It's laughable. The most wonderful master of harmony. God's answer to musical hyperbole. A man whose music was hardly known and who had even been ignored by most of his own generation. Who lived only to serve others. Unapplauded and yet sublime.

But that's what happens when an industry dominates what we believe and want to believe.


J.S. Bach
Cantata 140
Opening Movement

(Miraculous harmony and invention)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC35GS88OqA

and -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE3vIONoYWc

- DITTO -


Thanks

yanni
10-10-2009, 10:57 AM
"Yes, Myslivececk had a twin brother."

So says Wikipedia but we both agree that the "manufacturing the truth" process-still at work-may well include Musli-vecek/Gluck/Rousseau/Grimm etc who had every reason to invent another convenient replica just in case.

"It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts, the careers of many others who are hardly known. This was achieved because the entire music industry was controlled. By the Jesuits and their supporters. Both before 1773 and after it."

You are jumping to hasty and illogical conclusions again to prove what exactly?

That the countereformists (Jesuits) created the reformists (in philosophy and art, including music) to keep on ruling the globe?

I suppose that's why Deutsche Grammophone (jesuits disguised as lutheran reformists perhaps?) are financing Magdalena's "Beauty of Transformation" favouring Mozart instead of his manufacturer (and top "transformer", Gluck/Muslicevek etc etc, the man with the thousand faces), huh?

http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/special/insighttext.htms?ID=kozena-arias&DETAIL=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_Ko%C5%BEen%C3%A1

Not so, my dear Watson.

(and the same goes for you, dear Magdalena "K": There is no beauty in "our" particular "transformation", just a pile of lies!)

stlukesguild
10-10-2009, 11:03 AM
This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known.

Please use the appropriate terms. This thread is built upon the THEORY (the FICTION or the FANTASY) accepted and promoted by virtually no one but yourself that Mozart's music was fabricated as part of some grandiose conspiracy ala Foucault's Pendulum or more appropriately, a Dan Brown novel. The "facts" that you post here can undoubtedly be easily discredited by any true musicologist which is one reason that you have chosen to promote at a literature site where you might be reasonably assured that the majority lack the ability to challenge your assertions. The other reasons for your postings are a promotion of your proposed book on this very topic (Spam?) and the fact you have been banned from virtually all music discussion boards.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people.

To what purpose? You propose some vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people and unquestionably a fortune... to what end? To simply establish a Viennese or German musical genius? To steal musical dominance away from the Italians (as if Bach, Telemann, Gluck, and others had not already achieved this). And how was this achieved? To control the music industry? As if that were a goal worthy of such efforts at that point in history.
And this was achieved through the combined efforts of some consortium of composers who miraculously had the ability to compose a body of work for Mozart and for Haydn that maintained a continuity and yet were distinct from each other. And this consortium was brilliant enough to create a body of music that clearly conveyed the development of the individual "fictive" composers from early immaturity to later profundity. Yet today... in Hollywood we have a collection of artists, film-makers, composers, etc... unlike anything the 18th century might have imagined... and yet... in most instances... they are unable to produce anything approaching the artistic brilliance of Mozart?

During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts...

If you were truly able to PROVE this, you would have already achieved the greatest breakthrough in the history of musicology and your proofs would have already be commonly discussed among musicians, music historians, etc... But of course you argue there is some great conspiracy still at work to suppress the facts. It makes for an unassailable position: You assert that a great part of what we know of musical history was completely fabricated as part of some vast conspiracy of which only you know the truth and then claim that the same grand conspiracy is still at work to suppress your facts from being accepted. In some camps this might be called delusional.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach.

You have stated this falsehood again and again. Mozart, himself composed several transcriptions of Bach's works, including that of Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II of the Well Tempered Clavier. Exposure to Bach (as well as Haydn) inspired Mozart's later efforts in the string quartets and can be especially seen in the fugal structure of the final section of the "Jupiter" symphony. Haydn was also knowledgeable and appreciative of Bach... although he was more influenced early on by the work of his son C.P.E. Bach. The reality is that baroque music in general became largely ignored during to "classical" period. Handel and Vivaldi were equally seen as "outdated". Indeed, Handel's operas (and most baroque operas in general) are only now receiving the sort of attention they deserve, while Vivaldi is now receiving the attention as a result of the current recordings of a vast cache of scores long housed away. The current situation in classical music in which we have access via recordings to a vast array of music from the present back through the middle-ages and beyond... and in which orchestras and operas focus a great deal of their repertoire upon the works of older composers is not the same situation as that of centuries past.

Of course... I may have taken it all wrong... you may be proposing a great fiction... in which this is all perfectly suited to a literature site. Of course nothing you have yet proposed suggests anything more than a variation on the DaVinci Codee. You might wish to read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum... the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories.

yanni
10-10-2009, 11:55 AM
Read Marilyn_M_Barnewall's "Big Boys and Their Synthetic Political and Financial Toys", StLuke:

As "no true musicologist", she leaves out of her "conspiracy theory" the arts alltogether.

But she does include everything else!

Cheers!

virtually no one

Gilliatt Gurgle
10-10-2009, 01:46 PM
In the name of all that's holy! Is this horse not sufficiently dead? This meciless beating is too much for mine eyes the bear. Let us all come together and accept the truth about the "day the music died" in Mexico City.

Musicology
10-10-2009, 03:15 PM
This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known.

Please use the appropriate terms. This thread is built upon the THEORY (the FICTION or the FANTASY) accepted and promoted by virtually no one but yourself that Mozart's music was fabricated as part of some grandiose conspiracy ala Foucault's Pendulum or more appropriately, a Dan Brown novel. The "facts" that you post here can undoubtedly be easily discredited by any true musicologist which is one reason that you have chosen to promote at a literature site where you might be reasonably assured that the majority lack the ability to challenge your assertions. The other reasons for your postings are a promotion of your proposed book on this very topic (Spam?) and the fact you have been banned from virtually all music discussion boards.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people.

To what purpose? You propose some vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people and unquestionably a fortune... to what end? To simply establish a Viennese or German musical genius? To steal musical dominance away from the Italians (as if Bach, Telemann, Gluck, and others had not already achieved this). And how was this achieved? To control the music industry? As if that were a goal worthy of such efforts at that point in history.
And this was achieved through the combined efforts of some consortium of composers who miraculously had the ability to compose a body of work for Mozart and for Haydn that maintained a continuity and yet were distinct from each other. And this consortium was brilliant enough to create a body of music that clearly conveyed the development of the individual "fictive" composers from early immaturity to later profundity. Yet today... in Hollywood we have a collection of artists, film-makers, composers, etc... unlike anything the 18th century might have imagined... and yet... in most instances... they are unable to produce anything approaching the artistic brilliance of Mozart?

During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts...

If you were truly able to PROVE this, you would have already achieved the greatest breakthrough in the history of musicology and your proofs would have already be commonly discussed among musicians, music historians, etc... But of course you argue there is some great conspiracy still at work to suppress the facts. It makes for an unassailable position: You assert that a great part of what we know of musical history was completely fabricated as part of some vast conspiracy of which only you know the truth and then claim that the same grand conspiracy is still at work to suppress your facts from being accepted. In some camps this might be called delusional.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach.

You have stated this falsehood again and again. Mozart, himself composed several transcriptions of Bach's works, including that of Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II of the Well Tempered Clavier. Exposure to Bach (as well as Haydn) inspired Mozart's later efforts in the string quartets and can be especially seen in the fugal structure of the final section of the "Jupiter" symphony. Haydn was also knowledgeable and appreciative of Bach... although he was more influenced early on by the work of his son C.P.E. Bach. The reality is that baroque music in general became largely ignored during to "classical" period. Handel and Vivaldi were equally seen as "outdated". Indeed, Handel's operas (and most baroque operas in general) are only now receiving the sort of attention they deserve, while Vivaldi is now receiving the attention as a result of the current recordings of a vast cache of scores long housed away. The current situation in classical music in which we have access via recordings to a vast array of music from the present back through the middle-ages and beyond... and in which orchestras and operas focus a great deal of their repertoire upon the works of older composers is not the same situation as that of centuries past.

Of course... I may have taken it all wrong... you may be proposing a great fiction... in which this is all perfectly suited to a literature site. Of course nothing you have yet proposed suggests anything more than a variation on the DaVinci Codee. You might wish to read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum... the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories.

stlukesguild,

I will answer your lengthy post below this. The 'labyrinthine conspiracy' is the official myth of Mozart. And always has been. As any fair person can see if they examine the facts.

Musicology
10-10-2009, 03:45 PM
In the name of all that's holy! Is this horse not sufficiently dead? This meciless beating is too much for mine eyes the bear. Let us all come together and accept the truth about the "day the music died" in Mexico City.


Why not try another thread ? This one is on the fraudulent life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart ?

You can use other threads, can't you ?

Musicology
10-10-2009, 03:48 PM
Stlukesguild,

Would you kindly tell us where and when Mozart ever studied music theory and composition ? I've been studying this subject of Mozart for many years. I've found nothing. Maybe you can tell us ?

To which school did Wolfgang Mozart go as a child for his ordinary education ? And under what recognised teacher of music did Mozart study harmony, orchestration and composition during his whole lifetime ?

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him ?

Can you confirm the same is true of the first half dozen piano concertos of 'Mozart'

Can you confirm the fraud of the opera 'La Finta Semplice' (1768) which, after official investigation was found to be composed by others, and not by W.A. Mozart ! Thus cancelling an earlier commission of an opera given to him by the Emperor and Empress of Austria in Vienna and sending Mozart and his father home empty-handed. In shame. (This after weeks of him and his father being laughed at as musical frauds by the musicians in Vienna) ?

I could continue for many, many pages with the same sort of questions, but let's start there. Should be easy for you to answer. This will take us up to Mozart at the age of 12. And I promise to ask similar questions about the later years of his official life and career if you reply.

Let me end with your own words -

'the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories'.

The Mozart you believe in is a fairy story for adults. A fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but so say the actual facts. The documentary and historical evidences. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

As for the 'Bach arrangements' made by 'Mozart' they are not by Mozart at all. Nor are the 'Handel arrangements' They were actually made by Starzer, Luchesi and others. (Starzer also attended the musical gatherings of van Sweiten in Vienna where some of Bach's works finally came to Vienna. They remained unpublished and unperformed). Mozart was falsely attributed with these Bach arrangements and this is already widely acknowledged even in Mozart publications.

The number of performances of music by J.S. Bach in Vienna during the last decade of Mozart's life (1781-1791) is easily remembered. It was ZERO. As it was during the whole decade before Mozart's arrival there. Not forgetting the fact there was no performance of any work by J.S. Bach even during the decade after Mozart's death in Vienna also ! Ah, those musical Viennese, right ?

So much for the facts of history !

Regards


Thanks

Robert

stlukesguild
10-10-2009, 07:25 PM
Would you kindly tell us where and when Mozart ever studied music theory and composition ? I've been studying this subject of Mozart for many years. I've found nothing. Maybe you can tell us ?

Mozart studied music with his father... a mediocre composer, but a musician not exactly ignorant of music. Perhaps you can tell us where J.S. Bach studied music... oh yes, under the tutelage of his father initially, and later under his brother Johann Christoph. Perhaps you can also tell us where Picasso studied art? Oh yes... the answer to that would be that Picasso never had any real formal art education beyond that received from his father. He was accepted into the academy but quickly dropped out.

To which school did Wolfgang Mozart go as a child for his ordinary education ? And under what recognized teacher of music did Mozart study harmony, orchestration and composition during his whole lifetime ?

Again... under what recognized teacher did Bach develop his mastery of music? Under whom did William Blake develop the skills needed to become one of the greatest poets and visual artists in history? He never even attended public school. His only formal education was training as an apprentice under a print-maker. Where did Monet learn painting? The reality is that formal education is not the only route to knowledge. Most of those here will tell you that I know more than a little about literature, and yet I have had no formal literary education. My formal education was in art. However I have the ability to read and I can turn to others who have the knowledge or skills that I desire.

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him?

Whether I can prove through documentation the composition of any of Mozart's symphonies in no way supports your theory. Your theory is the one that challenges the accepted facts. It is YOU who must prove that Mozart did not write any of his symphonies, but you have not been able to convince the least musicologist or music historian. I can spout off some inane theory about how Picasso was really a Lesbian Albino from Yugoslavia and his paintings were done in secret by Elvis who was really Catherine the Great and I can support this by all sorts of fraudulent and misinterpreted documentation but it is the experts in art not literature whom I must convince... and you have repeatedly failed to do so with the experts in music. At the same time, whatever documentation is offered by those who do have expertise in this area will undoubtedly be dismissed by you as yet one more example of the grandiose conspiracy. As it stands, what you offer is but a comically diverting bit of fiction.

I could continue for many, many pages with the same sort of questions, but let's start there. Should be easy for you to answer. This will take us up to Mozart at the age of 12. And I promise to ask similar questions about the later years of his official life and career if you reply.

And if such answers are so easily proven why do you waste your time trying to convince members of a LITERATURE site who largely lack any real formal education in terms of music or music history let alone experience in researching historical documentation regarding music? Or is it because your ideas are so easily dismissed by those who do have such experience and knowledge? If you cannot convince the experts and the professionals let's attempt to convince the amateurs? Yet even most amateurs recognize absurdity when they see it.

The Mozart you believe in is a fairy story for adults. A fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but so say the actual facts. The documentary and historical evidences. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

Again... I don't need to prove differently. I am not an expert in musical history or musicology, and I am not asking an audience to believe a wild conspiracy theory that goes against all the facts passed on by those who are indeed experts in the field. You are the one who is asking us to suspend our belief... to challenge the accepted facts... and yet you have not convinced a single true expert in the field. Where are all the dozens of scholarly research papers and books upon your theory that would certainly accompany any theory that had convinced even a marginal few? There are dozens of such books confronting the Shakespeare attribution question. But then all this proves is that your theory is being suppressed by a vast conspiracy of the Illuminati, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Mormons, the The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, The Brotherhood of Eternal Love, and the the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.:lol:

Musicology
10-11-2009, 07:07 AM
Stlukesguild writes -


Mozart studied music with his father... a mediocre composer, but a musician not exactly ignorant of music.

No, that is not true. In fact, Leopold Mozart, was a failed student of law at the University of Salzburg. He was a liar, a fraud, and a member of the fraternities who masterminded his son's fraudulent career. Leopold Mozart was employed (eventually) as a 4th violinist in the orchestra of the Salzburg court - the lowest position possible ! And held that post for 12 years before he became a 3rd violinist. He became 'deputy kapellmeister' only weeks before he left for a 2 year tour of Europe ! His musical abilities were zero. The award was given to him purely to help the status of his son on tour. And bitterly resented in Salzburg. He published, in the year of Wolfgang's birth (1756) a violin treatise which had earlier been stolen from the Italian virtuoso Tartini. Leopold Mozart was a fraud. He taught nobody composition in his entire life, was never a teacher of harmony and orchestration in his entire life, and acted as a local agent for the sale of music with several music publishers. (Again, arranged by the fraternities who invented Wolfgang Mozart's career). Can it possibly be more clear ? Leopold himself admits that his son knew 'nothing' of composition or of music in a letter he wrote to Padre Martini in Italy from Salzburg, at the time when his son left for Italy. And the musical ignorance of Mozart was also confirmed by Mozart's employer in Salzburg, Prince Archbishop Firmian, who said the very same thing ! It too is refered to in that letter. Mozart knew NOTHING of composition and NOTHING was taught to him of music by his father. Such are the facts. Let's stop inventing things ! And do learn to be accountable for what you teach.

On Bach -

The deep study of music by J.S. Bach is described in all biographies of J.S. Bach. And yes, he studied under his brother and under many others of his time. If you fail to see the numerous references just let me know.

You cannot tell us where Mozart went to school ! Because you have no idea. And because Mozart NEVER went to any school in his entire life. Show us evidence to the contrary, please ! You cannot. Because Mozart was no student at any time. Unless you show us differently, of course.

I asked -

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him?

And you again cannot answer me. Because those who have studied the musical scores of these early symphonies ALL agree there is NO evidence they were composed by Mozart. None. Let's say they were written by Ronald McDonald, or by someone else. Why Mozart ? Why not read textbooks on the subject and show us what you find. How about Solomon's 'Mozart' ? Or the work on Mozart's symphonies by Eisen ? None of them contradict what I say. The first few dozen 'Mozart' symphonies are NOT by Mozart. They were attributed to him only on the death of his father, in 1787, not before. And none were published in his entire lifetime. You simply have to accept the fact that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a legend for which you have NO documentary, musical and historical evidence. But you believe it all the same. It's a nice story. Right ?

So the actual, documentary evidence for the musical 'genius' of young Mozart (which includes 6 piano concertos actually by others) is nil. So says the actual documentary evidence. Unless you show us differently. This fiasco also includes the fraud of the opera 'La Finta Semplice' of 1768 in Vienna. A farce which led to an investigation and no payment.

How about this idea ? Find someone who can support your views. Anyone. Consult your mountain of Mozart literature and let's see the evidence.

You are believing a fairy story. But this fairy story is so popular you are amazed anyone should ever ask you to prove it correct. But you believe it all the same. And we have now examined Mozart up until his 12th year. Let's try later if you like ?

Regards

stlukesguild
10-11-2009, 12:49 PM
No, that is not true. In fact, Leopold Mozart, was a failed student of law at the University of Salzburg. He was a liar, a fraud, and a member of the fraternities who masterminded his son's fraudulent career. Such are the facts. Let's stop inventing things ! And do learn to be accountable for what you teach.

When one teaches something it is assumed that the "facts" are supported by documentation that is acknowledged and recognized by those who are specialists in the filed. I can certainly invent a whole fictive narrative of art history based upon personal delusions, but these will be recognized for what they are.

You cannot tell us where Mozart went to school ! Because you have no idea. And because Mozart NEVER went to any school in his entire life. Show us evidence to the contrary, please ! You cannot. Because Mozart was no student at any time. Unless you show us differently, of course.

And again your strategy is to demand that others (who are not specialists in the field) provide proof and documentation of facts which you and only you dispute... while rejecting as evidence the whole of musical history as written by those who actually are knowledgeable in the field. Such is about as inane as me demanding that you provide evidence that Picasso was not a lesbian Albino whose paintings were painted by Elvis without using any of the evidence provided by legitimate art historians. I do not need to prove a thing. It is you who are asking us to suspend our belief in the facts as passed down by history and experts in the field of music. It is you who insist that everyone else... even the experts on the topic in question... is either ignorant of the truth or part of the vast on-going conspiracy. Your theory lacks any credence or legitimacy until you can convince more than a few experts and not a group of book lovers.

And you again cannot answer me. Because those who have studied the musical scores of these early symphonies ALL agree there is NO evidence they were composed by Mozart. None. Let's say they were written by Ronald McDonald, or by someone else. Why Mozart ? Why not read textbooks on the subject and show us what you find. How about Solomon's 'Mozart' ? Or the work on Mozart's symphonies by Eisen ? None of them contradict what I say. The first few dozen 'Mozart' symphonies are NOT by Mozart. They were attributed to him only on the death of his father, in 1787, not before. And none were published in his entire lifetime. You simply have to accept the fact that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a legend for which you have NO documentary, musical and historical evidence. But you believe it all the same. It's a nice story. Right?

Again... I have no need to prove the facts because the facts are not disputed by anyone except yourself and in no way have you proven that I should lend the least credence to your great conspiracy theory or waste my time that might be put to better use in research to simply contradict you. There are those far better equipped to do so and you have not convinced a single one of them. Why do you think that is?

How about this idea ? Find someone who can support your views. Anyone. Consult your mountain of Mozart literature and let's see the evidence.

No... I have a better idea. Why don't you provide a single legitimate music historian or musicologist who is in support of your theory? Why don't you just get on Google and pull up the dozens of sites (that would surely accompany any legitimate theory) that support your theory.

You are believing a fairy story. But this fairy story is so popular you are amazed anyone should ever ask you to prove it correct. But you believe it all the same.

I believe in a fairy story... and you believe in what? A personal theory that is not shared or supported by a single legitimate music historian or musicologist. A personal theory that asks that we suspend all belief in the facts as passed down by legitimate music historians and musicologists. A personal theory that has been rejected repeatedly on any number of music discussion forums by those who are knowledgeable in the field. A personal theory that depends upon a single individual imagining that he and only he knows the truth and everyone one else is ignorant or part of the vast conspiracy to suppress this truth. Again the term delusional comes to mind.

Jozanny
10-11-2009, 01:05 PM
I have not been following this thread, for wise reasons, but even though I only know the movie about Mozart, I believe in the genius of Mozart because I am the palsied poet, and I have been the palsied poet since I was nine years old, and if anyone comes along one hundred years from now saying I did not write my own work, I hope JBI's children will shoot them for me.

That there are people so full of hate that they have to destroy the gifts of an artist's legacy in the world causes me no small degree of sadness.

Musicology
10-11-2009, 01:28 PM
I have not been following this thread, for wise reasons, but even though I only know the movie about Mozart, I believe in the genius of Mozart because I am the palsied poet, and I have been the palsied poet since I was nine years old, and if anyone comes along one hundred years from now saying I did not write my own work, I hope JBI's children will shoot them for me.

That there are people so full of hate that they have to destroy the gifts of an artist's legacy in the world causes me no small degree of sadness.


The plain fact is that I've studied this material in very great detail. Along with others. If what I am saying is wrong it should be simple to refute it. These are absolutely basic things. They are a tiny fraction of what could be said on Mozart's formative years. An entire chapter could be filled with similar things. Now, what reply do you have to this ? And to that ? And to this ? And to that ? There is no reply. Because the simple truth is there is NO evidence for what is being taught as historical/musical fact. And it shows. Let's stop believing baseless fables and study reality.

You are perfectly free to believe fairy stories. But it seems to me that when they are criticised, cross-examined, on simple, basic issues, and when the answer is always to run away and deny there is a massive problem, what can I say ?

People full of hate are those who rewrite history and who are cynical enough to profit from it. As the Mozart cult has done for over 200 years. Think about it !

Dozens of composers and musicians have been shredded, obscured, suppressed by this candyfloss nonsense. And it's time for people to grow up instead of living in dreamland.

Mozart is a fairy story. A cult for the musical underachiever whose real story is a legend, a myth, made by the corporate spin machine of the music industry. So says the musical, historical and other evidence. Hidden behind the candyfloss of 200 years of hyperbole, fiction and gross exaggeration.

That's not 'hate'. It's verifiable, documentary evidence which you choose to ignore. And if it's not, please show us differently.

Thank You


No, that is not true. In fact, Leopold Mozart, was a failed student of law at the University of Salzburg. He was a liar, a fraud, and a member of the fraternities who masterminded his son's fraudulent career. Such are the facts. Let's stop inventing things ! And do learn to be accountable for what you teach.

When one teaches something it is assumed that the "facts" are supported by documentation that is acknowledged and recognized by those who are specialists in the filed. I can certainly invent a whole fictive narrative of art history based upon personal delusions, but these will be recognized for what they are.

You cannot tell us where Mozart went to school ! Because you have no idea. And because Mozart NEVER went to any school in his entire life. Show us evidence to the contrary, please ! You cannot. Because Mozart was no student at any time. Unless you show us differently, of course.

And again your strategy is to demand that others (who are not specialists in the field) provide proof and documentation of facts which you and only you dispute... while rejecting as evidence the whole of musical history as written by those who actually are knowledgeable in the field. Such is about as inane as me demanding that you provide evidence that Picasso was not a lesbian Albino whose paintings were painted by Elvis without using any of the evidence provided by legitimate art historians. I do not need to prove a thing. It is you who are asking us to suspend our belief in the facts as passed down by history and experts in the field of music. It is you who insist that everyone else... even the experts on the topic in question... is either ignorant of the truth or part of the vast on-going conspiracy. Your theory lacks any credence or legitimacy until you can convince more than a few experts and not a group of book lovers.

And you again cannot answer me. Because those who have studied the musical scores of these early symphonies ALL agree there is NO evidence they were composed by Mozart. None. Let's say they were written by Ronald McDonald, or by someone else. Why Mozart ? Why not read textbooks on the subject and show us what you find. How about Solomon's 'Mozart' ? Or the work on Mozart's symphonies by Eisen ? None of them contradict what I say. The first few dozen 'Mozart' symphonies are NOT by Mozart. They were attributed to him only on the death of his father, in 1787, not before. And none were published in his entire lifetime. You simply have to accept the fact that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a legend for which you have NO documentary, musical and historical evidence. But you believe it all the same. It's a nice story. Right?

Again... I have no need to prove the facts because the facts are not disputed by anyone except yourself and in no way have you proven that I should lend the least credence to your great conspiracy theory or waste my time that might be put to better use in research to simply contradict you. There are those far better equipped to do so and you have not convinced a single one of them. Why do you think that is?

How about this idea ? Find someone who can support your views. Anyone. Consult your mountain of Mozart literature and let's see the evidence.

No... I have a better idea. Why don't you provide a single legitimate music historian or musicologist who is in support of your theory? Why don't you just get on Google and pull up the dozens of sites (that would surely accompany any legitimate theory) that support your theory.

You are believing a fairy story. But this fairy story is so popular you are amazed anyone should ever ask you to prove it correct. But you believe it all the same.

I believe in a fairy story... and you believe in what? A personal theory that is not shared or supported by a single legitimate music historian or musicologist. A personal theory that asks that we suspend all belief in the facts as passed down by legitimate music historians and musicologists. A personal theory that has been rejected repeatedly on any number of music discussion forums by those who are knowledgeable in the field. A personal theory that depends upon a single individual imagining that he and only he knows the truth and everyone one else is ignorant or part of the vast conspiracy to suppress this truth. Again the term delusional comes to mind.

Show us the evidence !

Guess what ? It doesn't exist. Why not consult your 'expert' sources ? They surely exist. But they've gone into hiding.

You are right, 'the term delusional comes to mind'. And guess what ? The delusions of the Mozart industry. Consumed by the dumbed down faithful. The pious fraud that is and has always been the Mozart industry.

Do reality a favour - learn the facts and don't tell others the onus is on them. When the request has been made to you for evidence and you simply ignore it. Multiply this by 1,000 and you will have some idea of how gullible we choose to be on this fiction of musical history.

You are the 'genius'. You have to be. Who else could believe such nonsense when it fails, at every single stage, to survive cross-examination ? This is not 'musical history'. It's the FOX news of classical music.

You do know academic studies require fair criticism and cross-examination, don't you ?

Except, of course, in the case of 'Amadeus', Ronald McDonald, and FOX news, of course !

It's hilarious !

Thanks

Jozanny
10-11-2009, 01:57 PM
There are trolls and there are trolls Musicology. Some wear rather ingenious disguises, but the wise know when to stop feeding them. Yanni is obviously very well versed in the historiography. It is a shame to see it wasted here rather than used to educate those of us who still enjoy the rich expression of the form.

stlukesguild
10-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Joz... of course you are right. I haven't really written with the intent of changing our antagonist's mind... or even of leading him to sense the least possibility of doubt in his theories. The true apostles never know doubt. Any proof to the contrary is easily dismissed as having been tampered with as part of the great conspiracy. No... I only post to make it clear that these "theories" are in no way factual nor accepted as such by even the least number of experts in the field. But you are right... this discussion amounts to little more than feeding the troll and diverts attention away from the possibility of discussing and sharing something about music that has merit and is worthy of the art form itself.:wave:

Musicology
10-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Joz... of course you are right. I haven't really written with the intent of changing our antagonist's mind... or even of leading him to sense the least possibility of doubt in his theories. The true apostles never know doubt. Any proof to the contrary is easily dismissed as having been tampered with as part of the great conspiracy. No... I only post to make it clear that these "theories" are in no way factual nor accepted as such by even the least number of experts in the field. But you are right... this discussion amounts to little more than feeding the troll and diverts attention away from the possibility of discussing and sharing something about music that has merit and is worthy of the art form itself.:wave:

With respect, this thread is not on the merits of any music. It's on the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) to whom you seem perfectly happy to have produced no evidence at all of his musical 'genius'. And have been unable, even when asked for specifics of his musical and other education, to provide that too. You mumble vaguely about 'experts' but have named none, nor quoted their writings, no offered us any reply - saying, instead, that the onus is on us to prove a negative. This is your entire argument.

'Feeding the troll' ? What is being asked for is evidence, ANY evidence, to support your view of the first 12 years of Mozart's life in respect of his musical and academic education. And, in the meantime, you've been presented with specific, documentary facts, which contradict what you believe. So the 'debate' (such as it has been) is entirely one-sided. And so you have no choice but to describe me as a 'troll' ! Where but in the land of fantasy would anyone try to pull such a stunt ?

You have been feeding the troll for as long as you have studied Mozart. Which, judging by your posts here, is not long enough to answer the most elementary questions. You cannot tell us what evidence supports him being the composer of any symphonies, operas or concertos up until the age of 12, nor can you tell us of his musical education or his skill on the keyboard from even a single impartial, objective source.

Suppose we were to leave this aspect of Mozart's career and moved on to the period of 'his' greatest achievements. In Vienna, during his last decade. Would you feel more comfortable with that ? Because I promise you the same will happen. You would be presented with a whole series of facts of which you are not aware. Because you have never examined this subject from anything except the 'official' story. Once again, you would tell of 'experts' and would fail to deliver any actual, verifiable evidence. And I would produce you with dozens of facts about which you would have nothing to say. This pattern would be repeated. Over and over again. Because the truth is your 'education' is no education at all. You subscribe to a fairy story. Which is completely incompatible with the musical, historical and documentary evidence.

The Mozart story was cleverly constructed. Who could ever imagine that it would be cross-examined ? But time, and countless discoveries have justified examining these issues in critical detail. Please do not despise them. Since they (and only they) present us with a version of events that is entirely reliable.

Sorry you had to resort to 'troll' vocabulary. In terms of content, let readers judge who has presented facts here and who has acted as a troll. Since readers deserve better than blanket denial and vague talk of 'experts' nobody has ever heard of.

W.A. Mozart was a musician of no great talent. He was in fact a provincial musician of no great talent. But, published in his name is some of the finest music of the late 18th century. It could hardly be otherwise. Because, if you knew the story you would see how understated the case has been. We choose to remain ignorant, or we examine issues fairly, from both sides.

I have made my choice. And that's the difference.

Thanks

Jozanny
10-11-2009, 05:56 PM
Joz... of course you are right. I haven't really written with the intent of changing our antagonist's mind... or even of leading him to sense the least possibility of doubt in his theories. The true apostles never know doubt. Any proof to the contrary is easily dismissed as having been tampered with as part of the great conspiracy. No... I only post to make it clear that these "theories" are in no way factual nor accepted as such by even the least number of experts in the field. But you are right... this discussion amounts to little more than feeding the troll and diverts attention away from the possibility of discussing and sharing something about music that has merit and is worthy of the art form itself.:wave:

I was not attempting to criticize you, really. I'm just getting tired of this. If he dictates parts of Requiem to Sussmayr or not, what of it? I may not know much of the history of the great composers, but I do know something about the nature of prodigy, and Mozart's genius most likely was authentic. Why it would not be is beyond any rational motive of which I can conceive.

I hope any students who actually take the time to sort through this thread don't go away thinking that deniers know something they don't; it begins to feel like the poison of the 21st century: The Holocaust didn't really happen. JFK wasn't shot by Oswald. Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare, and Mozart is a conspiracy dreamed up by the Austria-Hungarian Empire that collapsed in 1918. Got all that kids?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::banana::banana :

Scheherazade
10-11-2009, 06:04 PM
Please do not personalise your arguments

and

feel free to ignore any threads/discussion that you do not consider worthy of your attention.

Gilliatt Gurgle
10-11-2009, 08:36 PM
Why not try another thread ? This one is on the fraudulent life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart ?

You can use other threads, can't you ?


As a matter of fact, there is another thread, but it is not getting much air time. I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for it, laying there several threads below the floor boards in the cellar, barely visible in the dim light seeping through the gaps between the planks. A nearly lifeless form crying out; “Here is your truth! Here is your evidence for anyone who would dare to listen!”, but nary a sound is heard over the cacophony of pointless, misguided bantering raging on above him. A glimmer of hope appeared in the form of a kind gentleman from Athens, who dared to put an ear to the floor and at least consider the possibilities. Realizing that the man underground could not be heard, the Athenian kindly dropped a "Post-It" pad though the floor that he might issue forth notes from underground. Copious facts were written and pushed up between the planks in hopes that someone might notice.

Several times the underground thread heard threats from various members of the contentious crowd above, indicating that they had had enough. Hoping that they would honor their words and remain silent if, for only long enough to allow their attention to be diverted downward, maybe, just maybe, they might see the post it stuck to their shoes.

The evidence is right there beneath your feet !



http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae114/tabuka1/IMG_1296.jpg

yanni
10-12-2009, 02:50 AM
Pearl fisher's latest pick:

"The true apostles never know doubt"

Thanks Joz and Gilliat (I wonder what colour is the light passing thru the floor planks though. Please don't tell me its your blueish-green again!)

Cheers.

Musicology
10-13-2009, 08:59 AM
I was not attempting to criticize you, really. I'm just getting tired of this. If he dictates parts of Requiem to Sussmayr or not, what of it? I may not know much of the history of the great composers, but I do know something about the nature of prodigy, and Mozart's genius most likely was authentic. Why it would not be is beyond any rational motive of which I can conceive.

I hope any students who actually take the time to sort through this thread don't go away thinking that deniers know something they don't; it begins to feel like the poison of the 21st century: The Holocaust didn't really happen. JFK wasn't shot by Oswald. Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare, and Mozart is a conspiracy dreamed up by the Austria-Hungarian Empire that collapsed in 1918. Got all that kids?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::banana::banana :

If you believe the history of music is less corrupt, less fake, less false, than the history of politics, or war, or business, or banking, or academic studies generally then you are plain wrong. Most of what we learn is sheer nonsense. And it always has been. That's the nature of deception. To preside over the publication of books, to learn one and only one side of a story, to fool ourselves we 'know', when, in fact, we read only the 'official' version. Haven't the events of recent years convinced you of that ?

To argue against convention requires a person to have evidence. Examine that evidence and come to your own conclusion. Is that so hard to do ? Because one thing is sure. We live in an age of couch potatoes. Of ignorance posing as knowledge. And of fairy stories in place of reality.

So, which is it to be ? A one-sided version or a verdict based on having examined things from both sides ?

The choice is yours. And mine.

You refer to the 'Mozart' Requiem. A work which was exposed as a fraud as early as 1825. When in that year was publication of a music journal in Vienna by the German musicologist Gottfried Weber (in the best music journal of the time 'Caelicia') showing that work had been put together after Mozart's death by various other composers). Mozart was NOT its composer. He never wrote it. A detailed musical analysis showed it came from other composers. But you haven't read that either, have you ? Nor are you aware that it took 10 more years before that fraud was finally published in 'Mozart's' name. The history of the Requiem is more filled with lies, untruths and exaggerations than any other work of 'Mozart'. The story goes it was rehearsed in the days before Mozart's death. That too has long ago been proved to be a pack of lies. And so it goes on.

Mozart is said to have been commissioned to write a Requiem. Nobody can tell us when. Or how much he was supposed to be paid. The accounts all differ. The whole story is riddled with lies and falsehoods. In fact no such commission has ever been seen, ever. Nobody has produced evidence of its existence in 200 years and more. It's a fairy story. Like all the rest.

yanni
10-13-2009, 12:14 PM
Musicology,

Can you please explain why "bohemian Gluck" had to lie about his thorough knowledge(according to P.Howard) of the italian language?

(see C.W. von Gluck, Orfeo by Patricia Howard, page 25)

Musicology
10-15-2009, 06:18 AM
Musicology,

Can you please explain why "bohemian Gluck" had to lie about his thorough knowledge(according to P.Howard) of the italian language?

(see C.W. von Gluck, Orfeo by Patricia Howard, page 25)

If Gluck was Cocchi and Cocchi was himself Italian I leave you to explain it yourself !

History says Gluck was a Bohemian, born at the estate of Lobkowtiz.

Babbalanja
10-15-2009, 09:14 AM
Stlukesguild, I commend you on your skill in shining the harsh light of skepticism on the smoke and mirrors of the Mozart Myth. Musicology (or Robert Newman, as he calls himself elsewhere on the Internet) has a conspiracy theory that he's refined through years of dedicated hackwork, quote mining, and confirmation bias. At this point, any factoid he can point to proves the Big Conspiracy. But there's no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this vast plot.

Case in point, Robert points to the fact that Koch's 1793 work on concerti doesn't even mention Mozart. Certainly it indicates how far Mozart's stock had fallen so soon after his death. But is it really what we'd expect to see if there were such a vast systemic scheme to create a musical superstar out of the no-talent Mozart even during his lifetime?

The logical leaps Robert makes are remarkable. He considers Mozart a no-talent who was guilty of plagiarism, so that means Mozart never wrote a note of music himself! He says many works originally attributed to Mozart have since been attributed to other composers, so this means every work attributed to Mozart is a fraud!

His ad hoc explanation for handwaving away any criticism of this half-baked theory is the vast power of secret cabals such as the Jesuits and the Freemasons. This is pretty convenient, since by definition any claims he makes about their machinations is pure speculation.

And why hasn't Robert produced a work to be reviewed and assessed by credentialed musicologists? He seems to be wasting a lot of time on message boards that would be better spent getting his monumental book written and published.

Once again, Stlukesguild, fine work.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
10-15-2009, 10:40 AM
If Gluck was Cocchi and Cocchi was himself Italian I leave you to explain it yourself !

History says Gluck was a Bohemian, born at the estate of Lobkowtiz.

I see you trying the "heads I winn, tails you lose" approach, Robert, running for cover under this very same "history" you already labelled an utter lie.

The "StLuke-Babbalanja" duette should, imo, avoid using hot air to inflate their balloon. Recent experiments demonstrated that even helium-filled balloons are doomed as UFO's....and so are flying sausages!

(Alternatively they should study Chastellux's influence on Th.Jefferson on how to "read" english grammars and dictionaries:

Within a quarter of a century of Jefferson's change of mind, Coleridge decided that he had discovered a new, or rediscovered the old, principle of English verse--the accentually based line: that poets for four hundred years had lost contact with the essential rhythm of the language. So, if de Chastellux and (now) Jefferson and subsequently Coleridge were correct, what of the collective opinion of grammarians, elocutionists, and lexicographers? )

Babbalanja
10-16-2009, 05:36 AM
The "StLuke-Babbalanja" duette should, imo, avoid using hot air to inflate their balloon.
It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

yanni
10-16-2009, 06:05 AM
It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

Stoicism/scepticism will not bring you Nirvana, Babba, perhaps you should try the stylite approach to matters!

Musicology
10-16-2009, 06:26 AM
Stlukesguild, I commend you on your skill in shining the harsh light of skepticism on the smoke and mirrors of the Mozart Myth. Musicology (or Robert Newman, as he calls himself elsewhere on the Internet) has a conspiracy theory that he's refined through years of dedicated hackwork, quote mining, and confirmation bias. At this point, any factoid he can point to proves the Big Conspiracy. But there's no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this vast plot.

Case in point, Robert points to the fact that Koch's 1793 work on concerti doesn't even mention Mozart. Certainly it indicates how far Mozart's stock had fallen so soon after his death. But is it really what we'd expect to see if there were such a vast systemic scheme to create a musical superstar out of the no-talent Mozart even during his lifetime?

The logical leaps Robert makes are remarkable. He considers Mozart a no-talent who was guilty of plagiarism, so that means Mozart never wrote a note of music himself! He says many works originally attributed to Mozart have since been attributed to other composers, so this means every work attributed to Mozart is a fraud!

His ad hoc explanation for handwaving away any criticism of this half-baked theory is the vast power of secret cabals such as the Jesuits and the Freemasons. This is pretty convenient, since by definition any claims he makes about their machinations is pure speculation.

And why hasn't Robert produced a work to be reviewed and assessed by credentialed musicologists? He seems to be wasting a lot of time on message boards that would be better spent getting his monumental book written and published.

Once again, Stlukesguild, fine work.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

You say there is 'no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this plot'. But that's just plain wrong.

You believe in a Mozart detached from time and space. In fact, the average Mozart enthusiast knows almost nothing of music and the musical scene at the time of their hero. It's not your fault. It is the result of a 'science' which is no science. Which never allows cross-examination of its claims. So we are kept ignorant of reality, virtually all the way through their defence of his myth. If the story of Mozart is true why is it that at each and every stage of his life and supposed career as a musical genius there are massive, huge, discrepancies between the legend and historical/documentary reality ? I cannot invent them. They either exist or they do not exist. Grant me that, please ! They actually exist, by the hundred. On even the most basic issues. Closer study proves that even the musical manuscripts are very often not in Mozart's hand. And those which are (there being no less than 3 'Mozart' forms of handwriting to start with !) are often works by other composers.

You refer to the published work of Heinrich Koch (1793) published only 2 years after Mozart's death, which discusses piano concertos but does not mention Mozart ! Yes, and why is this ? Maybe Koch suffered from amensia ? What chance is there Koch would not refer to Mozart if 'his' 27 concertos (most of which, we are told, were played and celebrated in Vienna for years) were unknown to Koch in 1793 ? Isn't this a real problem ? You surely admit that it is. But it gets worse. In other musical writings of the time, such as the Musical Year books of the founder of musicology, J.N. Forkel, he gives a small paragraph to Mozart. But he does not credit Mozart with being the composer of major operas such as 'Figaro'. Nor does he speak of any such reputation as a virtuoso performer and famous figure in musical Vienna. He refers (in 1789) only to the eventual appearance of a score of 'Abduction from the Seraglio' in Mozart's name which appeared in print 4 years after its Vienna premiere. And it appeared only with a short selection of music from that opera. In fact, the diaries of the time (such as that of the opera enthusiast Count Zinzendorf) tell us 'this music is NOT by Mozart'. Speaking of that very opera ! And Zinzendorf should know - he attended the premiere of that opera in Vienna ! Finally, how is it that the famous librettist of Mozart, Lorenzo da Ponte (a supporter of the Mozart myth) said 'he, Mozart, was completely unknown to the people of Vienna during his lifetime and was unable to demonstrate his genius to that city' !!! So much for the famous W.A. Mozart, piano virtuoso and famous composer in Vienna for the last 10 years of his life. Yes ? Time after time, after time, the myth falls to pieces and fraud/exaggeration and falsehood are proved.

If Mozart really wrote these 27 piano concertos how is it that after 200 years of Mozart study we have not a single set of performance parts from Vienna for any one of these 27 concertos for the period when he was supposedly famous for performing them ? Not a single concerto. In fact the conductor scores come almost entirely from Salzburg and they have a very different story. Where have the performance parts of these 'Mozart' piano concertos from Vienna disappeared to ?

The reports we have of Mozart's performances in Vienna can be proved to be false. In some cases it's embarrasing. Notices appeared in the newspapers for performances which never, actually, happened. As I show in some detail.

The manfuacture of Mozart as a 'musical genius' was the takeover of the music industry, by the fraternal elites who had controlled music for centuries but who, in the 19th century, needed a musical 'genius' to continue their control. They manufactured one. It was not new. They had done so before. But this time it was to be the icon of Mozart. One of the icons of the 'enlightenment'. As for reality, well, who cares ?

Regards


It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.


I think we have arrived at a time in human history where the role of conspiracies, hidden agendas, propaganda, and official explanations is shown to be a major factor in human affairs. The difference is that some accept this fact and others live in denial of it. Easier to believe in a candy floss Mozart than to study reality in any detail.

You hear it all the time. 'I don't believe in conspiracy theories'. And these are the same people who accept 'official' conspiracies all the time. The tragedy of 9/11 (according to the official report) was the product of a conspiracy. So says that report, no less than 3 times, in its own text. But that fact is OK, because it's an 'official' conspiracy.

No, let's be honest. Conspiracies are all too common. We don't like to admit it. Our courts are full of them. Virtually every crime of any size is a conspiracy as any judge will tell you.

We must simply respect fair, honest, investigative research. We must examine issues from more than one side. That is a fair and reasonable basis on which to form a judgement on any issue. Conspiracy or not.

Regards

Babbalanja
10-16-2009, 07:06 AM
Istvan,

You say there is 'no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this plot'. But that's just plain wrong.
So where is it, Robert? All I ever see from you is a long litany of perceived anomalies in the official Mozart biography. Anomalies might be gold bricks in the stairway to Tinhat Heaven, but they don't add up to anything without a comprehensive, coherent alternative scenario to explain them.

I've never seen you present documented evidence supporting your claim that the Jesuits and Freemasons hired composers to create all the works now falsely attributed to Mozart. All I've seen you present is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the two hundred year history of Mozart scholarship. There's a big difference between the two.

Regards,

Istvan


We must simply respect fair, honest, investigative research. We must examine issues from more than one side. That is a fair and reasonable basis on which to form a judgement on any issue.
No one ever disputed this fact. I just think it's reasonable to show the same degree of skepticism to any 'alternative' scenario as we show to the 'official' one.

yanni
10-16-2009, 11:05 AM
No one ever disputed this fact. I just think it's reasonable to show the same degree of skepticism to any 'alternative' scenario as we show to the 'official' one.

The only problem with Robert's scenario is his "blame the jesuits" conclusion(!), totally unfounded yet shared by Dan Brown and, as I had the misfortune to realise last night, by the "author" of the film "Mission Impossible III" as well (Tom Cruise's last finest).

Sorry folks but Rome never interfered in the theft of your "rabbitsfoot", now as always safely guarded by the same old braves of the "IMF" (Impossible Mission Forces, naturally).

You are in good company Robert!

Babbalanja
10-16-2009, 11:49 AM
The only problem with Robert's scenario is his "blame the jesuits" conclusion(!)
My first problem with Robert's scenario is what exactly is it?

In conspiracy theory world, it's best to keep the specifics to a minimum, so that you can handwave away any criticism of your ideas as a "straw man." But this reduces the debate to a futile shell game. Did the secret societies hire composers to write Mozart's works during his lifetime, or did they just exaggerate his importance long after his death? Did Mozart plagiarize certain ideas of others, or was there a systemic plot to attribute others' works to him? These are not the same claims, and it's unclear which ones Robert is making.

The second problem is that the 'evidence' he always refers to isn't what we'd need to see to support his claims. He hasn't shown documentation of this vast Jesuit/Freemason conspiracy, he's relying on wild speculation. And the 'discrepancies' he uses to dispute the authorship of certain of Mozart's early works doesn't support his claim that (as he says in his OP), "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire".

Take a closer look at what Robert is offering, and you'll see it's a vague fantasy backed by an incoherent slew of factoids.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
10-16-2009, 12:16 PM
Istvan,

Robert decided to join this forum when he realised that:


This thread by Yanni is consistent with the findings of my own research on the career of Mozart. (Mozart was patronised by Baron Grimm from an early date).

The Voltaire/Grimm/Rousseau relationship is endlessly fascinating.

He has however not followed my suggestion (expressed early in this thread) to study my roothunting research (ending Robert's "endlessly fascinating Voltaire/Grimm/Rousseau relationship" and solving a few more "secret societies mysteries" of their time) herein, the results of which are somewhat(!) contrary to "conventional truth".

His "manufactured Mozart" claim is correct but he is wrong( both conventionaly and conveniently) on the manufacturer.

Re Conspiracy theories and your relative skepticism here is a quote from GenealogyNet that might turn you to a believer:

Mussolini Worked For MI5 Agents
Benito Mussolini may be among history's most notorious fascist dictators, but evidence suggests he worked for British secret services during World War I.

Historian Dr Peter Martland says MI5 records show it paid "Il Duce" £100 per week, about £5,000 today,to spread pro-war propaganda via his newspaper.

The Cambridge University academic made the discovery while studying the papers of former agent Sir Samuel Hoare MP.

Mussolini's socialist publication, Il Popolo d'Italia, carried a key voice because it served the factory workers of Milan whose output was essential for the war effort.


Cheers.

Babbalanja
10-17-2009, 12:20 PM
Re Conspiracy theories and your relative skepticism here is a quote from GenealogyNet that might turn you to a believer:

Mussolini Worked For MI5 Agents
Well, a couple of decades before WWII, things were very different in Europe and allegiances were pretty complicated. I have no problem believing that Mussolini was involved in espionage with his future enemies, if there's credible documentation that says so.

It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. If you offered as evidence the fact that Mussolini couldn't have lived at the address historians say he did during WWI, so therefore he might have worked for MI5, I might be less inclined to believe it.

The skeptical approach only favors evidence over speculation. And I'm sticking to it.

Musicology
10-17-2009, 04:41 PM
So where is it, Robert? All I ever see from you is a long litany of perceived anomalies in the official Mozart biography. Anomalies might be gold bricks in the stairway to Tinhat Heaven, but they don't add up to anything without a comprehensive, coherent alternative scenario to explain them.

I've never seen you present documented evidence supporting your claim that the Jesuits and Freemasons hired composers to create all the works now falsely attributed to Mozart. All I've seen you present is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the two hundred year history of Mozart scholarship. There's a big difference between the two.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

Please consider what you are saying. You are saying all you have seen is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the 200 year history of Mozart scholarship. OK, let's stop at this point. Let's call this our Base Camp, if you will.

The first proof that a subject is worthy of study is whether the evidence supports it being studied in the first place. If someone invents a 'science' which says the moon is made of green cheese it will soon collapse, because there is no evidence of it. Therefore the first test here is passed. We agree we have a subject worth studying, worth examining. May I suggest you pitch your tent there, in the foothills of the mountain, so to speak, so that you can consider where you must go next as we examine this subject in greater detail.

You have said that no evidence has been presented that the Jesuit Order and the Freemansons (and other fraternities) stage managed the career of Mozart. Well, with respect, the evidence is massive. It exists from the time of his childhood right to the year of his death in 1791. It literally throws itself at us when we examine the subject in greater detail. I did not examine this subject only from Base Camp. I examined in much, much, greater detail. Historically, musically and in many other ways. Only a very small fraction of this has been discussed here. Of course.

Regards


Well, a couple of decades before WWII, things were very different in Europe and allegiances were pretty complicated. I have no problem believing that Mussolini was involved in espionage with his future enemies, if there's credible documentation that says so.

It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. If you offered as evidence the fact that Mussolini couldn't have lived at the address historians say he did during WWI, so therefore he might have worked for MI5, I might be less inclined to believe it.

The skeptical approach only favors evidence over speculation. And I'm sticking to it.

Me too. I wish Mozart scholarship would do the same. They do not. They invent fables, myths, which people believe. But those fables and myths are almost never cross-examined. Which matters if we really are interested in evidence.

Virtually nothing said and written about Mozart and his career is fact. It's really a fiction. Yes, there was a musician called W.A. Mozart. Yes, various works were published in his name (though nearly 5 times as much after he had died). And yes, there were stories and reports of him being a musical superman. But when we start to examine these reports, these stories, the documents, the manuscripts themselves, the source material, the legends, the industry itself, we slowly but surely start to realise the scale of the fiction. This process occurs in two stages - not one.

1. OK, Mozart was probably a massive exaggeration and his career was most probably exaggerated and falsified.

2. So, now we have established this to be true beyond reasonable doubt, how do we explain the origins of this music, its great beauty (in many cases) and the rise of fame of Mozart as a 'musical genius'.

You will appreciate these are great questions. We have only skimmed the surface of them in this thread. I know very well what critics will say. I know their arguments very well. And, for sure, I know how hard it will be to call convention in to question. But that is what I am doing.

Why would people go to such vast lengths to manufacture the career of a 'musical genius' ? It sounds bizzare, strange, almost impossible. It was done for various reasons. Not least the control of the emerging music industry by those who were the patrons of musical art, the control of performance, the control, in fact, of musical history. And to bring glory (and prestige) to Vienna as the 'city of music'. These are just a few of the reasons. Culture is as much a product of fakery, exaggeration and intrigue as almost any other field of human history. The case of Mozart is another example. In any field of study where cross-examination or criticism/accountability is not welcomed we will see the rise of fictions, legends, falsehoods and myths. These taught in the name of reality. In this case the fraud was very well constructed. It seems almost impossible to expose. It consists of mountains of 'proofs'. It sounds crazy to question it. When I was earlier I would never have thought of such an idea. But, slowly, this has been done on a subject that I've examined in great detail. This process calls in to question his entire musical career and his musical reputation. Amazing but true. And that's good. Let the 'experts' come and show us where it's wrong. That's fair enough, yes ?

Regards

Babbalanja
10-17-2009, 07:58 PM
You have said that no evidence has been presented that the Jesuit Order and the Freemansons (and other fraternities) stage managed the career of Mozart. Well, with respect, the evidence is massive.
But you haven't presented any of it.

Did I miss where you showed signed declarations from these secret societies, declassified documents outlining their plan to manufacture the Mozart myth? Did you ever present a letter or memoir from the genius who really composed The Magic Flute, detailing the motives and methods of his assistance in this monumental fraud? Did you show us Mozart's written confession that he was a huge no-talent who depended entirely on the works of others (at the behest of the Jesuits and Freemasons) for his catalogue and reputation?

No, you've just presented various anomalies in the Mozart biography, such as misattributed early works. You've made grandiose pronouncements about how brainwashed everyone but yourself is by the Mozart Myth. And that's supposed to convince us of the existence of this vast historical conspiracy?

All I'm doing is being as skeptical of your claims as I would of anyone else's. If someone presents records from MI5 showing that Mussolini was on the payroll during WWI, I accept the claim. But unless you show me evidence that secret societies manufactured the Mozart Myth out of thin air, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,

Istvan

stlukesguild
10-17-2009, 11:29 PM
What they wanted was control. Control of the music industry. Control of what is believed and taught. Control of Mozart's life and career at every stage. Even at the expense of reality itself. And they did it. By dominating the field of music publishing, books on music history, and musical performance. So the myth became 'history' and the truth was thrown in the trash. Easier to control a musical icon from Salzburg than to tell the real story of dozens of people.

This must surely be one of the most inane parts of your entire theory. You ask that we accept the idea that a vast conspiracy was undertaken by various clandestine societies (a conspiracy that continues into the present) which involved the labors of untold hundreds... the enforced silence of who knows how many (including the true composers of Mozart's masterworks who one would assume would wish the world to know the truth)... the falsification of historic documents... and an expenditure of what must have amounted to a sizable fortune all to what purpose? The control of a non-existent music "industry" in the day before copyright laws and sound recordings made music in any way truly profitable. But then again... haven't you also argued that the moon landing was another falsification engineered by Hollywood film studios and the government?

Would you kindly tell us where and when Mozart ever studied music theory and composition ? I've been studying this subject of Mozart for many years. I've found nothing. Maybe you can tell us ?

To which school did Wolfgang Mozart go as a child for his ordinary education ? And under what recognised teacher of music did Mozart study harmony, orchestration and composition during his whole lifetime ?

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him ?

Robert, can you kindly tell me where you studied music and musicology? Perhaps it was the Royal School of Music, London where you have stated you studied Music/Orchestration/Harmony/Instrumentation from 1970-1974... except that such a school never existed.:confused: Or perhaps such was a misprint and you meant the Royal College of Music (which has no record of an alumni by your name):nod:.

Or perhaps you can kindly tell me the names of a number of credible musicologist or music historians who have seriously embraced your theory. Certainly a theory as ground-breaking as your would be an assurance of near instant academic stardom for the musicologist who could prove it in academic circles. Or perhaps you wish for us to believe that the music field is the sole discipline in academia where alternative theories and continued investigative research are frowned upon... or the Jesuits and Illuminati are still pulling the strings behind the whole scene and hushing these academics up with threats against their wives and families... or promises of a lifetime supply of Viennese chocolate Elvises and videos of the moon landing.:rolleyes:

yanni
10-18-2009, 02:42 AM
"It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. "

So you have come to a conclusion afterall Babba, even before my Mussolini.

An ex skeptic turned pessimist-realist?

"Grimm", a "brother" freemason of Leopold Mozart, started manufacturing Mozart's myth, December 1763*. ("The Chevalier de Saint-Georges: virtuoso of the sword and the bow" by Gabriel Banat, p 106).

HE did not complete the task however:

In 1778, after the death of Voltaire, Grimm (heavily involved in world affairs at the time and mourning the death of his friend Voltaire) lost interest on his ex protegee(Mozart writes to his father that atheist Voltaire died a well deserved dog's death) already convinced that Mozart did not have a future as a musician (let alone as opera composer).

With "Grimm" and "Gluck" being the same person, evidence is needed to document:

a) If "Gluck" ever supported Mozart post 1778 (or was seen anywhere mid 1779-late 1782 ie during "Chastellux's" visit to America).
b) The timeline of "Gluck's" (and Cocchi's) vast archive of opera documents changing hands, post 1787 ("Gluck's" alleged death).

*1763 marks the conclusion of the Seven Year War (defeated Austria loses Poland).

yanni
10-18-2009, 10:30 AM
\du*et"\ (?), n. [duetto.] (mus.) a composition for two performers, whether vocal or instrumental.
duet
n
1. two items of the same kind [syn: couple, doubleton, pair, twosome, twain, brace, span, yoke, couplet, distich, duo, dyad, duad]


2. two performers or singers who perform together [syn: duette, duo]


3. a pair who associate with one another; "the engaged couple"; "an inseparable twosome" [syn: couple, twosome, duo]


4. a musical composition for two performers [syn: duette, duo]


5. a dance for two people (usually a ballerina and a danseur noble) [syn: pas de deux]

Musicology
10-18-2009, 03:48 PM
But you haven't presented any of it.

Did I miss where you showed signed declarations from these secret societies, declassified documents outlining their plan to manufacture the Mozart myth? Did you ever present a letter or memoir from the genius who really composed The Magic Flute, detailing the motives and methods of his assistance in this monumental fraud? Did you show us Mozart's written confession that he was a huge no-talent who depended entirely on the works of others (at the behest of the Jesuits and Freemasons) for his catalogue and reputation?

No, you've just presented various anomalies in the Mozart biography, such as misattributed early works. You've made grandiose pronouncements about how brainwashed everyone but yourself is by the Mozart Myth. And that's supposed to convince us of the existence of this vast historical conspiracy?

All I'm doing is being as skeptical of your claims as I would of anyone else's. If someone presents records from MI5 showing that Mussolini was on the payroll during WWI, I accept the claim. But unless you show me evidence that secret societies manufactured the Mozart Myth out of thin air, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,

Istvan

I have presented a good general outline. If you wish to discuss a specific work why not ask me to discuss it ? You present your evidence that Mozart composed it and I will produce evidence to the contrary. The Magic Flute would be fine. But it's your choice. Each work has its own story. Of course it does.

You will not find signed records of those who plan conspiracies. You will not find such things in the history of banknote forgery. Let us be fair and reasonable. These things are proved by inconsistencies, by documentary evidence of other kinds. The very thing we find when we examine Mozart in real detail. By plain evidence which contradicts convention. And so on.

So, if you are really interested in this subject, name a work you wish to discuss and let's take it from there.

Scheherazade
10-18-2009, 03:52 PM
W a r n i n g

You do not have to agree with other members but please do not disregard their right to be on this Forum posting as much as yourselves.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning and members resorting to such "attacks" will receive infraction points.

Musicology
10-18-2009, 04:21 PM
What they wanted was control. Control of the music industry. Control of what is believed and taught. Control of Mozart's life and career at every stage. Even at the expense of reality itself. And they did it. By dominating the field of music publishing, books on music history, and musical performance. So the myth became 'history' and the truth was thrown in the trash. Easier to control a musical icon from Salzburg than to tell the real story of dozens of people.

This must surely be one of the most inane parts of your entire theory. You ask that we accept the idea that a vast conspiracy was undertaken by various clandestine societies (a conspiracy that continues into the present) which involved the labors of untold hundreds... the enforced silence of who knows how many (including the true composers of Mozart's masterworks who one would assume would wish the world to know the truth)... the falsification of historic documents... and an expenditure of what must have amounted to a sizable fortune all to what purpose? The control of a non-existent music "industry" in the day before copyright laws and sound recordings made music in any way truly profitable. But then again... haven't you also argued that the moon landing was another falsification engineered by Hollywood film studios and the government?

Would you kindly tell us where and when Mozart ever studied music theory and composition ? I've been studying this subject of Mozart for many years. I've found nothing. Maybe you can tell us ?

To which school did Wolfgang Mozart go as a child for his ordinary education ? And under what recognised teacher of music did Mozart study harmony, orchestration and composition during his whole lifetime ?

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him ?

Robert, can you kindly tell me where you studied music and musicology? Perhaps it was the Royal School of Music, London where you have stated you studied Music/Orchestration/Harmony/Instrumentation from 1970-1974... except that such a school never existed.:confused: Or perhaps such was a misprint and you meant the Royal College of Music (which has no record of an alumni by your name):nod:.

Or perhaps you can kindly tell me the names of a number of credible musicologist or music historians who have seriously embraced your theory. Certainly a theory as ground-breaking as your would be an assurance of near instant academic stardom for the musicologist who could prove it in academic circles. Or perhaps you wish for us to believe that the music field is the sole discipline in academia where alternative theories and continued investigative research are frowned upon... or the Jesuits and Illuminati are still pulling the strings behind the whole scene and hushing these academics up with threats against their wives and families... or promises of a lifetime supply of Viennese chocolate Elvises and videos of the moon landing.:rolleyes:

I see you are desperate to sling mud. But let me make it really hard for you by staying on the subject of the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-91). Moon landings are out. So are other subjects. As a matter of fact I can point you to numerous musicologists who agree with me on Mozart. And have done for years. Let me mention just a few. I can produce others if you like. Right here on this forum.

Let's take for a start two well known Italian specialists on 18th century music. Professor Luca Bianchini. He has prepared hundreds of musical scores for performance in Europe and is a specialist in music of that time. Let me also present Professor Anna Trombetta, a teacher of music theory, a specialist in 18th century performance. Both of these are professional musicologists in Italy. If you wish to have direct contact with them, just let me know. I will give you contact details. Can't do better than that, can I ? I could name various others. But why bore you with reality ? Would you like a list of the numerous music library curators I am in touch with in France, Italy, England, Czech Republic, Germany and Austria, and a list of various writers and researchers I have contacted all across Europe and beyond ?

OK, but we are still waiting for the details of Mozart's schooling and for details of his supposed musical education. Shall we wait for your reply much longer ? So far you have given us precisely zero.

And it shows ! But nobody is fooling you, right ? Please provide some sources on Mozart's schooling. And on his musical education. Still waiting. If you would prefer a simpler question how about this. Can you tell us how many books you have read on the life and career of Mozart ? That would be a start.

Thank You


It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

And don't resent the fact that some people examine the actual evidence and try to show you it's moonshine.

One side has nothing to offer. Guess which ?

The official story of Mozart is a fairy tale.

Babbalanja
10-18-2009, 06:58 PM
Robert,


I have presented a good general outline.
I call it a vague, incoherent set of claims.


You will not find signed records of those who plan conspiracies. You will not find such things in the history of banknote forgery. Let us be fair and reasonable. These things are proved by inconsistencies, by documentary evidence of other kinds. And like I said, nothing is proved by inconsistencies.

You're the one making the claim that, as you said in the OP, "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire". It's odd that you keep saying you're waiting for others to produce evidence, when the burden of proof is by all rights on you.

It's not up to others to prove you wrong. It's up to you to support your claim with the kind of evidence we'd expect to see: signed documents attesting to the plot, correspondence that talks about the plot in detail, a confession from Mozart that he's a fraud and a patsy of the super-secret fraternities, etc. You can't use the very fact that this evidence doesn't exist to support your claim.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
10-19-2009, 12:32 AM
:wave:

Yea and nay
each hath his say
but God He keeps the middle way*
(*like Aristotle suggested)

The answer as to the identity of the manufacturers of "New Truth" (Mozart included) is to be found at http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43550.

Cheers.

billl
10-19-2009, 01:22 AM
I've been following along, there's been some fun reading in this thread, thanks everyone. I am no expert at all on this subject, but I think that anyone who is could comment on this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=Deutsch,+Otto+Erich&source=bl&ots=VXxTWUBl-t&sig=bVp7Fm_HBt19bNLFOProV68YlKk&hl=en&ei=xPbbSq-tIJKh8AbSqdC3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

yanni
10-19-2009, 03:26 AM
Thanks Billl,

My comments on "Mozart: A Documentary Biography By Otto Erich Deutsch" as follows:

The online version is partially protected, particulary prohibiting access to data on my hero (as "Grimm" and less so as "Gluck").

IE If I still maintained the slightest doubt on my findings I would have to buy the book but this is not the case.

Of interest:

A. That "Gluck", shortly after his return to Europe from America (as Chastellux and La Luzerne) visits Vienna, enjoys a Mozart concert and invites the Mozarts to dinner, March 12th-16th, 1783, (p305), while Mme d'Epinay lies dying (+15th April 1783- IF she did!).*

B.The fact that a month after "Gluck" aranges his alleged death in Vienna November 15th, 1787, the Holy Roman Emperor disbands the German Opera (With Aloisia Weber joining the Italian Company and Mozart going "italian" too, at least in Vienna.)

(detailed 1787 timeline under preparation.)

Cheers!

*If "Gluck" had a twin brother (as many of his alias do, including Myslivecek) one cannot really tell who is who. The same for another "Gluck" presence in the book, p 205, on August 6th, 1782 (repetition in his favour of Mozart's Entfuhrung aus dem Serai) while Chastellux is still in America.

Babbalanja
10-19-2009, 08:50 AM
One side has nothing to offer. Guess which ?

The official story of Mozart is a fairy tale.
These are odd overstatements.

I assume the "one side" you mention is the musicological establishment, whose consensus opinion that Mozart did in fact compose the majority of works attributed to him is, in your opinion, a complete falsehood. The basis for your criticism of this consensus is that certain works originally attributed to Mozart have since been discovered to be the work of other composers.

This actually seems like disconfirming evidence of your theory that there's a vast historical conspiracy to attribute works to Mozart that weren't his. If all we know about Mozart is merely the invention of the shadowy cabal of musicologists in on the Conspiracy, why indeed would any work be removed from Mozart's catalogue as inauthentic? Aren't the custodians of this plot supposed to maintain at any cost the carefully-crafted illusion of Mozart's greatness?

And isn't this evidence that there's some objective measure to authenticating Mozart's work, which professional, educated musicologists could explain in detail? Why not run the Mozart-didn't-compose-anything hypothesis by a wide range of musicology specialists and let them assess the evidence?

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology
10-19-2009, 10:50 AM
Robert,


I call it a vague, incoherent set of claims.

And like I said, nothing is proved by inconsistencies.

You're the one making the claim that, as you said in the OP, "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire". It's odd that you keep saying you're waiting for others to produce evidence, when the burden of proof is by all rights on you.

It's not up to others to prove you wrong. It's up to you to support your claim with the kind of evidence we'd expect to see: signed documents attesting to the plot, correspondence that talks about the plot in detail, a confession from Mozart that he's a fraud and a patsy of the super-secret fraternities, etc. You can't use the very fact that this evidence doesn't exist to support your claim.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

Proof should be simple. If the Mozart story is true let's see the evidence for it. Its been around for 200 years. We have mountains of books. Let me ask for something simple (as I already have done). Please provide details of Mozart's ordinary and musical education. Not difficult is it ? Now, either this evidence exists and can be presented, or it doesn't exist. Which ?

As far as other details are concerned, I have already asked you to name a piece by Mozart and let's compare notes to see if he really composed it or not. Let's take, for example, 'The Marriage of Figaro', or, perhaps, 'The Magic Flute'. As you please. Or another work.

Can't get fairer than that, can I ?

As for works being continually removed from the official Mozart catalogue, this is consistent with a fabrication. The spinner of lies must continually reinvent his story. And that is exactly what we see in the catalogue of 'Mozart's' music. Myths are continually being reinvented. That too is a plain, very plain, fact of history.

St Lukesguild will hopefully come to the rescue of Mozart. But no answer so far. What's new ?

As far as running the Mozart fraud past 'experts', who are they ? We have yet to have one named. Maybe you can find us one. So far, they are not talking. Because they know the evidence is massively against the story they are employed to defend. But sure, let's find one. Let's invite him here to discuss the actual, documentary evidence. The actual, historical evidence of the 'genius from Salzburg'. That would be great.

My experience is that such requests go round and round in circles. But maybe you can do it. Then readers can judge for themselves. That's only fair, after all.

Babbalanja
10-19-2009, 11:03 AM
Please provide details of Mozart's ordinary and musical education. Not difficult is it ? Now, either this evidence exists and can be presented, or it doesn't exist. Which ?
This point isn't relevant. Your hypothesis could be true regardless of Mozart's level of musical education, couldn't it? Why, then, demand evidence of Mozart's education from people wasting time on a message board, instead of presenting evidence that truly supports your theory?


I have already asked you to name a piece by Mozart and let's compare notes to see if he really composed it or not. Let's take, for example, 'The Marriage of Figaro', or, perhaps, 'The Magic Flute'. As you please.Your hypothesis is that Mozart didn't compose 'The Magic Flute,' I assume. So who did? And how do you know?


My experience is that such requests go round and round in circles. But maybe you can do it. Then readers can judge for themselves.
That's probably because you're not assuming the burden of supporting your claims with evidence. I don't think I'm the only reader here who has noticed that.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology
10-19-2009, 05:37 PM
This point isn't relevant. Your hypothesis could be true regardless of Mozart's level of musical education, couldn't it? Why, then, demand evidence of Mozart's education from people wasting time on a message board, instead of presenting evidence that truly supports your theory?

Your hypothesis is that Mozart didn't compose 'The Magic Flute,' I assume. So who did? And how do you know?


That's probably because you're not assuming the burden of supporting your claims with evidence. I don't think I'm the only reader here who has noticed that.

Regards,

Istvan

No,

The point IS relevant. I don't believe babies can fly 747's across the Atlantic from New York to London. I have seen no evidence of it. Nor do I believe children write symphonies, piano concertos or operas. But you believe the opposite. In the case of Mozart you believe he did so. And I am simply asking you to provide evidence of his musical and general education. Which you say is not relevant !

What sort of kangaroo court is that ?


This point isn't relevant. Your hypothesis could be true regardless of Mozart's level of musical education, couldn't it? Why, then, demand evidence of Mozart's education from people wasting time on a message board, instead of presenting evidence that truly supports your theory?

Your hypothesis is that Mozart didn't compose 'The Magic Flute,' I assume. So who did? And how do you know?


That's probably because you're not assuming the burden of supporting your claims with evidence. I don't think I'm the only reader here who has noticed that.

Regards,

Istvan

Regarding The Magic Flute, the history of this opera is riddled with contradictions. First, the theme of the overture is not by Mozart. Second, it uses material already written a year earlier by Paul Wranitsky and numerous other composers. Have you heard the Wranitsky opera 'Oberon' ? No, of course you haven't. It was the most popular opera of the whole of Viennese musical history. It was even staged in the same theatre where the Magic Flute was premiered. I mean, how ignorant can people be ? That opera uses music used in the Magic Flute. And, as for theme in the overture, it comes from a piano sonata written years earlier by Clementi.

And there's more - the musical score was not completed by Mozart. It was sent to Bonn before the premiere, according to the surviving correspondence of the Bonn music publisher Simrock. These are facts you do not know. It was in Bonn this music was all cobbled together.

You are not the only reader to notice gaps between questions and answers !!!! You are providing nothing. Nothing at all. And time after time you are receiving hard facts.

So what happens ? What are you believing ? Nothing but a fairy story. Sorry, but it's fact.

Why not choose another opera by 'Mozart' ? Or a concerto, a symphony, or some other work ?

And how is this possible if, as you say, I am not answering you on this short thread. There must be something seriously wrong with the official story for me to be so sure. Right ?

Babbalanja
10-19-2009, 06:33 PM
Regarding The Magic Flute, the history of this opera is riddled with contradictions. First, the theme of the overture is not by Mozart. Second, it uses material already written a year earlier by Paul Wranitsky and numerous other composers.Uh, was the music plagiarized by Mozart? It's known that Oberon was the inspiration for the Flute's libretto, but are you saying Wranitsky actually composed the Flute's music? What 'numerous other composers'? And what evidence supports your claim?


You are not the only reader to notice gaps between questions and answers !!!! You are providing nothing. Nothing at all. And time after time you are receiving hard facts.
But I'm not obliged to provide anything, Robert. You're the one making the claims, you're the one declining to provide support for the claims (or evading the issue like you do above), and then excoriating others for ignoring the supposed evidence.

Calm down and provide the evidence that supports your claim about 'The Magic Flute,' please.

Regards,

Istvan

stlukesguild
10-19-2009, 07:36 PM
But let me make it really hard for you by staying on the subject of the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-91). Moon landings are out. So are other subjects.

Why is that, Robert? Do you honestly expect people here to take your word for it that everything we've learned about Mozart and Haydn is one vast fairy tale... that the reality is some vast conspiracy involving secret societies and the efforts of hundreds of people... that we're all ignorant dupes... without considering any of the issues that might call your credibility into question... such as fraudulent claims about your academic credentials, and your belief in other conspiracy theories such as that on the moon landings and 911? It would seem to me that if anyone is to make what amounts to some rather incredible assertions that go against accepted academic "facts" then his or her credibility is certainly going to be called into question.

As a matter of fact I can point you to numerous musicologists who agree with me on Mozart. And have done for years. Let me mention just a few. I can produce others if you like. Right here on this forum.

Please do. Undoubtedly there are a few who have fallen for your spiel. Of course we have yet to see a single real publication... not even in the academic presses of a major university... that even vaguely supports your theories. If your theory had any real academic support it would show up in web searches and in libraries. I can find endless articles related to the Shakespeare attribution questions... but Mozart? Nada. Of course that only proves your point, right? A sort of catch-22. The fact that there is no serious academic support for your theory is not due to the fact that the theory is nonsense, but rather due to the fact that the Mozart industry and the Freemasons, and the Jesuits, and the Illuminati are suppressing the facts in order to maintain control of the lucrative market of Mozart CDs. Obviously, they must be behind the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis, Michael Jackson, and Madonna as well for we all know that these later artists couldn't possibly have written the music attributed to them without formal music education... and it sells far more than any Mozart CD ever does so that market needs to be controlled as well. The Illuminati was probably behind Michael Jackson's death. He'd become a lose canon with all those child molestation charges circulating. Who knows... he might just come out and spill the beans on the whole conspiracy.:rolleyes:

OK, but we are still waiting for the details of Mozart's schooling and for details of his supposed musical education. Shall we wait for your reply much longer ? So far you have given us precisely zero.

Robert, again you miss the point. It is you who have made the outlandish statement that challenges accepted history. It is up to you to prove your statement... and this will not be achieved by bombarding a group of book lovers... most with little or no knowledge (or even interest) in Mozart... with a bunch of obscure "factoids" that you expect us to verify. To what purpose? I will also note that I have already posted what we know of Mozart's education which is neither more nor less impressive than what we know of a vast number of artists, writers, and composers from the whole of history.

And it shows ! But nobody is fooling you, right ? Please provide some sources on Mozart's schooling. And on his musical education. Still waiting. If you would prefer a simpler question how about this. Can you tell us how many books you have read on the life and career of Mozart ? That would be a start.

Again Robert, you completely miss the point. My credibility is not at question. I am not challenging the history of Mozart as presented by the historians who most certainly studied his work and correspondences. I am not attempting to convince everyone that everything they have been taught is a fairy tale and they are but ignorant dupes. I am not trying to convince a group of book lovers that somehow the whole of academia in the field of Mozart studies (which one would assume is not far behind the studies of a literary figure such as Dante, Chaucer, Milton, or Shakespeare) are also ignorant of the facts or complicit in some vast on-going conspiracy. What does bother you, however, is the fact that even someone without the credentials and experience in Mozart studies can blow gaping holes in your theory. Imagine what a real musicologist must be able to do... especially a Mozart specialist. Must be quite frustrating.:brow:

Gilliatt Gurgle
10-19-2009, 07:53 PM
The beast still lives, feeding on its own flesh while the truth has quietly slipped on to the second page.

billl
10-19-2009, 11:08 PM
No,

The point IS relevant. I don't believe babies can fly 747's across the Atlantic from New York to London. I have seen no evidence of it. Nor do I believe children write symphonies, piano concertos or operas. But you believe the opposite. In the case of Mozart you believe he did so. And I am simply asking you to provide evidence of his musical and general education. Which you say is not relevant !


Hi Musicology, I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition. It is an interesting point, and I think it could help win people over if you could show them some evidence/documentation that would point conclusively (or, at least, close to conclusively) to another explanation for the young Mozart's output. I have typed in some (not all) names that you've mentioned, but I can't get anywhere on them using the internet.



And there's more - the musical score was not completed by Mozart. It was sent to Bonn before the premiere, according to the surviving correspondence of the Bonn music publisher Simrock. These are facts you do not know. It was in Bonn this music was all cobbled together.


Is it clear in the correspondence that music was cobbled together? I am not familiar with the role of publishing house at that time, but might it have been the case that it was the publisher's responsibility to provide adequate copies of the score for the orchestra(s) that would perform the composition on a tour? Until recently, providing sheet music was a very important responsibility for a publishing company. Again, maybe it's just a case where your enthusiasm and energy is taking things too quickly for me (someone who is not so familiar with the history of Mozart OR publishing companies, for that matter).

Also, are you or any of your colleagues in a position to provide links to documents, or make scans of them, maybe to produce some sort of website--it isn't expensive to set up the website. I think that could be a very effective way to make use of the internet, and make a case for the truth. There is a learning curve if you aren't experienced, but they make it pretty simple these days, especially if you are going to be providing mostly text, images, and photos/scans. I can see you have sufficient determination to do it!



Thanks Billl,

My comments on "Mozart: A Documentary Biography By Otto Erich Deutsch" as follows:

The online version is partially protected, particulary prohibiting access to data on my hero (as "Grimm" and less so as "Gluck").

IE If I still maintained the slightest doubt on my findings I would have to buy the book but this is not the case.

Of interest:

A. That "Gluck", shortly after his return to Europe from America (as Chastellux and La Luzerne) visits Vienna, enjoys a Mozart concert and invites the Mozarts to dinner, March 12th-16th, 1783, (p305), while Mme d'Epinay lies dying (+15th April 1783- IF she did!).*

B.The fact that a month after "Gluck" aranges his alleged death in Vienna November 15th, 1787, the Holy Roman Emperor disbands the German Opera (With Aloisia Weber joining the Italian Company and Mozart going "italian" too, at least in Vienna.)

(detailed 1787 timeline under preparation.)

Cheers!

*If "Gluck" had a twin brother (as many of his alias do, including Myslivecek) one cannot really tell who is who. The same for another "Gluck" presence in the book, p 205, on August 6th, 1782 (repetition in his favour of Mozart's Entfuhrung aus dem Serai) while Chastellux is still in America.

Hi yanni! You provide a timeline here, but I'm not familiar enough with the characters and the typical pace of travel in Mozart's time, so I'm not sure exactly how you are making a case here. I have seen you refer to someone with various aliases (Gluck, etc.). Can you explain who he is, who "Gluck" is supposed to be, and how those things figure in this quoted post. I see you say it is hard to keep track of who is who--but you are connecting him (I think) to a woman I am not familiar with either.

Maybe your more detailed timeline will clear that stuff up, I'm mainly posting because I was thinking "more detailed" might end up meaning that there would be more entries in the timeline, and maybe more characters I don't know.

I understand that answers to my questions might be somewhere above in this thread, but it is a ton of material, and it isn't really clear to me. I am very interested if this book from Google Books might provide you with a chance to show us a bit of how actual documentation is supporting your position. And of course, any other more useful/clearer documents would be great, if they have made it online.

Thanks!

stlukesguild
10-20-2009, 01:58 AM
Hi Musicology, I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition.

Child prodigies are not all that rare... but they don't really matter all that much. By this I mean that it is rare for the work of a child prodigy to stand a a major work of a mature artist. Mendelssohn is the other obvious example in music. His achievements are far better documented and include some 12 string symphonies written between ages 12 and 14. His Octet and Music for a Midsummer Night's Dream written at age 16 may be the the most youthful masterpieces in music (although Schubert also had composed a number of brilliant songs by this age).

The reality is that the youthful works of Mozart are not masterpieces. They are perhaps well-composed (at best) but they are not major works of art by any standard. Perhaps some of the most youthful of these were composed with the assistance of his father... or are even mis-attributed. The immature nature of these works in comparison to Mozart;s later works is one of the elements that most clearly suggest legitimacy. One cannot imagine a group of composers churning out compositions for Mozart as the front man in such a manner that clearly conveys the gradual development and maturity of the artist from very minor youthful works to the profundity of the final works.

yanni
10-20-2009, 02:35 AM
I have seen you refer to someone with various aliases (Gluck, etc.). Can you explain who he is, who "Gluck" is supposed to be, and how those things figure in this quoted post. I see you say it is hard to keep track of who is who--but you are connecting him (I think) to a woman I am not familiar with either.

A very long story, Billl, how, hunting for roots to explain the premature selfdestruct 1925 death of my grandfather, a very active 1895-1919 greek tenor, I managed, via Edgar Allen Poe…
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15023
….to land in Paris, amidst the headquarters of “enlightment”..
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35779
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39455
http://www.online-literature.com/for...003#post639003
…to finally discover my own bloodlinks to the immortal alchemist, “comte Saint Germain”:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43550

Who was “Saint Germain”?
He was born Gioachino Cocchi and, among his many other aliases, he is known today under the following music related “pennames”:
Jean Jacques Rousseau, Chr.Wil.Gluck,Melchior Grimm, Marquis de Chastellux, Myslivecek and Heinrich Koch (the last two aliases discovered while posting in this thread).

As per current mythology, Melchior Grimm and Rousseau shared among others a “common admiration” for Mme d’Epinay (aka Julie L’Espinasse).

I am very interested if this book from Google Books might provide you with a chance to show us a bit of how actual documentation is supporting your position.

My research would not have been concluded successfully if solely based on WHAT IS written, rather what IS NOT, in “books” (I am in full agreement with Musicology’s view on “manufactured truth”), many written either by my own ancestor-hero or his descendants and relatives(such as Gaston Leroux, see http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=669725) and friends (19th century French literature infact seems to concentrate on him generally).

Nevertheless your book confirmed what was troubling me for a long time now, the existence of “a brother” of Cocchi, perhaps a twin (Myslivecek allegedly hiding his deformed face so that Mozart would not recognise another “Durrazo-Gluck”),perhaps not.

The two brothers being both musicians and serving as top agents the French ministry of foreign affairs under so many aliases makes it impossible to distinguish who was who (the “alchemist” or the “musician”) for a specific time and/or political or musical achievement and all we are left with is “Rousseau’s” farewell blessing to “Gluck”....

Croyez-moi, mon cher prête-nom, ne nous brouillons jamais ensemble, car sans moi vous êtes nul. Je suis complaisant, vous le savez;je ne me refuse jamais au travail que vous désirez, quand vous vous donnez la peine de m'appeler et le temps de m'attendre : mais ne tentez jamais rien sans moi dans aucun genre ; ne vous mêlez jamais de l'impromptu en quoi que ce soit, si vous ne voulez gâter en un instant, par votre ineptie, tout ce que j'ai fait jusqu'ici pour vous donner l'air d'un homme pensant.

....and also the first US presidents "covering up" for "them" (naming "Grimm" as author of Raynal's "History of Philosophy" and blaming "Von Gleichen" for "Rousseau's" atheism-all four being the same),not with much success I fear, in their post 1815 correspondence.

Cheers.

Musicology
10-20-2009, 06:33 AM
Hi there Bill,

Thanks for your post. You wrote -

I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition. It is an interesting point, and I think it could help win people over if you could show them some evidence/documentation that would point conclusively (or, at least, close to conclusively) to another explanation for the young Mozart's output. I have typed in some (not all) names that you've mentioned, but I can't get anywhere on them using the internet.


And you also wrote -

Is it clear in the correspondence that music (The Magic Flute) was cobbled together? I am not familiar with the role of publishing house at that time, but might it have been the case that it was the publisher's responsibility to provide adequate copies of the score for the orchestra(s) that would perform the composition on a tour? Until recently, providing sheet music was a very important responsibility for a publishing company. Again, maybe it's just a case where your enthusiasm and energy is taking things too quickly for me (someone who is not so familiar with the history of Mozart OR publishing companies, for that matter).

Also, are you or any of your colleagues in a position to provide links to documents, or make scans of them, maybe to produce some sort of website--it isn't expensive to set up the website. I think that could be a very effective way to make use of the internet, and make a case for the truth. There is a learning curve if you aren't experienced, but they make it pretty simple these days, especially if you are going to be providing mostly text, images, and photos/scans. I can see you have sufficient determination to do it!

//

In reply, yes, we are fed with the idea that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was such a great 'genius' that he was writing symphonies, concertos, operas, sonatas, and performing all round Europe as a virtuoso of legendary talent, this from an early age. In support of this fact (so-called) is a mass of surviving material. Let me touch on this material in a moment. There is so much of it, in fact, that any question of its authenticity is not even considered. Mozart is presented to us a musical superman, in fact. Who began as a musical super-boy. And as soon as we go down that path (which the industry are keen for us to accept from the start) we tend to throw away any fair and reasonable checks on what is actually being said. The story exists, 'therefore the story must be true'. Further supporting this view is a pile of musical manuscripts, reports, testimonies, and so on. So we have this mass of documentation, and we have almost 200 years of tradition, of belief. This seems, to almost everyone, to be conclusive 'evidence'.

Now, obviously, we can't expect to go into great detail here in short posts on Mozart's entire life, career and musical reputation. But let me sketch, at least, the material from his childhood and youth - that is, from the period of his famous tours of Europe. The time (shall we say) up until his 12th year (1768).

I will briefly do this in two posts. Here is the first.

The surviving material is of two kinds. Musical and non-musical. And, as said, it appears to be conclusive. Let's take the non-musical material first. Of what kind is this material ? Well, let's consider a child. Any child. Let's name this child 'John Smith'. Now, John Smith, a young child, is said to be a musical 'genius'. In fact, there is a ton of evidence to say John Smith is a musical genius. What sort of material is this ? Well, most (we find) is written by the father and close associates of this same John Smith. By Mr Smith. And Mr Smith is definitely keen we should believe his son is a prodigy of nature, a musical genius. We have his travel diaries, his correspondence, and so on. What else do we have ? We have reports from others who heard and or saw John Smith. Or who claim to have done so. In performance. So, from the start we have surely to agree that a massive amount of this material is biased, and was even at the time it was written. As for the rest, detailed research shows it to have been invented, for the benefit of John Smith's reputation. And this is able to proved beyond reasonable doubt.

As far as the musical material is concerned, various studies have been made of the musical manuscripts of 'Mozart' from his earliest years up until this date of 1768. These include over 20 symphonies which are still routinely called his though not one of them belongs to W.A. Mozart. In fact, they are attributed to him only by tradition. They are not in his handwriting. In fact, works of other kinds which do bear Mozart's handwriting are far more full of the handwriting of his sister, Nannerl Mozart, and that of his father, Leopold Mozart. For example, the first 20 symphonies, as said, are definitely not Mozart's - any more than they are yours or mine. (Mozart's father worked as a music dealer at this time and they could have come from many sources). The piano concertos attributed to Mozart at this time are also definitely not by him. 4 of these are arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and the rest are arrangements of works by other Paris-based German composers. But the truth of this was not known until the early 19th century. In the case of the concertos of J.C. Bach it was not finally known until 1908.

And so, in example after example, there are compelling reasons not to attribute this material to the 'genius' of Mozart.

I will continue this in another post.

Regards

In the 18th century there were no telephones, no emails, poor transport, and the Mozart family were simply one of thousands, literally thousands, of people employed in a musical capacity across Europe. There were entire musical families in Italy, in Germany, in Bohemia, in France, in Holland and right across the continent.

But we are asked to believe that with W.A. Mozart he learned and wrote music at such a prodigious speed, and of such quality, that he first astounded Salzburg. Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, it doesn't exist. But we believe it all the same. In fact, detailed study shows the Mozart employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) was the one who sent Wolfgang to Italy in the first place ! Why ? To learn how to compose. How to write music. That is, he did not know these things before he left for Italy. And even in Italy he spent almost no time at any music school. In fact, a letter survives of Leopold Mozart (sent to Italy) in which he mentions the Prince Archbishop says his son knew nothing of music at all. It was for this simple reason that he (the Prince Archbishop Firmian) sent him there in the first place ! There is not a shred of evidence Mozart's father taught Wolfgang composition, or music theory to his son. Not any ! In fact, the father was a minor violinist of no great talent. Who was promoted to a 'vice-kapellmeister' position only weeks before he too left to travel Europe with his son. He never, at any time, taught anyone music or composition and he was a minor employee in Salzburg.

So how did his father arrange vast tours of Europe to princes, archbishops, dignitaries in a Europe already filled with talented musicians ? And why would anyone be remotely interested in Mozart from provincial Salzburg ? Can you image the logistics of arranging huge tours of Europe for a perfect stranger in every town and city where they went ? And where can we find these letters written by his father to all these strangers all across Europe ? They do not exist ! Nobody has ever seen them. But let's ignore this too.

So, how was this 'road show' arranged ? It's obvious there was some kind of management going on here. The impression is given that Europe couldn't wait to hear and see Mozart. When, in fact, the opposite is true. The whole thing was being 'stage managed' and this child, torn away from its childhood, and having at no point contact with other children of his age, was exploited. Plain and simple. Travelling thousands of miles across Europe in a coach. On roads that were poor in quality. Year after year. These are definitely not the conditions to learn anything. Nor are they conditions to practice playing piano, or to compose, or to have a stable and realistic musical career. Not even as an adult. But we choose to ignore that too. The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. They did so because they wanted to manufacture a reputation. For their own reasons. And they did so.

This musical fraud was finally challenged. It was inevitable. The case of Vienna, 1768 is one you might care to examine. You can see this refered to in the correspondence of Mozart's own father. When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds. Now, these events are not part of the official story. And exposure of the truth irritated Mozart' father. It was embarrassing. Nobody believed Mozart was a musical 'genius'. In fact, they believed the opposite. And they told them, to their faces. This finally ended in them getting a commission to write an opera. Known as 'La Finta Semplice'. But that commission was cancelled when, 5 months later, it was discovered that piece had not been written by the boy also. They returned to Salzburg, unpaid. And the theatre manager (Giuseppe Affligio) described it as a fraud. His own musicians agreed. An official investigation was started into this affair because it became a scandal. It was so damaging for Mozart's reputation that it remains, till now, edited out of virtually all biographies or altered to become a 'misunderstanding'. And it's just one example. In later years Mozart's powerful supporters arranged for the arrest of this same Vienna theatre manager. Accusing HIM of forgery ! And banning him from Vienna. To the island of Elba, where he died a few years later.

This is only a very small sketch of the true childhood years of W.A. Mozart. A project of fraud that had the support of fraternities and vested interests. And which has hardly been told. A clever fraud, for sure. In later years it was to continue. In fact, it was massively expanded. So that the fairy story would grow to giant size. Supported by some of the greatest music of the 18th century. Whose origins (like the childhood works) is rarely examined critically.

I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him. To the point where, after seeing a few hundred examples, it is possible to predict (and to know) that it came from other sources. An amazing story, for sure. But I think it's important we hear both sides of this story and any other which is widely taught and believed.

For sure, it's hard to compile all the evidence to show this is true beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the story has been disguised, hidden, and often obscured by the 'industry'.

Nobody denies some of this music is the finest of the 18th or or centuries. But it involved many people. Some of the most talented composers of his time. And publishers and biographers after his death. Only half a century after his death came the first 'catalogue' of 'Mozart's' music. So that the story, the reality, was buried, falsified, biographically and musically, and so that it would be extremely difficult to piece together what really happened.

I and others have worked in this field for a long time. The results of all this study must, of course, be compared with the works of your un-named 'experts'. That's only fair. But the general public can at least form their own judgement. And that's only fair. ''The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate'' - Dr. Wayne Dyer. (That was me. For years. Now I'm making up for lost time !). On a subject which, perhaps, may be of interest to others.

Does musical 'genius' exist ? Yes, of course ! Of course it does. But it's the product of long, long study and very hard work. Nothing else.

There is talent that can be and often is ignored by an entire generation. By the music industry. But it remains all the same. What of this ? Music 'beyond the music industry'. A celebration of something greater.

J.S. Bach
Oratorio
BWV 248/43-5
Chorus - 'Ehre sei dir, Gott, gesungen'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUsZcsJnm4&feature=related

Regards

Babbalanja
10-20-2009, 09:26 AM
I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him.
To quote Robert himself, "Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, but we believe it all the same."

Musicology
10-20-2009, 10:26 AM
To quote Robert himself, "Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, but we believe it all the same."

But it's true. And the longer this thread goes on the more obvious it becomes. Did they teach you to check what you are taught ? I mean, is it illegal ? Why not name another 'Mozart' work for us to check ?

There must be something wrong somewhere in the official story to make such a generous offer to you !! And it remains open. Can't do better than that, can I ?

Babbalanja
10-20-2009, 10:39 AM
But it's true. And the longer this thread goes on the more obvious it becomes. It only becomes obvious that you're not presenting any evidence to back up your claims. A lot of speculation and assertions, but nothing like what I said we'd expect to see if your claims are true: a confession by Mozart, testimony by whistleblowers inside the fraternities, documentation of the actual composition of Mozart's fraudulent works, etc.


Why not name another 'Mozart' work for us to check ?
You did a less than satisfactory job with the first one, merely asserting that The Magic Flute was the work of 'numerous other composers.' You're free to believe whatever you want, but you have yet to make a persuasive case.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology
10-20-2009, 11:13 AM
It only becomes obvious that you're not presenting any evidence to back up your claims. A lot of speculation and assertions, but nothing like what I said we'd expect to see if your claims are true: a confession by Mozart, testimony by whistleblowers inside the fraternities, documentation of the actual composition of Mozart's fraudulent works, etc.


You did a less than satisfactory job with the first one, merely asserting that The Magic Flute was the work of 'numerous other composers.' You're free to believe whatever you want, but you have yet to make a persuasive case.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

You have a strange attitude. Here are readers trying to judging a case. But are they judging it fairly ? Where are your expert sources who can defend the 'official' story ? Can you find at least one for us ? So that neutral readers can form a fair judgement ? Why is it so hard for you to give the 'official' story ?

All you can do is say 'it's up to you to prove the opposite'. Well, I've already done so. I've given a rough sketch of Mozart up to the age of 12. If you can produce your evidence of him being a musical 'genius' up until that date please do it. Let's see it. I mean, its been asked for over and over again. But where is the evidence ?

Believe what you like. But if you believe something is true why can't you produce any evidence ? Not even a basic sketch of what you believe to be true. If there is mountains of evidence why not produce some ? So that we can examine it fairly, here, on this thread ?

We see, in fact, that he never went to school. That he never studied music. That he never studied harmony, orchestration, composition under any teacher. Not even in Italy. Don't you think this matters ?

For sure, this is not unusual. Your attitude was mine too. It seemed so impossible. But the closer you examine this subject the more it becomes clear that it's really a cleverly manufactured story.

I don't claim to have infallible proof. But it seems to me correct, beyond reasonable doubt. Since I've examined this issue from the time of his childhood up until his death (and the decades beyond) from many, many sources, and in much detail. I feel it's a view worth comparing with your 'official' story.

Babbalanja
10-20-2009, 12:11 PM
Robert,

It's one thing to assert that there has been a great deal of exaggeration and error in Mozart scholarship over its two centuries. However, you're making the claim that Mozart didn't compose any of the works attributed to him, and that secret societies were and are still behind the manufacture and maintenance of his legend out of thin air. If you make surprising claims that go against everything that we understand about a historical figure, people usually expect strong evidence to back up those claims.

What you call the "official story" isn't mine, and I'm not obliged to defend it. You're the one claiming to be "certain" that Mozart didn't compose any of his works, but you're trying to avoid the burden of proof.

Do you have a confession from Mozart that he was a no-talent fraud who merely signed his name to the work of others?

Do you have testimony from people involved in the great Conspiracy, outlining its methods and aims?

Do you have documentation of the actual composition of these monumental works, signed by their real composers?

Then why should anyone else believe your claims?

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
10-20-2009, 12:29 PM
What you are really asking Musicology to provide, Babba, is concrete evidence, even a confession, that phantoms exist.

Well, they don't, except in opera (and some other places you bypass in a hurry)!

Cheers.

:wave:

Babbalanja
10-20-2009, 01:22 PM
What you are really asking Musicology to provide, Babba, is concrete evidence, even a confession, that phantoms exist.No, it's just plain old, ordinary historical research. If, as Robert says of his case, "the evidence is massive," why won't he present any of it? If he's up to assuming the burden of proof, why does he spend so much time demanding evidence from others?

Regards,

Istvan

billl
10-20-2009, 02:23 PM
As far as the musical material is concerned, various studies have been made of the musical manuscripts of 'Mozart' from his earliest years up until this date of 1768. These include over 20 symphonies which are still routinely called his though not one of them belongs to W.A. Mozart. In fact, they are attributed to him only by tradition. They are not in his handwriting. In fact, works of other kinds which do bear Mozart's handwriting are far more full of the handwriting of his sister, Nannerl Mozart, and that of his father, Leopold Mozart.


This sounds like it would be good evidence that Mozart didn't write the symphonies. (That is, if the 'original' hand-written manuscripts were not in Mozart's handwriting as documented elsewhere, indeed if there were great variety in the handwriting and musical notation).

If there were existing copies, and we could have them scanned (they probably have been somewhere) then it would probably be possible to compare them to Mozart's signature on other scans that are stored online. Maybe this has already been done? If there were a link we could click on, that would be a powerful aid in presenting this case. Especially if important examples could be connected together via text, on a single web page.




In fact, detailed study shows the Mozart employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) was the one who sent Wolfgang to Italy in the first place ! Why ? To learn how to compose. How to write music. That is, he did not know these things before he left for Italy. And even in Italy he spent almost no time at any music school. In fact, a letter survives of Leopold Mozart (sent to Italy) in which he mentions the Prince Archbishop says his son knew nothing of music at all. It was for this simple reason that he (the Prince Archbishop Firmian) sent him there in the first place !



It seems that Mozart's youth and lack of musical education are key components in making this case convincing. There might also be a very elaborate web of false or misleading documentation that I imagine might be awkward to succinctly present as being evidence of fraud. However, this line of argument quoted directly above seems to reflect passages from a book or documented quotations/testimony of some form. How are Mozart's employer's intentions clear to us? How can we be sure that Mozart didn't attend any school or teacher during his stay? Can you point us to the letter you mention that is written by Leopold Mozart, or provide a more complete sampling of the text and/or context? Again, if you were able to come across this letter, then I think that it might have made it online somewhere by now. If no one else will do it, again, I think you would be doing your work a great service by acquiring the scans yourself somehow.





This musical fraud was finally challenged. It was inevitable. The case of Vienna, 1768 is one you might care to examine. You can see this refered to in the correspondence of Mozart's own father. When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds. Now, these events are not part of the official story. And exposure of the truth irritated Mozart' father. It was embarrassing. Nobody believed Mozart was a musical 'genius'. In fact, they believed the opposite. And they told them, to their faces. This finally ended in them getting a commission to write an opera. Known as 'La Finta Semplice'. But that commission was cancelled when, 5 months later, it was discovered that piece had not been written by the boy also. They returned to Salzburg, unpaid. And the theatre manager (Giuseppe Affligio) described it as a fraud. His own musicians agreed. An official investigation was started into this affair because it became a scandal. It was so damaging for Mozart's reputation that it remains, till now, edited out of virtually all biographies or altered to become a 'misunderstanding'.




Here again is an excellent opportunity to provide evidence that might open the lay-person's eyes. As it is, it is difficult to do a search online for something like "Vienna 1768 Mozart" and come up with the sources for information you are providing. Which books, journals, articles, letters, etc. is this information culled from? Does it exist online? Do you own texts with this information in them (and do you have a scanner or digital camera?)? In particular, I wonder if Mozart's father's letters could be provided online (or an appropriate selection from a book of the collected letters) somehow. I doubt that his father's interpretation of the mockery in Vienna would have been a lamentation of the fact that it had been discovered that his son were a fraud (or at least I doubt that would be the unmistakable content of the letter, based upon the letter alone), but I wonder if you have other material from the time that would make your reading of them compelling. And again, if the letters are online or something, it would be great if we could have a look.

I understand that proving inconsistencies in a made-up history would be daunting, and much would hinge on details that would be meaningful only to one who had perhaps invest a large amount of time with a wide variety of characters and events in a diverse set of documents. I think, however, that you would be aiding yourself greatly if you took some time and put together an understandable presentation of these particular points, providing documentation, etc. As it is, a skeptic is left in the unnecessarily inconvenient position of having to purchase various books collecting a lot of letters and other documentation, in order to evaluate the strength of your theory in relation to these events. If you could convince them on the correctness of your interpretation on these three points that I've quoted, I think quite a few of them might be more than happy to look further into this, with much more sympathetic ears.

Musicology
10-20-2009, 04:53 PM
This sounds like it would be good evidence that Mozart didn't write the symphonies. (That is, if the 'original' hand-written manuscripts were not in Mozart's handwriting as documented elsewhere, indeed if there were great variety in the handwriting and musical notation).

If there were existing copies, and we could have them scanned (they probably have been somewhere) then it would probably be possible to compare them to Mozart's signature on other scans that are stored online. Maybe this has already been done? If there were a link we could click on, that would be a powerful aid in presenting this case. Especially if important examples could be connected together via text, on a single web page.



It seems that Mozart's youth and lack of musical education are key components in making this case convincing. There might also be a very elaborate web of false or misleading documentation that I imagine might be awkward to succinctly present as being evidence of fraud. However, this line of argument quoted directly above seems to reflect passages from a book or documented quotations/testimony of some form. How are Mozart's employer's intentions clear to us? How can we be sure that Mozart didn't attend any school or teacher during his stay? Can you point us to the letter you mention that is written by Leopold Mozart, or provide a more complete sampling of the text and/or context? Again, if you were able to come across this letter, then I think that it might have made it online somewhere by now. If no one else will do it, again, I think you would be doing your work a great service by acquiring the scans yourself somehow.




Here again is an excellent opportunity to provide evidence that might open the lay-person's eyes. As it is, it is difficult to do a search online for something like "Vienna 1768 Mozart" and come up with the sources for information you are providing. Which books, journals, articles, letters, etc. is this information culled from? Does it exist online? Do you own texts with this information in them (and do you have a scanner or digital camera?)? In particular, I wonder if Mozart's father's letters could be provided online (or an appropriate selection from a book of the collected letters) somehow. I doubt that his father's interpretation of the mockery in Vienna would have been a lamentation of the fact that it had been discovered that his son were a fraud (or at least I doubt that would be the unmistakable content of the letter, based upon the letter alone), but I wonder if you have other material from the time that would make your reading of them compelling. And again, if the letters are online or something, it would be great if we could have a look.

I understand that proving inconsistencies in a made-up history would be daunting, and much would hinge on details that would be meaningful only to one who had perhaps invest a large amount of time with a wide variety of characters and events in a diverse set of documents. I think, however, that you would be aiding yourself greatly if you took some time and put together an understandable presentation of these particular points, providing documentation, etc. As it is, a skeptic is left in the unnecessarily inconvenient position of having to purchase various books collecting a lot of letters and other documentation, in order to evaluate the strength of your theory in relation to these events. If you could convince them on the correctness of your interpretation on these three points that I've quoted, I think quite a few of them might be more than happy to look further into this, with much more sympathetic ears.

Bill,

This is a good post of yours. I will try to post here within the next week or so documentary support for the issues raised by me on Mozart up to the age of 12. Not all, by any means, but the names of published sources, of studies made into musical manuscripts, letters, dates, events etc. which support all of the above.

Regards


No, it's just plain old, ordinary historical research. If, as Robert says of his case, "the evidence is massive," why won't he present any of it? If he's up to assuming the burden of proof, why does he spend so much time demanding evidence from others?

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

I have just agreed (after Bill's post here) to post some of the proofs in support of my position within the week. Taken from published studies of documentary evidence. This on the life and career (alleged) of W.A. Mozart up until his 12th year (1768). It would greatly help if you could produce/provide documentary evidence which proves the opposite of what I've already posted here. Since, at the moment, we have one side presenting evidence and the other sitting as if they have nothing to say of any substance.

Let readers judge both sides of this case. We want to see your evidence of Mozart being the composer of symphonies, concertos and operas before his 12th year, and of his legendary status as a composer and performer up until that year of 1768. We want to see documentary evidence of his musical and non-musical education. The kinds of things which, you believe, are widely available in published literature.

I will post, as promised, within one week from now.

Regards

Babbalanja
10-20-2009, 06:31 PM
It would greatly help if you could produce/provide documentary evidence which proves the opposite of what I've already posted here. Since, at the moment, we have one side presenting evidence and the other sitting as if they have nothing to say of any substance.
No, what we have is one side making extraordinary claims but offering no evidence to support his assertions, and the other pointing out the flaws in the claimant's logic.

I'll say it as many times as I have to: I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. Presumably people here are smart enough to realize that there's a generally accepted version of the Mozart myth you're so determined to demolish, written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies.

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

Regards,

Istvan

stlukesguild
10-20-2009, 08:35 PM
I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

A perfect story for J.L. Borges... and I am a sworn Borgesian so I cannot help but appreciate it. Imagine the absolute brilliance of this conspiracy. They not only were able to write music for Mozart... but also Haydn and the young Beethoven. The were able to compose a body of work that maintained a sense of continuity while remaining unique to each composer. At the same time, they provided each composer with a body of work that showed a clear progression or development from youthful and immature music to the brilliant sophistication of the late work. They were able to forge thousands of documents and silence hundreds of voices of observers who must have known the truth. The conspiracy was so brilliantly conceived that it fooled several centuries of historians and musicologists... any number of whom were credentialed specialists in the field who had waded through the endless documentation. Sheer genius! A narrative worthy of a novel by Umberto Eco... or Dan Brown.:brow:

yanni
10-21-2009, 01:25 AM
You contradict yourself Musicology,

"The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. "

"When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds."

...assuming -wrongly- that Vienna musicians were not part of the "structured society" of (what was left at the time of) The Holy Roman Empire of Austria thus staging a revolution against Mozart, the said society's elite choice, in Vienna(!).

As a Freemason, Mozart's father certainly implemented the "reform" plan and participated in promoting his son (as "the next prophet" of reform opera or perhaps simply as reform's "wunderkind"), hence the reaction of the 1768 Vienna musicians who were against reform (as "Jesuit controlled" or "educated" or because ordinary low grade musicians rarely revolt).

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Musicology
10-21-2009, 03:10 PM
No, what we have is one side making extraordinary claims but offering no evidence to support his assertions, and the other pointing out the flaws in the claimant's logic.

I'll say it as many times as I have to: I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. Presumably people here are smart enough to realize that there's a generally accepted version of the Mozart myth you're so determined to demolish, written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies.

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

Regards,

Istvan


OK, I made the offer. Right here on this thread. You can't accept a fair debate ? That's OK. You present your sources. I present mine. Can't get fairer than that, can you ? I've already offered to discuss ANY work by 'Mozart'. To compare versions of who wrote it (and who did not). You now describe your version as 'written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies'. Great ! So give us your version of Mozart's musical and ordinary education and career up until his 12th year - i.e. 1756 to 1768. But you can't, can you ?

Case Closed


You contradict yourself Musicology,

"The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. "

"When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds."

...assuming -wrongly- that Vienna musicians were not part of the "structured society" of (what was left at the time of) The Holy Roman Empire of Austria thus staging a revolution against Mozart, the said society's elite choice, in Vienna(!).

As a Freemason, Mozart's father certainly implemented the "reform" plan and participated in promoting his son (as "the next prophet" of reform opera or perhaps simply as reform's "wunderkind"), hence the reaction of the 1768 Vienna musicians who were against reform (as "Jesuit controlled" or "educated" or because ordinary low grade musicians rarely revolt).

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Yanni,

This thread is discussing the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. It is not discussing one of your favourite subjects, Melchior Grimm and Gluck. But if you wish to open a special thread on these subjects please do. In the meantime I will focus on the subject of Mozart up to the age of 12. Because otherwise people will get very, very confused what your posts are all about.

Regards


I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

A perfect story for J.L. Borges... and I am a sworn Borgesian so I cannot help but appreciate it. Imagine the absolute brilliance of this conspiracy. They not only were able to write music for Mozart... but also Haydn and the young Beethoven. The were able to compose a body of work that maintained a sense of continuity while remaining unique to each composer. At the same time, they provided each composer with a body of work that showed a clear progression or development from youthful and immature music to the brilliant sophistication of the late work. They were able to forge thousands of documents and silence hundreds of voices of observers who must have known the truth. The conspiracy was so brilliantly conceived that it fooled several centuries of historians and musicologists... any number of whom were credentialed specialists in the field who had waded through the endless documentation. Sheer genius! A narrative worthy of a novel by Umberto Eco... or Dan Brown.:brow:


This is really funny. Stlukesguild refers to a 'mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers'. This on the subject of W.A. Mozart.

Great ! So you have a massive advantage from the start. Let me grant you that. You have libraries of books on Mozart. So please present us here with some reliable evidence of W.A. Mozart's musical education and his musical achievements up until the age of 12 ? Up until 1769, that is. Not much to ask is it ? Tell us please where did W.A. Mozart study composition, harmony, orchestration, etc ? This is my ninth request for this basic information on this thread. And so far you and your 'mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers' have produced absolutely zero. And we are still waiting.

If you don't want to share it with us, fine. In that case forget it. Because this is fast becoming proof you have no such evidence. Your 'mountain' does not exist. Surely some exists so please produce it and I will produce evidence Mozart never studied music before he was 12 and that he produced virtually nothing of musical value up until that age.

A simple choice. A fair debate. You produce your evidence. I produce mine. Agreed ? And let readers decide who is producing the best case.

What do you say ? You can quote any published sources you like. From your 'mountain of evidence'.

If you agree I will do the same. In one week's time. So we both have time to put together our different points of view.

Can't get fairer than that.

1. Produce the evidence for Mozart's ordinary and musical education up to the age of 12.

2. Produce for us, please, a list of his major musical works written before he was 12 years old. That is, before 1769.

This simple request repeated, again, and again, and again. Just stretch over to your 'mountain' of published sources. So that this discussion is fair for both parties. The same rules. You produce your evidence and I produce mine. With readers making their own judgement on the evidence presented to them from both sides. That's fair. That's honest. You will have the honour of presenting us with quotes from standard textbooks. You will be defending Mozart's reputation. A simple job, yes ? Supported (you say) by hundreds of researchers over the past two centuries or so. What an honour for you ! A simple job that brings you a lot of credit ! With everyone judging the case. And everyone, at the start, in full support of your view. Can't get better.

Accept or not ?

Babbalanja
10-21-2009, 03:52 PM
I've already offered to discuss ANY work by 'Mozart'. To compare versions of who wrote it (and who did not).
That's true. But when I asked about The Magic Flute, you simply asserted that Mozart didn't write it, pointing to 'numerous other composers' without support from any source. Was that supposed to be your evidence?


So give us your version of Mozart's musical and ordinary education and career up until his 12th year - i.e. 1756 to 1768. But you can't, can you ? Once again, I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. I never claimed to have studied Mozart's life and career for over a decade, you did. I never claimed to have "massive" evidence proving that Mozart was just a fiction created by a vast historical conspiracy involving secret societies, you did.


Case Closed
Oh. Kay.

So Robert's claims were that "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire" and "I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him." Dramatic claims indeed, ones that fly in the face of everything we know about Mozart.

In support, Robert asserted that Mozart couldn't compose because he received no formal musical training. He denied that Mozart's father Leopold, a composer as well as the author of a prominent educational treatise on violin, could have trained him, claiming (without citing a source) that Leopold had plagiarized his book anyway.

Then Robert pointed out that many works initially attributed to Mozart (in particular his early works) were later discovered to be composed by others. He never explained why this means that all works attributed to Mozart are therefore fakes. Using this logic, I could say that police have found counterfeit money, therefore all money is counterfeit.

When discussing specific works (like The Magic Flute) universally accepted by professional musicologists to have been composed by Mozart, Robert merely asserts that the work was not composed by Mozart and expects this to suffice as evidence.

When pressed for evidence or asked to cite sources for his assertions, Robert asks those questioning his theory to provide evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of any mode of responsible inquiry, a refusal to assume the burden of proof that speaks volumes about not only the strength of his case, but also the nature of his research.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology
10-21-2009, 04:17 PM
That's true. But when I asked about The Magic Flute, you simply asserted that Mozart didn't write it, pointing to 'numerous other composers' without support from any source. Was that supposed to be your evidence?

Once again, I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. I never claimed to have studied Mozart's life and career for over a decade, you did. I never claimed to have "massive" evidence proving that Mozart was just a fiction created by a vast historical conspiracy involving secret societies, you did.


Oh. Kay.

So Robert's claims were that "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire" and "I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him." Dramatic claims indeed, ones that fly in the face of everything we know about Mozart.

In support, Robert asserted that Mozart couldn't compose because he received no formal musical training. He denied that Mozart's father Leopold, a composer as well as the author of a prominent educational treatise on violin, could have trained him, claiming (without citing a source) that Leopold had plagiarized his book anyway.

Then Robert pointed out that many works initially attributed to Mozart (in particular his early works) were later discovered to be composed by others. He never explained why this means that all works attributed to Mozart are therefore fakes. Using this logic, I could say that police have found counterfeit money, therefore all money is counterfeit.

When discussing specific works (like The Magic Flute) universally accepted by professional musicologists to have been composed by Mozart, Robert merely asserts that the work was not composed by Mozart and expects this to suffice as evidence.

When pressed for evidence or asked to cite sources for his assertions, Robert asks those questioning his theory to provide evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of any mode of responsible inquiry, a refusal to assume the burden of proof that speaks volumes about not only the strength of his case, but also the nature of his research.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

This is my fourth request for a fair exchange of views. You (and others) are making the claim that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was a musical genius. Who had amazing talents as a composer from the time of his childhood onwards. These are your claims. If you want to abandon these claims, fine. If you believe them to be true we want to see your evidence. In return for which I will present evidence which indicates the opposite. We also want to see evidence of his schooling, musical and non-musical. And all of this, we are told, exists in almost 200 years of published studies. Mozart was a 'musical genius' and we want to see some evidence. So, can you help your colleagues present your case ? From all this mass of 'evidence' ? Not much to ask, is it ? And, in return, in one week, I can produce contrary evidence. So fair minded readers here can form their own judgement. That is fair, reasonable and honest. Yes ? We start with his musical career up to 1769. Up to the end of his 12th year. OK ? After all, these ARE your views, aren't they ?

As for the much later (1791) 'Magic Flute' I have already indicated that it borrows heavily from Paul Wranitsky's opera 'Oberon'. And even that it's Overture comes from a piano sonata by another composer. This is clear, simple to understand, not difficult. I further indicated that the musical score (used for rehearsal and performance) was not finished in Vienna but was sent to musicians in Bonn. According to a letter written by the Bonn publisher Simrock to Gottfried Weber. This is just a small example of why the 'Magic Flute' is not by Mozart.

But let me return to Mozart's childhood. Up to the end of his 12th year.

Do you accept or not ?

You write -

I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence.

You certainly ARE making claims ! You believe Mozart was a musical 'genius' from childhood onwards. And we want to see what evidence you have to support them. We want the details of his education. I am making claims too. So, let the readers form their own judgement on the evidence.

Thank You

Babbalanja
10-21-2009, 04:34 PM
These are your claims. If you want to abandon these claims, fine. If you believe them to be true we want to see your evidence.Please show me where I ever claimed Mozart was a genius. I never made any such claim.

I don't know why you're looking at this as some sort of debate, Robert. It's not about a "fair exchange of views." You started this thread, you claim to have evidence of a huge historical conspiracy among Jesuits and Freemasons to manufacture the Myth of Mozart out of thin air, and you claim that Mozart didn't write any of the music attributed to him.

Anyone who truly had evidence supporting such a theory would have presented it by now. You've had ample time to make your case. Considering your evasion in the face of requests for evidence, it's beginning to seem like a hoax.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
10-21-2009, 11:52 PM
.....redemisti crucem passus;
tantus labor non sit cassus.

So you can't or won't answer my question, huh?

I repeat:

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Your reply:

Yanni,

This thread is discussing the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. It is not discussing one of your favourite subjects, Melchior Grimm and Gluck. But if you wish to open a special thread on these subjects please do. In the meantime I will focus on the subject of Mozart up to the age of 12. Because otherwise people will get very, very confused what your posts are all about.

Regards


If you forgot what this thread was about, please see your own post #1 in this thread*, Musicology, and my immediate reply (#2).

Seems to me, you keep on contadicting yourself reducing meanwhile the discussion to Mozart's diapers.

Cheers!

:wave:

*Quoting from Musicology's post #1 :

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

:wave:

Musicology
10-22-2009, 05:32 AM
No problem. They clearly don't want to discuss Mozart's childhood, and his musical reputation up to the end of his 12th year. Fine. They just believe what they are told. But when you ask them for some evidence they can't provide it. No matter how often you ask them. They just talk about 'tons of evidence'. I have a decade's experience of this in other conversations. The myth is never examined in detail.

Yanni wants to talk about 1778 (when Mozart was 22 years old !) and others want to say nothing. But the conversation has moved on to the specific subject of his musical 'genius'. That means that we examine part of a huge subject.

That's OK. It's normal. Let people form their own judgement. The specific subject I've offered to compare notes about are the years of his childhood education and childhood musical career.

I've tried to pin this issue down to a specific time. His childhood. Could easily have chosen his youth, his adulthood, his final 10 years in Vienna. But I had to start somewhere. So I tried to start with the years of his childhood. As anyone can see.

Yanni, in the next few days, I will come back about the years you are refering to. Just making a point. The Mozart fairy story does not allow us close examination of the basic facts.

yanni
10-22-2009, 06:08 AM
To include me in "they" is the last thing I expected of you, Robert.

The only reason I continue to press you is because you are grossly mistaken both with your first "The Jesuits" and next "The Holy Roman Empire's Elites" compulsive-obsessive(?*) assumptions on Mozart's manufacturer!

THE "REFORMISTS" manufactured Mozart (propably to hide "Gluck" and his "music" behind him).

Instead of admitting it, you select to deviate from your original purposes and run for cover in "Mozart's "diapers", aided by StLuke-Babba's sophistic duet, thus confirming my earlier "sine qua non" allegation!

Cheers.

*http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156 ("Gluck" is missing there too.)

Babbalanja
10-22-2009, 06:56 AM
They just talk about 'tons of evidence'.
Robert, the only one talking about 'tons of evidence' here is you. You're the one who said:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire

The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century.

So far you've demonstrated that no one at Literature Forums is a credentialed musicologist with source documents handy on the life and career of Mozart. Well done. But as far as providing persuasive evidence of your claims, you're much less forthcoming than you initially claimed to be.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology
10-22-2009, 10:39 AM
Robert, the only one talking about 'tons of evidence' here is you. You're the one who said:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire

The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century.

So far you've demonstrated that no one at Literature Forums is a credentialed musicologist with source documents handy on the life and career of Mozart. Well done. But as far as providing persuasive evidence of your claims, you're much less forthcoming than you initially claimed to be.

Regards,

Istvan

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

Take your time. Shall I post this again in a month's time ? How about 1 year ? I present evidence and you present evidence. So readers can judge for themselves. Having both sides.

Fair enough, yes ? StLukesguild speaks of lots of experts, lots of evidence. We want to see some.

We cannot prove a negative. So let's see some evidence that Mozart was a childhood musical genius. Otherwise we go round and round in circles. Those who believe this can't provide any. In fact, if you examine the actual documents, the musical manuscripts, you find the opposite. So, in fairness, let's compare our evidence. That's what I'm suggesting. You will conclude that the Mozart story is fiction. It was invented, exaggerated, and grossly manufactured.


Please show me where I ever claimed Mozart was a genius. I never made any such claim.

I don't know why you're looking at this as some sort of debate, Robert. It's not about a "fair exchange of views." You started this thread, you claim to have evidence of a huge historical conspiracy among Jesuits and Freemasons to manufacture the Myth of Mozart out of thin air, and you claim that Mozart didn't write any of the music attributed to him.

Anyone who truly had evidence supporting such a theory would have presented it by now. You've had ample time to make your case. Considering your evasion in the face of requests for evidence, it's beginning to seem like a hoax.

Regards,

Istvan

The only hoax is the Mozart story. We haven't had any evidence that Mozart was a musical genius. And we are asking about the first 12 years of his life. All you have to do is produce some evidence. What's so difficult ? The hoax is that so far nobody can do it.

I have told you from the start. There is simply NO evidence of Wolfgang Mozart learning composition, music theory, orchestration, etc etc. and the evidence we do have shows he knew virtually nothing. This is not acceptable to you.

So, when you speak about a 'hoax' maybe the hoax is the Mozart story ? Which, after all, is what it seems to be.

I have examined this subject in a lot of detail. So have others. But maybe you can rescue Mozart from this embarrasing situation ? I invite you to do it. Just present us here with some details of his musical and other education. Just give us a list of 'his' musical works before 1769.

What's the problem ?

stlukesguild
10-22-2009, 10:53 PM
I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

I gotta give it to you, Robert. You have an ability to maintain your delusions. Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale? Your strategy... if we can call it that... is ridiculous. You come here making wild assertions that challenge accepted historical facts... back them up with a bunch of of what you declare to be "facts"... and then proclaim victory because no one here is interested enough to double check these facts for you? As I and others have repeatedly stated it is you who are making assertions contrary to historical fact... contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field... as such the burden of proof is entirely your own. What part of this don't you understand?

yanni
10-23-2009, 12:15 AM
Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale?

A soulless soliped's reply to Robert's solemn solecism!

:banana:

Musicology
10-23-2009, 06:11 AM
I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

I gotta give it to you, Robert. You have an ability to maintain your delusions. Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale? Your strategy... if we can call it that... is ridiculous. You come here making wild assertions that challenge accepted historical facts... back them up with a bunch of of what you declare to be "facts"... and then proclaim victory because no one here is interested enough to double check these facts for you? As I and others have repeatedly stated it is you who are making assertions contrary to historical fact... contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field... as such the burden of proof is entirely your own. What part of this don't you understand?

'Contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field'.

OK, let's see some of this expert evidence. Please present some of it here, on this forum, for readers to see for themselves. Show us the long awaited basic details of Mozart's musical and other education. And tell us about 'his' musical compositions up until the end of his 12th year.

You seem to have gone very silent, StLukesguild. Your 'experts' have disappeared. Abandoning you in your hour of greatest need !

Simple request. Request number 5. If you do this for the members here I will present evidence that shows the opposite. So that readers can judge both sides of this issue side by side. And not just one side. You with your 'expert' evidence and me with other evidence. A fair discussion for members here to form their own judgement.

It can't get fairer than that. You will become a cultural hero and will even receive a cultural certificate from the Mozarteum, the European centre of study on the life and career of Mozart, based in Salzburg, Austria. And you will definitely receive a 10% discount on all Mozart chocolates.

So, do you agree, or not ?

Musicology
10-24-2009, 05:04 AM
Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale?

A soulless soliped's reply to Robert's solemn solecism!

:banana:


The overwhelming 'evidence' of the musical superman, W.A. Mozart (1756-1791)

'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
(Simon and Garfunkel)

yanni
10-24-2009, 07:56 AM
Check out "The Comte de St. Germain" by Isabel Cooper-Oakley concerning "Myslivecek=Gluck=Comte de Saint Germain=Rousseau" and their relations to prince Lobkowitz (page 33 among others).

On same subject: Check out Tufano, Lucio (2006) Josef Mysliveček e l’esecuzione napoletana dell’Orfeo di Gluck (1774). Hudební věda, 43 (3). pp. 257-279. ISSN 0018-7003 (On Musli-vecek "manipulation, and execution of the score" of Gluck's 1762 piece)

Gluck's last Viennese opera was Paride ed Elena (3.11.1770 Wien B).
All his next works are staged in Paris, France.

Cheers.

stlukesguild
10-24-2009, 11:52 AM
Anyone who was truly interested in the facts would do well to explore any number of the numerous biographies on Mozart written by respected historians and musicologists and not by an amateur who lies about his credentials and formal education and sleuths and slithers around on internet sites in search of proof of a grandiose conspiracy theory. One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Of course these respected authors may just all be deluded fools... or even part of the continuing conspiracy that encircles Mozart and keeps our esteemed "musicologist" from any recognition from within academia or the publishing world. :rolleyes:

Still, Robert, you are having difficulty understanding the "rules of engagement" in an academic dispute. You are the one who has made an outlandish statement that runs contrary to accepted truth. The burden of proof is completely your own. I have no need to prove the contrary. There are others far more capable than myself who have done so. The fact that you have repeatedly avoided answering any difficult question that might put the least dent into your outlandish theory... (and it is nothing but a theory... and one held only by yourself)... is enough to completely undermine all you have presented here. So I will give you one last chance. Answer any of the following, if you can:

1. You suggest that Mozart could not have composed any of the works attributed to him because of the lack of any formal music education. By the same logic, what exactly is your formal education in music and history? Or do you suggest that we are to accept the possibility that one might become a respected expert upon Mozart without any formal education, while Mozart could not have become a talented composer under the same circumstances?

2. How do you explain the possibility of a group of largely unknown composers creating a body of music of unquestionable genius for not one... but at least two composers (Mozart and Haydn) each of which maintains a continuity of style? How do you explain that they composed nothing under their own names that nears the quality of this fraudulent work? How do you explain the absolute brilliance in creating a body of work which clearly exhibits the continual development of the individual composers? How do you explain why such effort and expense would have even been justified?

3. How do you explain the success of such a vast conspiracy which must have depended upon the participation of literally hundreds of individuals... anyone of whom might have slipped up and revealed the truth? Considering the fact that the composer of which we speak is one of the most studied in history, how do you explain that this vast fraud has not become public knowledge without resorting to the notion that there is still some great conspiracy at hand... or that music and Mozart studies are the one field of academia where rigorous research and alternative theories backed up with legitimate documentation are frowned upon?

{edit}

yanni
10-24-2009, 12:07 PM
In the words of a famous american:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

Musicology
10-25-2009, 09:54 AM
Anyone who was truly interested in the facts would do well to explore any number of the numerous biographies on Mozart written by respected historians and musicologists and not by an amateur who lies about his credentials and formal education and sleuths and slithers around on internet sites in search of proof of a grandiose conspiracy theory. One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Of course these respected authors may just all be deluded fools... or even part of the continuing conspiracy that encircles Mozart and keeps our esteemed "musicologist" from any recognition from within academia or the publishing world. :rolleyes:

Still, Robert, you are having difficulty understanding the "rules of engagement" in an academic dispute. You are the one who has made an outlandish statement that runs contrary to accepted truth. The burden of proof is completely your own. I have no need to prove the contrary. There are others far more capable than myself who have done so. The fact that you have repeatedly avoided answering any difficult question that might put the least dent into your outlandish theory... (and it is nothing but a theory... and one held only by yourself)... is enough to completely undermine all you have presented here. So I will give you one last chance. Answer any of the following, if you can:

1. You suggest that Mozart could not have composed any of the works attributed to him because of the lack of any formal music education. By the same logic, what exactly is your formal education in music and history? Or do you suggest that we are to accept the possibility that one might become a respected expert upon Mozart without any formal education, while Mozart could not have become a talented composer under the same circumstances?

2. How do you explain the possibility of a group of largely unknown composers creating a body of music of unquestionable genius for not one... but at least two composers (Mozart and Haydn) each of which maintains a continuity of style? How do you explain that they composed nothing under their own names that nears the quality of this fraudulent work? How do you explain the absolute brilliance in creating a body of work which clearly exhibits the continual development of the individual composers? How do you explain why such effort and expense would have even been justified?

3. How do you explain the success of such a vast conspiracy which must have depended upon the participation of literally hundreds of individuals... anyone of whom might have slipped up and revealed the truth? Considering the fact that the composer of which we speak is one of the most studied in history, how do you explain that this vast fraud has not become public knowledge without resorting to the notion that there is still some great conspiracy at hand... or that music and Mozart studies are the one field of academia where rigorous research and alternative theories backed up with legitimate documentation are frowned upon?

{edit}

//

Thank you StLukesuild,

I am of course very familiar with each and every one of the 10 books you have just listed by name. In fact (unlike you) I have actually read them - many times. I've done more than this. I've obtained and studied hundreds of others on the same subject. And that's not all. I've examined diaries, letters, unpublished manuscripts and anecdotes of musicians and writers on music of the late 18th and 19th centuries. You see how useless I am in changing light bulbs, repairing engines, and brain surgery and how honest I am being on this subject of Mozart ? So the good readers of the USA, of Europe and other places will not consume your fairy story nonsense. (They are still waiting, by the way, for your answer to the question of Mozart's musical education and 'his' works before the end of 1769). Unlike your goodself, I do not merely quote the titles of well known books which anyone can find in 2 minutes by google search engine, but am able to give you their contents. (We really must stop feeding the trolls !)

A tradition has existed in 'Mozart research' for almost 200 years of writers quoting someone who has quoted someone else, who has quoted someone else, and who has quoted someone else. Whose original source is false.This nonsense is called in the Mozart industry 'expertise' and it is well funded. A farmer knows more of musical history than those fools. So the propaganda bubble, once it has started to be blown by the tourist industry and by these myth makers, has grown and grown in size over the last 200 years, and has taken on more and more new and beautiful colours for the public's entertainment and 'education', giving credit to those who write on the Mozart myth and seeming to give give them 'expertise' merely by quoting (as others did before them) the names and quotes of those who have themselves quoted before a million times. This rubbish, whose employees love footnotes and who are described as 'experts' have, we see, nothing to offer on the subject now under discussion. As you yourself prove right here on this thread. We still wait for the 'expertise' quoted by you on the musical and other education of Mozart. And we still wait for a list from you of Mozart's musical works before 1769. It's so funny ! Perhaps you should retire from the field claiming injury, having 'defended' your point of view by saying nothing at all ! And it would be very typical. You can even say your 'experts' have educated you.

The 10 writers you have listed above are not all 'deluded fools'. Far from it. But the 10 titles you have listed (and which you have clearly never read, not even once in your entire life) include such liars as F.X. Niemetscheck, whose early Mozart 'biography' which was published first in 1797 in Prague, which was then destroyed, and which was finally published again the year after). It contains the input of Mozart's lying widow, Constanze. Read it please. That 'biography' begins with Niemetscheck's claim to have known and been close to Mozart. When, in fact, Niemetscheck never met Mozart in his whole lifetime ! Niemetsheck's lies (including his claim to have heard Mozart in public performance in Prague) are very typical of so-called early Mozart biographies. Since Niemetscheck never visited Prague once until after the death of Mozart ! Massively distorted, fabulous, fictional episodes of Mozart's supposed musical career are features of the Niemetscheck 'biography' you have here listed for us as proofs. But you do not know this, do you, StLukesguild ?

Please let me educate you on this one issue of F.X. Niemetscheck and his 'biography' of Mozart so that you will not stop wasting the time of readers here and your own.

The fastest way would be for you to visit the following forum for the truth of F.X. Niemtscheck, author of one of the 'expert' works you have just quoted above. Author of what is generally called the earliest Mozart 'biography', in fact. The following link takes you to an article on that subject of F.X.Niemetschek. Its author was the well known writer on musical history Walther Brauneis. So it's highly relevant. Why not read it ? And the article I wish you to read before you post again in 'defence of Mozart' is entitled -

“Franz Xaver Niemetschek: Is his Association with Mozart only Legend?”

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Brauneis%20--%20Niemetschek.rev.Index.pdf

Now, after reading this article (and I can give you 900 more articles if you really wish to be informed) do finally tell us about Mozart's musical education and his musical achievements up until the end of his 12th year. That is, until 1769. Since you have, so far, only confirmed here the fairy story that is W.A. Mozart's musical career. And you've listed 10 works you've never read nor once quoted from.

You will not thank me for telling you these facts. Not for some time. You prefer to describe as a 'troll' those who have studied this subject. Your 'education' forces you to do this. Because, here on this forum, you are showing how ignorant of this subject you are. As everyone can see. You have never once suspected you have been grossly misinformed. In fact, you boast of being 'educated'. Of having expert support. You even describe me as a troll ! Such is your total argument.

As for the other titles you have just quoted, I am more than happy to discuss them one by one. Further showing you are nothing but a lover of fiction who cannot see the wood for the trees. And it shows.

But let's start with the Mozart biography you have given in the above list - that of F.X. Niemetscheck. If this subject gets too hot for you, let us have some evidence from your other sources of the musical education of W.A. Mozart and his achievements up until 1769.Which we are all STILL waiting to hear about from similarly 'expert' sources.

Readers of this thread already see how difficult this subject is for you. They see how absurd your arguments really are. Why not take my advice and join a library ? Then you can begin to answer questions instead of accusing others of being trolls. Since I've been presenting answers to your questions from the start. And am still doing so. But you have done nothing except post a list of books you've never even read.

Try something new. Something really radical. Visit your local library and start reading.


Thank You
In the words of a famous american:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”


You are so right. What is unpopular, unfashionable, and inconvenient, is often the most worthy of our appreciation.

So, yes, I completely agree. Please tell this to the dumbed-down consumers of the Mozart myth and to the Austrian tourist industry, the corporate music industry, and to those who manufacture images of Mozart in chocolate and in bronze for the adoring faithful. Mozart is the Fox News of the music industry.


Check out "The Comte de St. Germain" by Isabel Cooper-Oakley concerning "Myslivecek=Gluck=Comte de Saint Germain=Rousseau" and their relations to prince Lobkowitz (page 33 among others).

On same subject: Check out Tufano, Lucio (2006) Josef Mysliveček e l’esecuzione napoletana dell’Orfeo di Gluck (1774). Hudební věda, 43 (3). pp. 257-279. ISSN 0018-7003 (On Musli-vecek "manipulation, and execution of the score" of Gluck's 1762 piece)

Gluck's last Viennese opera was Paride ed Elena (3.11.1770 Wien B).
All his next works are staged in Paris, France.

Cheers.

Yes, Yanni, the manufacture of Mozart involved Gluck, Myslivecek and many others. You are completely correct. It also involved many, many others, including Vanhal and nearly 20 others such as Salieri, Luchesi, and others. I have said this early in my thread here. And, yes, Lobkowitz was one of the principal patrons of Mozart. (And his father before him). Both during his life and after Mozart's death in late 1791. This too has been refered to earlier here and in our exchanges. When the story is fully told I dare to say that your research and mine will be found to agree. And all the evidence agrees with this.

yanni
10-26-2009, 02:09 AM
Yes, Yanni, the manufacture of Mozart involved Gluck, Myslivecek and many others. You are completely correct. It also involved many, many others, including Vanhal and nearly 20 others such as Salieri, Luchesi, and others. I have said this early in my thread here. And, yes, Lobkowitz was one of the principal patrons of Mozart. (And his father before him). Both during his life and after Mozart's death in late 1791. This too has been refered to earlier here and in our exchanges. When the story is fully told I dare to say that your research and mine will be found to agree. And all the evidence agrees with this.

So, we are back to square 1 (actually my answer #2 to your post #1):

All know "everything" is an illusion, ie nobody is interested to simply learn that Mozart too "was manufactured" and your only chance to fame as an author is if you reveal the identity and intent of the "manufacturer".

Paraphrasing Mervyn King:

"Never in the field of musicology has so much truth been owed by so few to so many"

Cheers.

Musicology
10-26-2009, 06:22 PM
So, we are back to square 1 (actually my answer #2 to your post #1):

All know "everything" is an illusion, ie nobody is interested to simply learn that Mozart too "was manufactured" and your only chance to fame as an author is if you reveal the identity and intent of the "manufacturer".

Paraphrasing Mervyn King:

"Never in the field of musicology has so much truth been owed by so few to so many"

Cheers.

I have said from the beginning there are TWO parts to this situation. The first part is to realise that the story of Mozart is nonsense. The second is to know that something else is true. But you cannot appreciate the second part until first you appreciate the first.

The scientific method consists of first testing the 'consensus'. And testing the consensus is exactly what is happening here. In a small way. We are testing the consensus on such things as Mozart's musical education and on 'his' supposed musical achievements. So far, the results have been surprising. Nobody can produce the very 'evidence' they say is available in entire libraries of textbooks.

Now, this is not enough. Maybe they will produce them. But you see that so far nobody has. And this is for a reason. Judge it for yourself.

As for Part 1, I highly recommend that you read what I am writing on this subject. Which is still months away from completion. Because it's a very big subject. There are no 'off the shelf' answers. You will not, and cannot be convinced in short email posts. Part 2 is an attempt to explain what really happened, how, and to show that this version is far more consistent with the facts, with history, and with the documentary evidence.


Thank You

yanni
10-27-2009, 01:12 AM
I have said from the beginning there are TWO parts to this situation. The first part is to realise that the story of Mozart is nonsense. The second is to know that something else is true. But you cannot appreciate the second part until first you appreciate the first.

The scientific method consists of first testing the 'consensus'. And testing the consensus is exactly what is happening here. In a small way. We are testing the consensus on such things as Mozart's musical education and on 'his' supposed musical achievements. So far, the results have been surprising. Nobody can produce the very 'evidence' they say is available in entire libraries of textbooks.

Now, this is not enough. Maybe they will produce them. But you see that so far nobody has. And this is for a reason. Judge it for yourself.

As for Part 1, I highly recommend that you read what I am writing on this subject. Which is still months away from completion. Because it's a very big subject. There are no 'off the shelf' answers. You will not, and cannot be convinced in short email posts. Part 2 is an attempt to explain what really happened, how, and to show that this version is far more consistent with the facts, with history, and with the documentary evidence.


Thank You

Continuing on the "Mervyn King" parallel:

When the few owe "so much" (of anything) to the "so many" for so long, simpleminded admissions (or "scientific methods" intended to prove a minor part of "the story") that "the debt" exists, is not what the public (who has already reached their concensus and expects nothing else but an early settlement) asks for!

Cheers.

Musicology
10-27-2009, 01:24 PM
Continuing on the "Mervyn King" parallel:

When the few owe "so much" (of anything) to the "so many" for so long, simpleminded admissions (or "scientific methods" intended to prove a minor part of "the story") that "the debt" exists, is not what the public (who has already reached their concensus and expects nothing else but an early settlement) asks for!

Cheers.

Yes, and since when was reality determined by a circular argument ? The scientific method is very well described right here in this statement -

Try this recent example - from 2 minutes 08 seconds until 6 minutes 40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

yanni
10-27-2009, 02:08 PM
Yes, and since when was reality determined by a circular argument ? The scientific method is very well described right here in this statement -

Try this recent example - from 2 minutes 08 seconds until 6 minutes 40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

I never doubted your method(to focus on the "Mozart" detail while falsely accusing the wrong "manufacturer") Robert, I simply paralleled it to the circular arguments used by the majority of the "talking heads".

...and I never did install speakers so I cannot hear the contents of the suggested video above.

Cheers.

Musicology
10-27-2009, 03:57 PM
I never doubted your method(to focus on the "Mozart" detail while falsely accusing the wrong "manufacturer") Robert, I simply paralleled it to the circular arguments used by the majority of the "talking heads".

...and I never did install speakers so I cannot hear the contents of the suggested video above.

Cheers.

Yanni,

The truth is the 'experts' have gone silent. They have no evidence to show the musical education of Mozart. Nor can they show us the music supposedly composed by Mozart up until 1769.

I've asked, over, and over again.

yanni
10-28-2009, 03:45 AM
Yanni,

The truth is the 'experts' have gone silent. They have no evidence to show the musical education of Mozart. Nor can they show us the music supposedly composed by Mozart up until 1769.

I've asked, over, and over again.

But is this "....the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (as any UK judge would ask you thus establishing a priori you are lying).

BTW You never did tell me your expert italian friends views on my findings on Cocchi!

Cheers!

Musicology
10-28-2009, 01:44 PM
But is this "....the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (as any UK judge would ask you thus establishing a priori you are lying).

BTW You never did tell me your expert italian friends views on my findings on Cocchi!

Cheers!


You ask whether this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Of course it's not. We are still trying to see if the Mozart story is able to be defended by evidence of any kind or simply by popular belief. So far it's only defended by popular belief. As everyone can see. Maybe somebody will finally produce evidence of Mozart's musical education. Let's allow it to run. Maybe some reader will come to the rescue of the Mozart story. Maybe someone will finally present evidence of 'his' works composed before 1769. Because this is a test case. (We could choose from many other examples from his life and career but we have chosen this one. And you see what happens ? This Can you see any answer, so far ? They have no answer. Until the Mozart industry and its supporters present here some evidence in support of their views on these basic issues we can see debate has not even started. Which is very strange, don't you agree ?

If we were to examine the life, career and supposed musical achievements of Mozart you would be suprised to find out this is really typical.

So a castle is constructed on what seems to be solid ground. But no sooner do we search for its foundations than we find it's a castle in the air.

The academic study of Mozart (musically, historically, culturally) is riddled with similar contradictions, errors, exaggerations, falsehoods and fictions. So that these are really typical examples.

yanni
10-29-2009, 02:59 AM
"We are still trying to see if the Mozart story is able to be defended by evidence of any kind or simply by popular belief."

"We", are not! It's just you, evidently reducing the subject to an absurd minimum to avoid the one and only issue.

Musicology
10-29-2009, 02:18 PM
"We are still trying to see if the Mozart story is able to be defended by evidence of any kind or simply by popular belief."

"We", are not! It's just you, evidently reducing the subject to an absurd minimum to avoid the one and only issue.

Yanni,

Yes, it's absurd to ask for evidence. You believe it and are not waiting for any evidence because you believe it anyway, right, Yanni ?

:brickwall

The historical evidence clearly shows Voltaire and Rousseau were BOTH agents of occultist Venice. That the libertine network of Europe of which they were a part (out of which came the falsely named 'Englightenment' of the Encyclopaedists in France) were clowns of the fraternities including the Rosicrucians, the Freemansons, the cabalists, hedonists, gamblers, necromancers, alchemists, charlatans and others such as Cagliostro, Casanova, Lorenzo da Ponte and others (ultimately educated by and controlled by the Jesuits and by Rome) and which also supported the careers of Gluck, Rousseau and Voltaire etc. from the beginning. And Mozart was a later part of this. That aspect of European 'cultural history' (so-called) is known today as the 'Englightenment'. In fact it was all nonsense.

Mozart was a fraud in the same way that Voltaire and Rousseau were frauds. The 'Englightenment' (so-called) was nothing but the secularised face of a globalist empire formerly controlled by the Jesuit Order. There is no evidence of Mozart's musical education because he never had a musical education. It, like everything else about him, is an invention. A cultural fairy story.

yanni
10-30-2009, 02:37 AM
Yanni,

Yes, it's absurd to ask for evidence. You believe it and are not waiting for any evidence because you believe it anyway, right, Yanni ?

:brickwall

The historical evidence clearly shows Voltaire and Rousseau were BOTH agents of occultist Venice. That the libertine network of Europe of which they were a part (out of which came the falsely named 'Englightenment' of the Encyclopaedists in France) were clowns of the fraternities including the Rosicrucians, the Freemansons, the cabalists, hedonists, gamblers, necromancers, alchemists, charlatans and others such as Cagliostro, Casanova, Lorenzo da Ponte and others (ultimately educated by and controlled by the Jesuits and by Rome) and which also supported the careers of Gluck, Rousseau and Voltaire etc. from the beginning. And Mozart was a later part of this. That aspect of European 'cultural history' (so-called) is known today as the 'Englightenment'. In fact it was all nonsense.

Mozart was a fraud in the same way that Voltaire and Rousseau were frauds. The 'Englightenment' (so-called) was nothing but the secularised face of a globalist empire formerly controlled by the Jesuit Order. There is no evidence of Mozart's musical education because he never had a musical education. It, like everything else about him, is an invention. A cultural fairy story.

Re "producing evidence", I have to agree with the majority's request asking you, the challenger of "conventional truth", to provide same (as I did -who never asked you for evidence btw-in all my threads on "the manufacturer" that remain still unchallenged!).

Your explanation of events leading to Mozart's manufacture is immature: You are centering the blame on the instruments instead of the conductor of an orchestra , you are condemning hands instead of their owners-perpetrators.
Thus, you use "historical evidence" while knowing full well that everything of relevance, not just Mozart, is "manufactured" and you blame all "occult, libertine, jesuit, venetian, Rosicrucians, Freemansons, cabalists, hedonists, gamblers, necromancers, alchemists, charlatans" instead of focusing on the top men (guiding such mindcontrolled "fraternities of idiots") and their private interests, leading them already at the time (and long before) to go against "convention"-ie "national" interests and "religious dogmas", if they ever existed as such!

Having lost many good hours on the subject "who is to blame?" (and many more after discovering my own blood relation to one of the leading performers, perhaps the top man), I have come to the conclusion that such is man's nature, unfortunately, to seek the easy road forward, to guide others wrong and/or conquer, thus serving his own interests, to exploit nature until depletion and destruction as if "Creation" itself is man's enemy.

Rousseau's "Social Contract" and Chastellux's "Essay on public happiness" started "it all" and, eversince, many little men, many little grocers, with little "know all" reformist brains, have brought us where we today stand, overproducing, overconsumming, overdestroying, overbankrupt, overarmed and ready as always to do still more damage to eachother and to what has been "God's" gift to us, "mother nature", whose "modus operandi" man still continues to misinterpret as his greedy ignorance sees fit!

The irony of it all:

While I do essentially agree with the author of….

“Pope Benedict is the man on the money.The best analysis yet of the global economic crisis tells how people, not just rules, must change” From The Times July 13, 2009http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6695104.ece

….on the rather urgent need (conveniently transferred to "people") to seek “God’s mercy” for "our” perpetual blundering "sins", I am also quite alarmed by the fact that he signs as “Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach is a trustee of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Trust and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International”.

Repentance was never meant to be "comfortable" by definition!

Cheers.

Musicology
10-30-2009, 09:58 AM
Yanni,

And the relevance of your last post to the supposed life and career of W.A. Mozart is ??????????????

Why not accept there is NO hard evidence that W.A. Mozart studied composition, harmony, orchestration during his childhood and youth ? Why not accept that 'his' works up to 1769 are not actually 'his'. Or is this too easy ?

You see how simple questions cause such confusion amongst dogmatists ?

If my question is 'immature' it should be simple for you to answer it. Readers here are still waiting for some evidence in support of the 'official' version of Mozart's musical education and 'his' early music. And guess what ?Nothing but silence. Instead of answers from 'expert' publications we have only your posts on issues that have nothing to do with these basic questions !

Let readers draw their own conclusions.

yanni
10-30-2009, 11:26 AM
Tired of following your besidethepoint merrygoround, Musicology, I ask you kindly to advise readers of this forum what answer of mine gave birth to your last fixation, ie that I ever questioned your allegation that "Mozart was manufactured".

From the early beginning of this thread I accepted it as true, challenging you eversince to produce evidence on the identity of "Mozart's manufacturer" * only.

So, please oblige me, preferably by copypasting the specific part of my writings, in this thread or others and, in return, I'll answer your question above, concerning "relevance" .

Cheers.


*Copypasting from your post #1 defining the original scope and purpose of this thread.

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

....and your post #14:

The 'New World Order' is a union of elitist interests (including monarchies, elites, rich privileged bloodlines, corporate interests etc. etc) all headed up, inevitably, by the papacy. Of this I am completely sure. And including corrupt churches and entire governments and their contractors. Such is the lesson from the 18th century and I believe it remains true today in the scale of control of the media, and even of the textbooks we read. A classic example is the fairytale story of W.A. Mozart.

Musicology
10-31-2009, 12:21 PM
Tired of following your besidethepoint merrygoround, Musicology, I ask you kindly to advise readers of this forum what answer of mine gave birth to your last fixation, ie that I ever questioned your allegation that "Mozart was manufactured".

From the early beginning of this thread I accepted it as true, challenging you eversince to produce evidence on the identity of "Mozart's manufacturer" * only.

So, please oblige me, preferably by copypasting the specific part of my writings, in this thread or others and, in return, I'll answer your question above, concerning "relevance" .

Cheers.


*Copypasting from your post #1 defining the original scope and purpose of this thread.

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

....and your post #14:

The 'New World Order' is a union of elitist interests (including monarchies, elites, rich privileged bloodlines, corporate interests etc. etc) all headed up, inevitably, by the papacy. Of this I am completely sure. And including corrupt churches and entire governments and their contractors. Such is the lesson from the 18th century and I believe it remains true today in the scale of control of the media, and even of the textbooks we read. A classic example is the fairytale story of W.A. Mozart.

Yanni,

The only 'merrygoround' is the plain fact that the the Mozart story fails at its first test. There is no evidence of Mozart learning composition as a child or as a youth. There is no known teacher. No school which he ever attended for any real period of time. And, as for 'his' works up until his 13th year, these are not by W.A. Mozart. So says the evidence. And weeks later nobody has presented evidence to contradict this.

You accept that the life and career of Mozart was manufactured. Great.

And you ask me to say who arranged this fake career. Well, I have already given you the names of a whole series of composers. Including (to name just a few) Vanhal, Myslivececk, von Paradis, Luchesi, JC Bach etc. There are dozens, in fact. So that's part of your answer. Do I need to remind you of this thread ? I have also told you that the Jesuit Order were involved in Mozart's career (both before 1773 and even after their ban in 1773). I have told you that the agents of the 'Enlightenment' were involved, many of them Jesuit educated themselves. Including Voltaire, Rousseau and many others. I have told you the 'Englightenment' was a secularised movement begun by the Jesuit Order, for which there is plenty of evidence. I have also told you that the secret fraternities (such as the Illuminati) were controlled by the Jesuit Order from the very start - a fact which anyone can see for themselves who has studied that subject. And that Jesuit control of music publishing gave way to Illuminati control of music publishing. This too is a plain, demonstratable fact. Since major publishers of Mozart's Vienna were illuminati members. Still no argument. In fact, the posthumous publishers of Mozart's (alleged) music included major Illuminatist publishers. Including those of Frankfurt and also Vienna and Bonn. There is simply no doubt about this. The posthumous publication of over 500 'Mozart' works is further proof. Then there is the actual musical evidence from countless manuscripts. This process definitely occurred. Which you already agree about. And now you say I have not explained how this was done. I believe this thread has shown the truth of these things in reasonable detail. The manufacture of a fake career, as said, is something you already agree with.

So, in answer to your question of 'who manufactured Mozart ?' it included a vast list of compliant publishers, biographers, music composers, music patrons, fraternity members, family members, elites of the musical society of the late 18th century, and, of course, presided over by the emerging musical industry. A large number of people. Including (half a century later) those who compiled the first catalogue of 'Mozart's' works. Not forgetting the fairy story makers such as Leopold Mozart, Constanze Mozart, the various early biographers and hagiographers (such as Niemetscheck and G. Nissen). And men such as Abbe Georg Vogler and many others of the musical scene.

The fuller details would require long posts. I think I have already indicated that the careers of Rousseau and Voltaire were assisted by the occultists of Venice, part of the libertine movement which became the 'Enlightenment' (so-called). So that, beyond reasonable doubt, I have sketched an outline which you can study and confirm for yourself.

I am glad you agree with the basic thesis.

Regards

yanni
11-01-2009, 03:02 AM
Help yourself, be more specific in your approach this time , Robert!

Here is again my question:

....advise readers of this forum what answer of mine gave birth to your last fixation, ie that I ever questioned your allegation that "Mozart was manufactured"....preferably by copypasting the specific part of my writings

PS Your other fixation, on the manufacturer, has already been covered, no need to reconfirm/aggravate it!

Good luck!

Musicology
11-01-2009, 09:57 AM
Help yourself, be more specific in your approach this time , Robert!

Here is again my question:

....advise readers of this forum what answer of mine gave birth to your last fixation, ie that I ever questioned your allegation that "Mozart was manufactured"....preferably by copypasting the specific part of my writings

PS Your other fixation, on the manufacturer, has already been covered, no need to reconfirm/aggravate it!

Good luck!

Yes Yanni,

And since we both agree the musical career and giant reputation of Mozart was manufactured that's fine. Your own research on the careers of Rousseau/Gluck/Cocchi etc. is fine too. These are definitely complementary areas of research and I agree with much of what you say on those subjects.

Regards

Robert

yanni
11-01-2009, 03:35 PM
"Yes", "no", hard to distinguish, Robert, but don't worry for such details:

As an-albeit minor-tail of New Age Theogony, your Mozart theories will never be truly appreciated by modern, Mammon serving, Muses, treating all us mortals, kings or shepards, equally "well"!

Or, in economic terms, an extended period of qualitative easing(QLE) always precedes an equaly long following period of quantitative easing(QE), divine intervention excluded..

Cheers!

Musicology
11-03-2009, 05:55 PM
Yanni,

Obscurantism aside, I must say it matters little what we think of Mozart. But it matters that we think. If thought is encouraged within 'Mozart research' it would be real progress. The great German musician and teacher J.N. Forkel (founder of the science of musicology and critic of the music industry) predicted, for years, during the late 18th and early 19th century that the emerging music industry would build its idols and lead students in to fantasy land. Leaving them unaware of what music is. That the end result would be a pseudo-musicology we see today. And wholesale ignorance. He pointed to musical models such as the legacy of J.S. Bach which, he pointed out, was something from which students of music could always learn.

Forkel was right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8yIVwMLkZc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKHwBRSJnXU&feature=related

Thanks to this great website.

Best wishes

Robert Newman

yanni
11-04-2009, 03:24 AM
If selfappointed music experts confuse "soul" with "sole", I very much doubt obscurantism can be put aside.

We did our best, nevertheless.

Best wishes to you too Robert.

Musicology
11-04-2009, 03:47 PM
If selfappointed music experts confuse "soul" with "sole", I very much doubt obscurantism can be put aside.

We did our best, nevertheless.

Best wishes to you too Robert.

You are right. There are no self-appointed musical 'experts'. There are those who serve others (and who become great for that reason) and those who serve themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QuNZHTG-tM&feature=related

Thanks to StLukesguild also (who desperately tried to get some help when she was asked here to show details of Mozart's 'education' and of his 'musical teaching') by writing to 'experts' on Mozart Forum, but without success. It's all very embarrasing. But what's new ?

In the famous words of Simon and Garfunkel,

'Still a man (or a woman) hears what they want to hear and disregards the rest'.

Viva the Mozart industry ! Patronised by millions for our amusement and mis-education. Never forget that famous slogan of the film 'Amadeus'. 'Everything you've heard is true'. !! And that's official.

LOL !

Best wishes

Robert N.

yanni
11-20-2009, 03:52 AM
quoting from my October 30th post....




.........................

The irony of it all:

While I do essentially agree with the author of….

“Pope Benedict is the man on the money.The best analysis yet of the global economic crisis tells how people, not just rules, must change” From The Times July 13, 2009http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6695104.ece

….on the rather urgent need (conveniently transferred to "people") to seek “God’s mercy” for "our” perpetual blundering "sins", I am also quite alarmed by the fact that he signs as “Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach is a trustee of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Trust and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International”.

Repentance was never meant to be "comfortable" by definition!

Cheers.

Here is a "relevant" response by no less than Lord Griffiths boss himself

From The Sunday Times November 8, 2009

I'm doing 'God's work'. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs

....and we then have Musicology expressing his astonishement to discover that Mozart was "somehow" manufactured !

QueenoftheNight
11-20-2009, 10:53 AM
I think that I will now turn to my ipod, put on the headphones, turn the volume up quite high and listen to the "Jupiter" symphony by ______ while reading The Tempest by ______. All are welcome to treat the blanks in this post like a madlib while I am busy enjoying good music and good poetry.

Ha haaa xDD thank you for that!! It completely made my day xD

Musicology
11-20-2009, 12:35 PM
Ha haaa xDD thank you for that!! It completely made my day xD

Great. It's a good symphony. But the 'Jupiter' Symphony is not by W.A. Mozart. Does it make a difference to your enjoyment of it that those who have examined this subject are telling you it's not by your hero ? Nor is Symphony 39 and Symphony 40. All 3 of these symphonies (known as his last 3) are attributed to Mozart but none was published or even performed during his own lifetime. Nor are they his. The official story goes they were written during a 6 week period in the summer of 1788. In fact, they were not.

But I hope you enjoy listening to them all the same.

If you come across evidence of Mozart being the composer of this symphony please share it with us. But, by the time you arrive at these last works of 'Mozart' you are in a position to predict, accurately, that nothing is ever what it seems to be in the world of 'Mozart studies'.

In 1841 a Scottish writer named Mackay published a book entitled, 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'. We believe as we do for various reasons. Academically, we believe what textbooks say. But, in extreme cases, writers of textbooks and propagandists believe and teach what earlier writers of textbooks say without examining the evidence for themselves. If we multiply this by a thousand times we come close to the mythical Mozart. To the control, in fact, of what is believed and taught of musical history. The extent to which our education is nonsense in these matters hardly matters. We shrug our shoulders because our society does not encourage serious research on the idols of our civilization.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:jsQRN8LN3dkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of _Crowds+the+madness+of+crowds+delusions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

stlukesguild
11-22-2009, 05:33 PM
Learn how and why Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented and crafted during Renaissance. Discover the Old Testament as a veiled rendition of events of Middle Ages written centuries after the New Testament. Perceive the Crusaders as contemporaries of The Crucifixion punishing the tormentors of the Messiah. What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?

Sounds unbelievable? Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, leading mathematician of our time. He follows in steps of Sir Isaac Newton, finds clear evidence of falsification of History by clergy and humanists. Armed with computers, astronomy and statistics he proves the history of humankind to be both dramatically different and drastically shorter than generally presumed.

http://ring.mithec.com/history/content/bach.html

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Musicology
11-23-2009, 09:52 AM
I can think of something even more bizzare. The fairy story of one W.A. Mozart, an untutored and uneducated stooge from Salzburg who, with his father, toured Europe for 7 years to huge acclaim from the fraternities and patrons of the Holy Roman Empire but who wrote virtually nothing in that time and who is on record of learning next to nothing of any musical value. This 'genius' of western civilization going on to be credited with some of the finest music of the 18th and any other century, despite a trail of falsehoods and bogus claims from publishers and propagandists which continued up till the time of his death, in late 1791. Being further embellished and invented in the decades after it. So that this story, this bizarre myth, took root and came soon to dominate the musical landscape. And so that the spooks who invented it and propagated it came to preside, as they now do, over the teaching and learning of their own version of 'musical history' with the said Mozart now worshipped and idolised (to the exclusion of virtually all his musical contemporaries and for the purpose of dumbing down the entire musical population).

Fortunately, every work, regardless of how controversial it may be, is worthy of being examined on its own merits. The alternative is to be a Mozartean and to be oblivious to reality itself.

ONLY MOZART IS MUSICAL

(And if you believe that you believe anything ! ).

It has long been standard practice within 'Mozart studies' to insult and abuse those who call 'Mozart's musical genius' into serious question. Here is one small example.

In a newspaper article published in Germany 8 years after Mozart’s death (contained in Volume 1 of the ‘ Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung’ for 1798/9 - on page 547) a man named J.J. Hummel recorded that he had been offered various musical works for publication by the young W.A. Mozart many years earlier while Mozart was on tour in Europe with his father (Leopold) but had rejected them all and had sent them back to Mozart as useless.

This incident is a matter of published record which gives no credit to Mozart. So you will not be surprised to know it is rarely refered to in the Mozart literature. However, in the Mozart biography of Abert he dares to refer to this embarrasing episode and writes -

‘An enterprising publisher in Berlin, Johann Julius Hummel, claimed that, although unmusical, he could cast a critical eye over the works that were submitted to him and see whether they were worth publishing. He did not have a good word to say about Mozart and even boasted that he had returned several of his works as unpublishable'

‘Abert - ‘W.A. Mozart’ (p. 720) - see the following page -

http://books.google.com/books?id=l6I6BwTMJ3sC&pg=RA1-PA720&lpg=RA1-PA720&dq=Johann+Julius+Hummel+abert+mozart&source=bl&ots=POkIQT8LKO&sig=SxWp55FwayKQnQYXTXB5XYDD_Yo&hl=en&ei=LZUKS6_7Bcu2jAf2jbn3AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So, according to Abert (who deserves some credit for refering to this little known incident) J.J. Hummel was a ’boastful’ and ‘unmusical’ man.

But on closer examination of the facts about this Johann Julius Hummel (1728-1798) we find he was in fact a well known music publisher and music printer in the Hague. So much for him being 'unmusical', yes ? Only later did he live in Berlin. Yes, Hummel was highly musical. He and his brother Burchard Hummel (1725-1797) had been in the music business at the Hague since around 1760. Attached as proof is a rare image of the first page of a J.J. Hummel musical catalogue offering more than 300 musical works for sale at the Hague in 1764, these from numerous composers - with its text at the top saying -

‘Des Livres de Musique tante Vocale que Instrumentale qui se vendent chez J.J. Hummel. Marchand & Imprimeur de Musique………….. (1764). Hague. - Musical works for Voice and Instruments on sale at the premises of J.J. Hummel, Merchant and Printer of Music (1764). Hague.

Does it seems strange then that Hummel is described as 'boastful and unmusical' with such facts in front of us ?

J.J. Hummel had in fact (and contrary to the above textbook) been a merchant of music and musical instruments for over 4 years at this time. Here on this first page of his first printed catalogue from the Hague (1764) you can see for sale from him printed scores of symphonies, trios, concertos etc. The following year (1765) this same Hummel, merchant and printer of music, is known to have published a second catalogue of works for sale and between the years 1765-1772 he continued selling music, issuing and printing many others. Copies of Hummel’s later musical catalogues still survive (including one issued in his brother Burchard Hummel’s name dated 1781. A copy of that 1781 catalogue is today still able to be seen in the University Library of Frankfurt). Other catalogues of Hummel are able to be seen today at the Royal Library in the Hague. In fact, F.W. Marpurg mentioned Hummel’s musical business as early as 1760 in a work of his entitled, ‘Aanleiding tot het Clavier-Speelen’.

So the truth is as Hummel reported it in 1798. Young Mozart, on tour with his father Leopold in Holland (after arriving from their long visit to England) offered Hummel at the Hague several musical works for publication during his brief visit there with his father Leopold. But Hummel rejected them as commercially useless. The Mozart industry do not like facts of musical history. So the story had to be invented that it was not Mozart but Hummel who was 'unmusical and boastful’.

Mozart’s knowledge of musical composition by the time of his eventual arrival in Italy was virtually nil. As is again proved by recent musical analysis of Mozart's musical examination paper kept today in Bolgona, Italy - an entrance exam taken shortly after his arrival in Bologna. (Recently analysed in detail by musicologists Professor Luca Bianchini and others in Italy from the surviving documents).

But why let facts get in the way of a good fairy story ? Below is an image of J.J. Hummel's musical catalogue issued at the Hague in 1764. Case closed. Yet another example of falsehood in the Mozart story. Hummel was very musical. It was his business to be musical. He published and printed many hundreds of musical works, from symphonies to concertos, from sonatas to trios and quartets. So, which do you believe, the Mozart industry or the facts of history ?

:)

yanni
11-29-2009, 07:28 AM
"The Carriers of Enlightment: Mozart and Rousseau in the 18th century Europe" ,by Sibelle Karakelle of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey, 2007

http://www.idosi.org/hssj/hssj2(1)07/4.pdf

Musicology
11-30-2009, 05:15 PM
"The Carriers of Enlightment: Mozart and Rousseau in the 18th century Europe" ,by Sibelle Karakelle of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey, 2007

http://www.idosi.org/hssj/hssj2(1)07/4.pdf

Yes Yanni,

Both Voltaire and Rousseau, these two celebrated philosophers of the 'Englightenment' were actually employed as agents of the Venetian oligarchy in France and England. (An occultist system emerged from Venice which began to take over England's government from the time of Henry 8th onwards. In fact, Venetian bankers were in control of England, financially, by the time of Henry 8th's death. So that Britain with occultist Venetian assistance became a mercantile empire, slave trader and usury specialist for centuries - the same as the oligarchical state of Venice and in the 18th century it was occultism supported by Venice and its oligarchical occultism which created England's banking system and their later Empire. The funding came from Venice to found the Bank of England. Venice and occultist Venetian ideas similarly infiltrated the government and society of Protestant Holland. (One of whose results was creation of the Dutch East India Company). In fact Rousseau, so-called 'englightenment' philosopher was privately paid during his time in England by none other than the East India Company and payment records to him still exist today in the British Library. Voltaire too. The British Empire and the British banking system was a product of the model given to them by these oligarchical and occultist Venetians. The 'Enlightenment' focused on France but it was really the new secularised (and occultist) way to gain control of parts of Europe not directly under the Holy Roman Empire. Of which France and England were two examples. Since France had formally expelled the Jesuit Order back in 1762. In their new guise they returned to become pioneers of the 'Englightenment'. Corrupting science and corrupting culture despite their much vaunted 'Encyclopaedia'. Their aim was of course to ultimately extend the influence of Catholicism in lands which would otherwise not accept them. In fact, the first powerful supporter of the Jesuit Order and of Ignatius Loyola(when the new, military, Jesuit Order were first seeking to be established in Rome as an order of the Catholic church) had been none other than one patron of theirs, Cardinal Contarini, himself a Venetian. (The Contarini family had supplied no less than 7 doges to the Venetian state over the centuries). Out of Venice came so much occultism. Again, support for Isaac Newton's bogus reputation as a 'great scientist' also (who was really a plagiarist of earlier ideas of the German scientist Liebnitz - Newton being nothing but an alchemist. Newton (like Shakespeare before him) was promoted by the Venetian faction in England and elsewhere). The 'Englightenment' (so-called) was an 18th century movement to secularise but also to infiltrate governments of nations not loyal to the Holy Roman Empire. And it was brilliantly successful. Out of 'enlightenment' England came, in 1717, the Freemasons. (That too had been developed out of Venetian occultism by Venetians already influential in England and others who had great influence elsewhere). The story of Mozart involves many little known links with occultist Venice. In fact, it was none other than occultist Abbe G. Ortes of Venice who had met and guided Mozart and his father around Venice on their visit there. Ortes being the fool who wrote a book on the need to control global populations, copied in the 19th century by the occultist Malthus).

So, yes, Rousseau and Voltaire, 'heroes' of French literature. Whose real careers are hardly known.

yanni
12-01-2009, 02:27 AM
A true "Mozart basher" should have addressed quite differently my "no comment" post above:

Having left nothing but his music behind, Mozart, should not be compared with Rousseau whose contribution to "philosophy" and "current matters" is long recognised as "immense" .....

...long before, that is, the allegation that "Mozart's" music was in fact Rousseau's, came to light in this thread.

So, the question arises, why would a Mrs Karakelle bother to confuse her students with such nonsnensical comparisons*....tasting much like your familiar "hang it on the jesuits" soup?

For your perusal:

The centralized higher education system in Turkey and the national music teacher training program since 1998 : an analysis
Auteur : Sibel Karakelle
Éditeur : 2006.
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/77547890

Mehmet Akif Ersoy:
Turkey’s “national” poet, highly revered by Ataturk and his “Grey wolves”, composer of the lyrics of the Turkish National Anthem,1873-1936, of Albanian origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Akif_Ersoy

*"The Carriers of Enlightment: Mozart and Rousseau in the 18th century Europe" ,by Sibelle Karakelle of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey, 2007

Petrarch's Love
12-01-2009, 05:31 PM
Good golly, I can't believe this thread has made it all the way to lucky page 13. Couldn't you all be spending your time listening to music?



Ha haaa xDD thank you for that!! It completely made my day xD

Glad I could provide some entertainment Queen of the Night. I gather you're a fan of "He who must not be named?" Perhaps you'd like to join us on the classical listening thread for some other musical discussion. :wave:


One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch


Thanks for the list, St. Luke's.

yanni
12-02-2009, 01:10 AM
(Harvard, 1998)

Intersection Between Rousseau, Mozart to be Explored by Bin Ebisawa
By Cassie Ferguson

The world contains a few experts on philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and a few on composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but of those experts, very few indeed have made any kind of connection between the lives of the two 18th-century giants.

President of Kunitachi College of Music in Tokyo, Bin Ebisawa will be presenting a little known intersection between philosophy and the aesthetics of music in an upcoming colloquium on "Rousseau and the Mozarts -- Their Relation Considered." The seminar will be held in the Thompson Room (Room 110) of the Barker Center on Monday, April 27, at 4:15 p.m.

Musicology
12-02-2009, 04:19 AM
Good golly, I can't believe this thread has made it all the way to lucky page 13. Couldn't you all be spending your time listening to music?




Glad I could provide some entertainment Queen of the Night. I gather you're a fan of "He who must not be named?" Perhaps you'd like to join us on the classical listening thread for some other musical discussion. :wave:



Thanks for the list, St. Luke's.

Yes, the list of books on Mozart is very, very long. We consider ourselves to be 'educated' by believing them. Although, the last time we asked for some details of Mozart's musical education and achievements up until the age of 12 we could find not a single reference or source. Despite weeks of trying on this forum. Nobody had an answer. LOL ! Wonder why ? So much for the 'expert' textbooks, yes ?

The Mozart myth was in some ways very cleverly put together. In other ways it was crude stuff. It involved lots of trusted people and lots of sheer nonsense. But much of the evidence was, of course, destroyed. And whole areas are to this day off-limits to researchers. The facts had to be carefully obtained. But now the picture is very much more clear.

13 pages is minor. We have Mozart forums where thousands of pages of eulogy, hyperbole, popular fiction and plain idolatry are its main feature. As for listening to music, try listening to some by Mozart's contemporaries. Men such as Vanhal, Myslvivececk, Sarti, Paisiello, Wranitsky, to name only 5 of around 30 who make up 'Mozart's' music. They might surprise you. It would certainly end the black hole of ignorance which is the main feature of a Mozartean education. Do yourself the great favour of listening to composers of Mozart's own time. Those close to his career. But hey, I don't want to be too controversial ! LOL

Musical history versus Corporate Mythology.

Yes, certainly, Yanni. Rousseau is of the very same libertine network as Mozart. The so-called 'Enlightenment'. The occultist marriage of secularism designed to inflitrate parts of society which would not succumb to mainstream Romanism. Emerging from Venice.

Read about Rousseau in Venice ?

Rousseau was no composer. He, like Mozart, was a con-man, a fraud, a stooge of the Jesuit led 'enlightenment' philosophy. A Jesuit Order, incidentally, which had as its earliest supporter the Venetian Cardinal Contarini.



(Harvard, 1998)

Intersection Between Rousseau, Mozart to be Explored by Bin Ebisawa
By Cassie Ferguson

The world contains a few experts on philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and a few on composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but of those experts, very few indeed have made any kind of connection between the lives of the two 18th-century giants.

President of Kunitachi College of Music in Tokyo, Bin Ebisawa will be presenting a little known intersection between philosophy and the aesthetics of music in an upcoming colloquium on "Rousseau and the Mozarts -- Their Relation Considered." The seminar will be held in the Thompson Room (Room 110) of the Barker Center on Monday, April 27, at 4:15 p.m.

yanni
12-02-2009, 11:43 AM
Yes, certainly, Yanni. Rousseau is of the very same libertine network as Mozart. The so-called 'Enlightenment'. The occultist marriage of secularism designed to inflitrate parts of society which would not succumb to mainstream Romanism. Emerging from Venice.

Read about Rousseau in Venice ?

Rousseau was no composer. He, like Mozart, was a con-man, a fraud, a stooge of the Jesuit led 'enlightenment' philosophy. A Jesuit Order, incidentally, which had as its earliest supporter the Venetian Cardinal Contarini.

Having declared yourself already a non expert on Rousseau and the Enlightment and having limited to suffocation your “conclusions” on Mozart's manufacture(failing to exhibit the slightest interest so far as to who, why, when started it and who continues it today) and losing your temper the moment a different theory than your "the jesuits did it" was expressed, you can hardly expect to be taken seriously in your last namecalling "assessment" on Rousseau!.

Alas, Deutsche Grammophone’s promotion of Mme Kotzena’s Mozart-Gluck-Myslivecek works, along with the more scholarly “studies” by Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin, both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau, are to blame for your last outburst:

They, in chorus, answer “who continues the manufacturing today?” thus making nonsense of your “theory”… and not just that!

Cheers!

Other readers may find the following thread on Rousseau of interest :
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39455

Petrarch's Love
12-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Yes, the list of books on Mozart is very, very long. We consider ourselves to be 'educated' by believing them. Although, the last time we asked for some details of Mozart's musical education and achievements up until the age of 12 we could find not a single reference or source. Despite weeks of trying on this forum. Nobody had an answer. LOL ! Wonder why ? So much for the 'expert' textbooks, yes ?

Musicology--Well, I cannot either consider myself educated about Mozart or believe in any book or theory until I have read several, which is something I have not done. I know very little about the documentation or theories about Mozart's life one way or the other. I've read quite a bit of your theory here, and it made me interested in reading what you're reacting against, which I assume is presented in books like the list St. Luke's Guild offered. I presume that if your case is a strong one you will have no objection to a person reading the alternate views. ;)



. As for listening to music, try listening to some by Mozart's contemporaries. Men such as Vanhal, Myslvivececk, Sarti, Paisiello, Wranitsky, to name only 5 of around 30 who make up 'Mozart's' music. They might surprise you. It would certainly end the black hole of ignorance which is the main feature of a Mozartean education. Do yourself the great favour of listening to composers of Mozart's own time. Those close to his career. But hey, I don't want to be too controversial ! LOL

I listen to music widely but have studied it very little in any formal capacity, so I cannot claim to have a "Mozartean education," characterized by black holes or otherwise. I haven't heard works by many of the classical Mozartian contemporaries you name, and I like the idea of expanding/deepening my listening interests. So thank you for your list too! I've learned something already by searching youtube for Paisiello and finding the overture to his Il Barbiere di Siviglia. I hadn't been aware of the previous version and I am quite enjoying its sprightly overture. I do appreciate any suggestions that can lead me to happy listening. After all, it is the beauty of the music which is most important. :)

Dinkleberry2010
12-02-2009, 03:24 PM
This is the truth of the matter (I have spent fifty years researching): Mozart had two pet dogs named Rousseau and Voltaire. These dogs were incredibly intelligent and Mozart taught them to read and write. The dog Rousseau wrote The Confessions, and the canine Voltaire wrote Candide. Any one who denies this is obviously part of a vast conspiracy headed by the Jesuits.

Musicology
12-02-2009, 05:19 PM
Hi there Petrach's Love,

Here is an elegant aria from a virtually unknown opera 'Armida' by Italian opera composer Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802). It's written in a style very similar to that which we usually associate with Mozart. (They were both contemporaries and in fact they were closely associated. The facts of their association not generally known). This particular opera was one of about 30 by him and was written slightly earlier than 'Mozarts' Le Nozze di Figaro. (You may notice the opening few moments of this short piece closely resemble the famous opening of the 2nd Movement to 'Mozart's' Piano Concerto No. 21 (2nd Movement).

Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802)
Aria
'Lungi Dal Caro Bene'
Opera - 'Armida' (premiered at St Petersburg, Russia, 1786)
Soloist - Renata Tebaldi

http://www.mediafire.com/?zqul5to4gtk

Yes, alternate views are always welcome ! Good to know you are a great listener. These days closely listening to music is a sign of real musicality. More so, perhaps, than ever before.

Regards


This is the truth of the matter (I have spent fifty years researching): Mozart had two pet dogs named Rousseau and Voltaire. These dogs were incredibly intelligent and Mozart taught them to read and write. The dog Rousseau wrote The Confessions, and the canine Voltaire wrote Candide. Any one who denies this is obviously part of a vast conspiracy headed by the Jesuits.

Great ! Maybe you can tell us -

a. Why the term 'jesuitical' has been defined as being devious, elusive, and downright fraudulent ?

b. Why conspiracy theories are so often associated with the Jesuits ? Just a coincidence, right ? Or is it something to do with their history, perhaps ? LOL !!

Thanks for the revelations on Mozart's dogs. You would make quite an amusing fiction writer.


Having declared yourself already a non expert on Rousseau and the Enlightment and having limited to suffocation your “conclusions” on Mozart's manufacture(failing to exhibit the slightest interest so far as to who, why, when started it and who continues it today) and losing your temper the moment a different theory than your "the jesuits did it" was expressed, you can hardly expect to be taken seriously in your last namecalling "assessment" on Rousseau!.

Alas, Deutsche Grammophone’s promotion of Mme Kotzena’s Mozart-Gluck-Myslivecek works, along with the more scholarly “studies” by Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin, both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau, are to blame for your last outburst:

They, in chorus, answer “who continues the manufacturing today?” thus making nonsense of your “theory”… and not just that!

Cheers!

Other readers may find the following thread on Rousseau of interest :
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39455

Yanni,

Research consists of a little more than simply quoting other people who refer to other people. Useful though that may be. Mozart's musical work has NOT been 'traced to Rousseau' by anyone. Since any such work was not Mozart in the first place. But if you can show some music attributed to Mozart which has been proved to be by Rousseau, please do so here and don't leave us in suspense, will you ? LOL

You say this has already been done by ' scholarly “studies” by ''Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin'', both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau. Great ! Share some of their findings with us here, please ! After all, you make the claim and we want to see some evidence.

'Scholarly studies' are said to say Mozart learned music as a child. That he studied harmony, orchestration and composition as a child. But the questions remain completely unaswered weeks later. Where did he study harmony, orchestration, and composition as a child ? From whom ? When ? Any 'scholarly sources' ? Request Number 24.

And so we go round in circles. Still waiting for some 'scholarly answers' on these too. LOL !

Now, Janni, you make these claims about Rousseau. Any factual support ? Any at all ?

Babbalanja
12-02-2009, 10:48 PM
I know very little about the documentation or theories about Mozart's life one way or the other. I've read quite a bit of your theory here, and it made me interested in reading what you're reacting against, which I assume is presented in books like the list St. Luke's Guild offered. I presume that if your case is a strong one you will have no objection to a person reading the alternate views. ;)
You'll get a lot out of doing it that way. The "theory" you mention here is a mere parody of responsible research, depending on mining factoids from legitimate researchers and making fantastic claims about secret societies which by their very nature can never be verified. In Robert's own words from the OP to this thread, these are his claims:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view.

You may notice that the "theory" is put forth by delegitimizing mainstream Mozart scholarship (which he calls "corporate mythology" and "a fairy tale") as well as indicating what the theorist claims are anomalies in the conventional Mozart narrative. This is the exact opposite of how honest research is conducted: one can't dismiss the work of a Mozart scholar in one breath and then use his work to support a point in the next. Furthermore, weaknesses in the conventional narrative can't be considered support for any one alternative narrative. But by making people concentrate on these perceived anomalies, the theorist may distract observers from the fact that he isn't actually presenting evidence to support a coherent alternate scenario.

A recent item this theorist has presented demonstrates the futility of this methodology quite well. He presented a quote from Abert's adoring biography W.A. Mozart. Out of this 1500-page biography, Robert discussed these two sentences at great length (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=808099&postcount=178):

"An enterprising publisher in Berlin, Johann Julius Hummel, claimed that, although unmusical, he could cast a critical eye over the works that were submitted to him and see whether they were worth publishing. He did not have a good word to say about Mozart and even boasted that he had returned several of his works as unpublishable"

Now in the context of the work, it appears that Abert was discussing the reluctance of certain entrepreneurs to publish Mozart's works, since these virtuoso compositions weren't big sellers. But the theorist wants to make you think that it means Mozart was a talentless fraud who couldn't compose anything without the aid of shadowy cabals and the composers they employed as Mozart's ghost writers.

However, does this factoid even support the point he is making? The assumption seems to be that the works Hummel rejected were works the noncomposer Mozart wrote himself. But didn't Mozart, according to the very theory being put forward, have a stable of ghost-composers doing all his work? If truly talented composers were writing works for Mozart, why would anything he submitted for publication be considered substandard? Why would the plotters behind the Mozart myth allow Mozart himself to try to publish works and jeopardize their scheme?

And if the factoid were truly damning, why would Abert (being in the "fairy tale" game, after all) have mentioned it at all? Are we supposed to believe that the writer who lavished such admiration on Mozart's life and work (on page 239, Abert says "Mozart's genius...towered far above all his predecessors") is admitting in this anecdote that Mozart couldn't compose?

This is what's called "cherry picking." The theorist delegitimizes mainstream Mozart scholarship, but takes isolated factoids out of the context of this scholarship and pretends they support his claim.

Is it true, as Robert claims, that "other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view"? Of course not. Researchers may well deplore the amount of exaggeration and distortion in popular Mozart biography. They may acknowledge the influence of other composers on Mozart. They may admit that some of his early works were attributed to Mozart by mistake. However, none will support the claim made in the OP that Mozart didn't write any of his work.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
12-03-2009, 01:20 AM
Yanni,

Research consists of a little more than simply quoting other people who refer to other people. Useful though that may be. Mozart's musical work has NOT been 'traced to Rousseau' by anyone. Since any such work was not Mozart in the first place. But if you can show some music attributed to Mozart which has been proved to be by Rousseau, please do so here and don't leave us in suspense, will you ? LOL

You say this has already been done by ' scholarly “studies” by ''Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin'', both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau. Great ! Share some of their findings with us here, please ! After all, you make the claim and we want to see some evidence.

'Scholarly studies' are said to say Mozart learned music as a child. That he studied harmony, orchestration and composition as a child. But the questions remain completely unaswered weeks later. Where did he study harmony, orchestration, and composition as a child ? From whom ? When ? Any 'scholarly sources' ? Request Number 24.

And so we go round in circles. Still waiting for some 'scholarly answers' on these too. LOL !

Now, Janni, you make these claims about Rousseau. Any factual support ? Any at all ?

Check yourself the works of Mr Bin and Mrs Karakelle (on "links" between Mozart and Rousseau) at the URL's quoted above and then proceed to....

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39455

.....and continue in this here thread of yours to learn that......

"Rousseau"="Gluck"="Grimm"="Myslivecek"="Durazzo"="Comte de Saint Germain"="Chastellux"=Gioachino Cocchi , also signing his work (Bajajette, 1746) as Gioachino "Rossini".

BTW You never told us your italian opera friends views on (their hiding of) Cocchi, never justified your last rage against "Rousseau" and never answered my post #181 above.

Enjoy!

Petrarch's Love
12-03-2009, 02:20 AM
Hi there Petrach's Love,

Here is an elegant aria from a virtually unknown opera 'Armida' by Italian opera composer Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802). It's written in a style very similar to that which we usually associate with Mozart. (They were both contemporaries and in fact they were closely associated. The facts of their association not generally known). This particular opera was one of about 30 by him and was written slightly earlier than 'Mozarts' Le Nozze di Figaro. (You may notice the opening few moments of this short piece closely resemble the famous opening of the 2nd Movement to 'Mozart's' Piano Concerto No. 21 (2nd Movement).

Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802)
Aria
'Lungi Dal Caro Bene'
Opera - 'Armida' (premiered at St Petersburg, Russia, 1786)
Soloist - Renata Tebaldi

http://www.mediafire.com/?zqul5to4gtk

Yes, alternate views are always welcome ! Good to know you are a great listener. These days closely listening to music is a sign of real musicality. More so, perhaps, than ever before.

Regards


Ah. I didn't know that aria by Sarti. It's a really lovely piece, and I agree that the opening could well be reminiscent of the opening to movement 2 of Mozart's Piano Concerto 21 (or vice versa), which is a work I adore. I suspect, however, that you may be throwing that out in hopes it will reinforce your theory? :idea: If that is where you were headed, then I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced. It definitely sounds like there was an exchange of influence there, but the basic musical voice of the composer of the aria and the composer of the concerto is different. It doesn't sound like the same man, but it does sound like one man influenced the other. In any case, I think it's just as lovely a piece in terms of enjoyment as many by Mozart (or, if you really would rather, "Mozart"). I'll have to look at some of the other things Sarti composed.

Cheers. :)

Musicology
12-03-2009, 04:16 AM
The Abert biography of Mozart describes Hummel as 'unmusical'. In fact he was a major publisher in Amsterdam. He was very musical. For decades. He published hundreds of symphonies, concertos, chamber works, musical books and instruments. So that's plain wrong. Isn't it ? Hummel rejected several works by Mozart. And that's just simple. A catalogue of the 'unmusical' Hummel from the 1760's was presented here. So much for the accuracy of Abert, right ? Time to admit reality.

In this small point you have to admit Abert is talking nonsense. Furthermore, Hummel himself speaks of this incident publicly years after Mozart's death in a German newspaper.

The Mozart industry and their supporters describe these as 'factoids'. Let these 'factoids' speak for themselves. Let ordinary people decide on the evidence presented to them. Not much to ask, is it ? They are one simple illustration from thousands found on the capacity of ignorant people to believe the Mozart fairy story and to teach it regardless of the actual evidence.

Multiply this by tens of thousands and you get some idea of what is to come with 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.





You'll get a lot out of doing it that way. The "theory" you mention here is a mere parody of responsible research, depending on mining factoids from legitimate researchers and making fantastic claims about secret societies which by their very nature can never be verified. In Robert's own words from the OP to this thread, these are his claims:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view.

You may notice that the "theory" is put forth by delegitimizing mainstream Mozart scholarship (which he calls "corporate mythology" and "a fairy tale") as well as indicating what the theorist claims are anomalies in the conventional Mozart narrative. This is the exact opposite of how honest research is conducted: one can't dismiss the work of a Mozart scholar in one breath and then use his work to support a point in the next. Furthermore, weaknesses in the conventional narrative can't be considered support for any one alternative narrative. But by making people concentrate on these perceived anomalies, the theorist may distract observers from the fact that he isn't actually presenting evidence to support a coherent alternate scenario.

A recent item this theorist has presented demonstrates the futility of this methodology quite well. He presented a quote from Abert's adoring biography W.A. Mozart. Out of this 1500-page biography, Robert discussed these two sentences at great length (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=808099&postcount=178):

"An enterprising publisher in Berlin, Johann Julius Hummel, claimed that, although unmusical, he could cast a critical eye over the works that were submitted to him and see whether they were worth publishing. He did not have a good word to say about Mozart and even boasted that he had returned several of his works as unpublishable"

Now in the context of the work, it appears that Abert was discussing the reluctance of certain entrepreneurs to publish Mozart's works, since these virtuoso compositions weren't big sellers. But the theorist wants to make you think that it means Mozart was a talentless fraud who couldn't compose anything without the aid of shadowy cabals and the composers they employed as Mozart's ghost writers.

However, does this factoid even support the point he is making? The assumption seems to be that the works Hummel rejected were works the noncomposer Mozart wrote himself. But didn't Mozart, according to the very theory being put forward, have a stable of ghost-composers doing all his work? If truly talented composers were writing works for Mozart, why would anything he submitted for publication be considered substandard? Why would the plotters behind the Mozart myth allow Mozart himself to try to publish works and jeopardize their scheme?

And if the factoid were truly damning, why would Abert (being in the "fairy tale" game, after all) have mentioned it at all? Are we supposed to believe that the writer who lavished such admiration on Mozart's life and work (on page 239, Abert says "Mozart's genius...towered far above all his predecessors") is admitting in this anecdote that Mozart couldn't compose?

This is what's called "cherry picking." The theorist delegitimizes mainstream Mozart scholarship, but takes isolated factoids out of the context of this scholarship and pretends they support his claim.

Is it true, as Robert claims, that "other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view"? Of course not. Researchers may well deplore the amount of exaggeration and distortion in popular Mozart biography. They may acknowledge the influence of other composers on Mozart. They may admit that some of his early works were attributed to Mozart by mistake. However, none will support the claim made in the OP that Mozart didn't write any of his work.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni
12-03-2009, 12:58 PM
...his thoughts....

That's how Wikipedia "reveals" the link of Mozart's music to Rousseau's musical concept:

The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."[8]
These views suggest a musical style quite unlike the style of the Galant, which was dominant at the time. Galant style music was typically melodic with harmonic accompaniment, rather than polyphonic; and the melodic line was often richly ornamented with trills, runs and other virtuosic effects. The style promoted by the Masonic view was much less virtuosic and unornamented. Mozart's style of composition is often referred to as "humanist" and is in accord with this Masonic view of music.[9]

The authors of the article fail to remark that it was "Gluck" who pioneered the "much less virtuosic and unornamented" that Mozart "borrowed somehow" from "Gluck". A common trend among musicologists apparently, to ommit this alias of "Rousseau"!

Musicology
12-03-2009, 01:34 PM
Here is a really spectacular 'Mozartean' aria. By Italian 18th century maestro Vicenzo Righini (1756-1812). This piece was written in Vienna during the very time Mozart was living there. Righini, born in the same year as Mozart and a specialist in vocal music and teacher for many years was closely associated with Mozart himself, his family and career. During Mozart's last decade (1781-1791). On closer examination he proves to be still another source of 'Mozart's' operatic music, almost completely unknown today. Righini's achievements hidden away, his career, significance (and his music) deliberately buried by the Mozart industry for almost 200 years. Like so many others.

Vicenzo Righini (1756-1812)
Bravura Aria - Ove son Qual'ure
'Il Natal D'Apollo' (1788/9) - Vienna
Soloist - Diana Damrau (Germany)

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

Firstly, Gluck died in 1787. But Rousseau died in 1778. A slight problem, yes ? Rousseau is buried in Paris. Gluck is buried in Vienna. Another problem, yes ? The post you have made speaks of Masonic music. But many composers wrote Masonic music, including contemporaries of Mozart such as Paul Wranitsky in Vienna. In fact, parts of the Little Freemason Cantata have long been recognised to be by Wranitsky, and not by Mozart. So, there are all kinds of problems with your idea that Rousseau was Gluck. And, as for 'Rousseau's music' have you any examples to give us of its 'Mozartean' content ? If not, once again, there are real problems.

Thanks



...his thoughts....

That's how Wikipedia "reveals" the link of Mozart's music to Rousseau's musical concept:

The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."[8]
These views suggest a musical style quite unlike the style of the Galant, which was dominant at the time. Galant style music was typically melodic with harmonic accompaniment, rather than polyphonic; and the melodic line was often richly ornamented with trills, runs and other virtuosic effects. The style promoted by the Masonic view was much less virtuosic and unornamented. Mozart's style of composition is often referred to as "humanist" and is in accord with this Masonic view of music.[9]

The authors of the article fail to remark that it was "Gluck" who pioneered the "much less virtuosic and unornamented" that Mozart "borrowed somehow" from "Gluck". A common trend among musicologists apparently, to ommit this alias of "Rousseau"!

yanni
12-04-2009, 02:10 AM
Need I repeat myself, questioning truth's "quality" once more, to teach you?

If Thomas Jefferson decided to "alter" truth to protect my ancestor-hero and his legacy, if, today, at this absolutely "american literature" site, my revelations on his relations to the first three US presidents remain unchallenged, what makes you think that only "your" Mozart was "manufactured" and other truths of the era that created him were not?

Google for "abbe Raynal+Jefferson" and read (again) my last thread on "abbe Raynal-Rousseau" (it appears as #1 of 28300).

...and do try avoiding quick conclusions: If the foundations of this "house" need "strenghtening", after two centuries and a half, a good, learned, honest, architect must first be found.

(The similarities between Mozart's Bastien and Rousseau's Le Devin du Village have already been discussed elsewhere, see http://www.barenreiter.com/html/vosco/bastien.htm)

Cheers!


Firstly, Gluck died in 1787. But Rousseau died in 1778. A slight problem, yes ? Rousseau is buried in Paris. Gluck is buried in Vienna. Another problem, yes ? The post you have made speaks of Masonic music. But many composers wrote Masonic music, including contemporaries of Mozart such as Paul Wranitsky in Vienna. In fact, parts of the Little Freemason Cantata have long been recognised to be by Wranitsky, and not by Mozart. So, there are all kinds of problems with your idea that Rousseau was Gluck. And, as for 'Rousseau's music' have you any examples to give us of its 'Mozartean' content ? If not, once again, there are real problems.

Thanks

Musicology
12-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Yanni,

I have already refered to 'Mozart's' Bastien earlier on this thread. In fact, I refered to this work before you did. Maybe you didn't notice it ? If you can't find it just tell me and I will post it again.

The simple fact is Rousseau was part of the same network as Mozart. This was said earlier also. But Rousseau was NOT a music composer. He was a charlatan. Like Mozart.

I agree that other people's reputations have been manufactured. Nobody disputes this. But this thread (in case you have forgotten) is on the manufacture of Mozart. At least, I hope so.

Can you show us some examples of Rousseau and Mozart's music being of the same kind ? It's not much to ask, is it ? But, so far, you have given us no example. I wonder why ? The similarities to which you refer are only text, not music. A big difference, yes ?



Need I repeat myself, questioning truth's "quality" once more, to teach you?

If Thomas Jefferson decided to "alter" truth to protect my ancestor-hero and his legacy, if, today, at this absolutely "american literature" site, my revelations on his relations to the first three US presidents remain unchallenged, what makes you think that only "your" Mozart was "manufactured" and other truths of the era that created him were not?

Google for "abbe Raynal+Jefferson" and read (again) my last thread on "abbe Raynal-Rousseau" (it appears as #1 of 28300).

...and do try avoiding quick conclusions: If the foundations of this "house" need "strenghtening", after two centuries and a half, a good, learned, honest, architect must first be found.

(The similarities between Mozart's Bastien and Rousseau's Le Devin du Village have already been discussed elsewhere, see http://www.barenreiter.com/html/vosco/bastien.htm)

Cheers!

Since we are discussing what is real and what is not in music here's a short interlude - an example of superhuman harmony and amazing invention from a real miracle of music.

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)
Cantata 206
Aria 206/3

http://www.mediafire.com/?yzztlhz3j0c

yanni
12-04-2009, 12:55 PM
“There is no reply to the ignorant like keeping silence!”

Musicology
12-05-2009, 10:53 AM
Yes, Yanni.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clCZgf6-3yQ&feature=related

And here, to complete this short thread (!) some music by one of the many ignored musical contemporaries of Mozart in Vienna, the Bohemian composer Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808). One of various unofficial suppliers of the music in 'Mozart's' 'The Marriage of Figaro'. The remarkable similarities here to various parts of the Figaro overture are just a 'coincidence', of course ! This symphony written 2 years earlier than Figaro. (In later years it was the same Wranitsky who also privately supplied much of the music to 'Mozart's' opera 'The Magic Flute'. Music which had been used a year ealier in his opera 'Oberon'. And 'Oberon' was the most popular opera in Viennese musical history although 'Oberon' has been conveniently unrecorded and is virtually unknown today). What's new ?

Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808)
Symphony in D Major (c.1784/5)
First Movement
London Mozart Players
Paul Bambert, Conductor

http://www.mediafire.com/?yyym3mtzhmm

yanni
12-07-2009, 01:31 PM
Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’...... For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’.....

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

.........for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

Mozart first learned to distinguish between opera and singspiel (style) while in Paris by "Grimm" (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rde_0769-0886_1990_num_9_1_1078), ie Cocchi, (ie "Gluck, Chastellux and Rousseau") who, from then on(as Saint Germain, France's minister of war), had more important things to do(burning his aliases, among others, starting with "Rousseau" while Mozart was there) .

"First comes the word", you see, that was "their" basic "stylistic reform", "secondary" music had to obey, particularly when lyrics had to be translated and the piece be modified to suit the tastes of "lesser" audiences and the voice qualities of the actors (it was still "theater" then, ie tragédie lyrique ).

You now have all the answers and, once you drop your jesuit fixation (and develop other essentials), your book has chances!

Cheers Robert!

(BTW seek out the identity of a "Chevalier de Chaumont" who, together with Charles Nicholas Cochin, had some plans and designs on how the first "opera theater" should look like)!

Musicology
12-07-2009, 03:09 PM
Yanni,

Thank you for quoting what I wrote several years ago on a different website about 'Mozart's' operatic career, namely -

Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’...... For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’.....

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem to be. Especially once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

.........for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

You might also be aware that in 1778 Mozart's artistic and financially disastrous visit to Paris (which included the premiere there at the Concert Spirituel of a symphony he never actually wrote, 'Pariser', K297) was followed by his period in Munich when he was falsely credited with writing the opera 'Idomeneo'. But Idomeneo was not by Mozart also. In fact, surviving documents show Mozart had written virtually nothing of that work at the time when he arrived in Munich from Salzburg and there is no record of any payment to Mozart there as being its composer. And there are instead several reports of the time that this Idomeneo music was plagiarised from other composers. Add to this the fact that the March in Idomeneo was composed not by Mozart but instead by Josef Martin Kraus, who used it in Sweden a few years later in a work commissioned by the Swedish king. As far as the two unfinished works, 'L'Oca del Cairo' and 'Lo Sposo Deluso' are concerned, these are totally different in style from anything Mozart had written so far. They are far, far superior, in fact, to anything attributed to him up until that time. The change in style and quality here is amazing. The real Mozart was still writing operatic rubbish as late as 1786. If you have a chance to listen to 'Die Schauspieldirektor' premiered in Vienna in the very year of Figaro, in fact, premiered there only a few months before Le Nozze di Figaro !. Take away its overture and a single interesting aria (neither of which were by him) and we have an ugly work of very crude musical content. So poor, in fact, we are hard pressed to believe this is a work by the same composer responsible only a few months later for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ! A contemporary diarist who attended the premiere of 'Die Schauspieldirektor' in Vienna(Count Zinzendorf) noted 'the entire piece bored me'. Easy to see why he said so. And, judging by the documentary record of that time the 'famous' Mozart was already begging money from his fraternity friends in Vienna as early as that date of 1786. For instance, a letter survives from Vienna publisher Hoffmeister dated that year saying 'Sent Mozart 2 Ducats' - this in response to a begging letter from the same Mozart. This after he, Mozart, had (according to legend) 'earned a fortune' from playing piano concertos in Vienna over the two years before this. But this piano playing reputation proves on closer examination to be fiction also. Those capable of actually writing the music for 'Lo Sposo Deluso' and 'L'Oca del Cairo' included Paisiello, Sarti, Salieri and numerous others. Parts of the same network of composers (with various others) who were to continue to supply 'Mozart's' music for another decade and even beyond it. Stylistically we have been educated to believe this music is 'Mozartean', but, of course, this trick is achieved only by suppressing numerous works by Sarti, Paisiello, Myslivececk, Vanhal, Righini, Rossler, and others of his circle. Perfectly consistent with the disembodied myth of Mozart, the only composer of that time whose music is performed widely and known to modern audiences.

I take your point on the Jesuit involvement in Mozart's career. But, in fact, one can only say Jesuit involvement in the 'Englightenment' certainly was a major factor and had been so since virtually Mozart's childhood. Jesuit involvement in promoting the sciences and the arts was enormous ever since the first decades when Ignatius Loyola had been supported by the Venetian oligarchs during the early years of that Order. The period between the end of Jesuit control of education and musical publication across most of continental Europe (which began in 1762 with their ban from France and culminated in 1773 with the dissolution of their order in Rome) and the artistic appearance of what is today called the 'Englightenment' coincides perfectly with the description of Mozart as a 'composer of the Englightenment'.

Certainly, Grimm played a major part in Mozart's career. It was Grimm who arranged for a commission to be given for 'Idomeneo' as said - despite his disastrous Paris visit.

From the time of Idomeneo onwards up to and including 'Die Zauberflote' and 'La Clemenza di Tito' the supply to Mozart of 'his' operas was a complex affair involving this music being sent to him in Vienna via Bonn, Florence, London and other places such as Prague. These operas of Mozart's last decade (almost without exception) were not composed in Vienna. And are not by Mozart. He (Mozart) was simply the arranger of music written for him.

Cocchi is a very interesting character in the Mozart story. So is the story of Italian opera in England as a whole, especially during the period when Gallini was at the King's Threatre and at Covent Garden Theatre. The riddle of 'Mozart's' operas is close to being solved, for sure.

yanni
12-08-2009, 01:32 AM
The 1990 article at http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...0_num_9_1_1078 ,limited as it may be in "sources", fully answers your agonising questions of 2006, as quoted in my previous post, with regard to the provenance of Mozart's "new style" and his grooming* for his new role prior to January 1780, ie during his stay in Paris, by "Grimm"* (ie Cocchi, "Rousseau, Gluck, Chastellux etc", the aliases unknown to author Martin Fontius of the Berlin(DDR) Academy of Sciences**).

Your world theories-commitments do not allow you presently to admit it, you thus once more twist my words around to "misinterpret" my "points" accordingly (a predictable stand, hence my previous recomendation to develop the required "essentials") so that, hard to find, harder to digest, truth, may remain the property of the elit few.

Gallini (Collini?), who had so much in common with Cocchi (but was not the same person), certainly must be investigated too but your answer on Cocchi is still "pending"!

Try harder!

*Mozart's 1778 questionable relations to "Grimm", who did not really approve of "flawed" Mozart as his(as "Gluck"-musicmaster) successor(hence Koch's later ommission of Mozart), are important in deciphering "Grimm" himself and his role in diplomacy and world affairs.

**Mr Fontius, possibly still maintaining his deep interest in Enlightment, Voltaire and Rousseau in particular, may also look up "L.H. Nikolay, President of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (April 15, 1798 – June 2, 1803)" who "was granted the title of baron by Joseph II in 1782, on the same day with Goethe", and further continue his research with "Cocceji" next!

Musicology
12-08-2009, 06:55 AM
Yanni,

For the benefit of those who may be reading (or trying to read) these exchanges we can summarise this subject as follows -

We both agree the musical life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart were massively falsified and credited to him. And this required a vast network of patrons, composers, propagandists, and supporters. Over decades. Of loyalities which existed well before the time of Mozart. Since the manufacture of reputations is not a new thing in music, art or culture but many centuries old. The reputations of Shakespeare and of others such as Isaac Newton are only two examples. From a musical point of view (in terms of documents and musical analysis etc) this process in the life and career of Mozart is already very clear. It was cleverly done. Most of the time. Great efforts were made to conceal reality. In fact, many of 'Mozart's' manuscripts arrived at their modern form long after his death in 1791 and most of 'his' music was published long, long after his death. The ultimate objective of all this industry included the control of musical culture and of music history itself by the very people who were the musical patrons and managers of those times. So that musicology and studies of musical history would become (and has become) the adulation of a relatively small number of 'great' composers whose status and reputation dominates the musical landscape. The construction of a pantheon, in fact, of 'great' composers. By the emerging music industry. Whose most prominent members include the Viennese trio of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. And the truth of whose lives and careers would be largely concealed by sympathetic biographers and writers.

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair. But amongst the talented composers are those whose names are today hardly known. The music industry has cultivated these 'heroes' of musical history to the virtual exclusion of all others. Robbing us of any appreciation of context, of Mozart's contemporaries and of the musical realities of those times.

The music of Giuseppe Sarti is especially fine. It's just one example of a name hardly known today.

Really, it's a struggle between musicology and the music industry. But I would not have imagined such things when I first started to study Mozart in detail. It's perhaps enough to point out that the history of music is as prone to corruption as banking, commerce, politics or any other field of human activity.

These things were indisputably controlled by the aristocracy of Europe and beyond.

yanni
12-08-2009, 08:04 AM
....in the detail, huh?

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

I am unaware of the extent of their 1764 list of contacts (other than it included J.C.Bach) and very much doubt of any intention or need(excluding very particular "ethnic" grounds) at the time to make eight year old Wolfang what he is today

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair.

"This affair", as you have certainly realised by now, is much larger than Mozart's manufacture or even "music" but, if you insist, concentrate your relative research on the assumption that Mozart's myth creation, or perhaps Moz-art, began after 1815 (and is still going strong.)

Having myself in the past highlighted and criticized Cocchi's heavy "complicity" , I find comfort of his choice to distance himself and never look back, chosing to live his last years and die, as he did, in his beautiful garden at Vyborg, with the statue of harpsichord artist Vainamoinen at his side, his youthfull conviction of the benevolance of natural man having, just before, been shattered.

Can we, must we, will we, live on without it?

Musicology
12-08-2009, 11:08 AM
....in the detail, huh?

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

I am unaware of the extent of their 1764 list of contacts (other than it included J.C.Bach) and very much doubt of any intention or need(excluding very particular "ethnic" grounds) at the time to make eight year old Wolfang what he is today

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair.

"This affair", as you have certainly realised by now, is much larger than Mozart's manufacture or even "music" but, if you insist, concentrate your relative research on the assumption that Moz-art's myth creation started after 1815 (and is still going strong.)

Having myself in the past highlighted and criticized Cocchi's heavy "complicity" , I find comfort of his choice to never look back, chosing to live his last years and die, as he did, in his beautiful garden at Vyborg, with the statue of harpsichord artist Vainamoinen at his side, his youthfull conviction of the benevolance of natural man having, just before, been shattered.

Can we, must we, will we, live on without it?

Yanni,

At the end of the day what matters is what is real, what is true, and what is worthy of our service. Now, in the present. And what is present is the fulfillment of the ages.

Thanks for these exchanges -

J.S. Bach
Orchestral Transcription
BWV 508
Bist du bei mir

http://www.mediafire.com/?jzddn0iznmm

yanni
12-08-2009, 11:40 AM
My pleasure Robert!

http://greek-music.eu/video-clips/dimitra-galani/

Musicology
12-09-2009, 10:06 AM
Yanni,

Amongst various notes on J.J. Rousseau I have found the following two published references to his activities during his time in England - both related to music and to plays -

'Various autographs are found at Holland House in London also, and there are various manuscripts of famous characters - among them are those of Catherine, Empress of Russia; Napoleon I., Voltaire, Addison, Petrarch, letters of Philip II., III., and IV. of Spain; and also, interestingly, some music by Pergolesi which was copied here in London by J.J. Rousseau'

(Source - 'Old and New London' Volume 5 (1878) - 'Holland House and its History' by Edward Walford p. 161)

A second reference (from the same source, Volume 1) -

"Dick's Coffee House" in London (No. 8, south) was managed during the reign of King George II by a Mrs. Yarrow and her daughter, who were much admired by the young Templars who patronised the place. The Rev. James Miller, reviving there an old French comedy by J.J. Rousseau, called "The Coffee House," and introducing malicious allusions to the landlady and her daughter, so exasperated the young barristers who frequented "Dick's," that they went in a body and forced the performance of that work to be abandoned. The author then wrote an apology, and instead published the play; but unluckily the artist who illustrated that publication took the bar at "Dick's" as the background of his new sketch. The Templars were even more angry by this event and the Rev. Miller, who had earlier translated Voltaire's, "Mahomet" for the playwright David Garrick, never appeared again. It was at "Dick's" that Cowper the poet showed the first symptoms of his derangement''

//

yanni
12-09-2009, 01:49 PM
If Wiki "sources" are correct, "The coffee House" is by Jean-Baptiste Rousseau (6 April 1671 – 17 March 1741), a French poet.

Re Rousseau copying Pergolesi:

Missing other data (year etc), I cannot tell whether this took place before, during or even after Rousseau's "official" London presence (with David Hume* early 1764, allegedly staying there for over a year) and can only guess it concerns perhaps Pergolesi's "La Serva Padrona" that started the "Querelle de bouffons" in Paris, 1752.

You see, "Rousseau" as "Saint Germain", "Gluck" and Cocchi, has a long earlier London presence on record (1745,46, 53,58,60,61,62), Cocchi in the role of Haymarket theater manager 1757-1762 reverting to "opere serie" (simultaneously with "Gluck") to be replaced by J.C.Bach and then allegedly remaining somehow(??) in London directing private concerts at the Carlisle House in Soho at Mrs Cornellys (an italian lady acc to Donald Burrows) where he meets the Mozarts(they arrive April 1764 and stay for fifteen months), January 1765. (BTW "Helvetius" also visits London 1764)
Myslivecek then appears shortly on stage 1766 and 1767 (January, San Carlo, Naples, Bellerefonte), Cocchi is provided eternal biographical "cover" thereafter (returning, settling and dying "somewhere, somehow" near Naples) Grove dictionary included (and 'Holland House and its History' quotation "by J.J.Rousseau" doublechecks the "cover" theory) but later on, as "Gluck"(and not only), he returns and is cheered in London again!


Otherwise, yes, your Pergolesi find confirms my research on "Rossini-Rousseau"!

*Wikipedia: From 1763 to 1765, Hume was Secretary to Lord Hertford in Paris. He met and later fell out with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He wrote of his Paris life, "I really wish often for the plain roughness of The Poker Club of Edinburgh . . . to correct and qualify so much lusciousness."[21] For a year from 1767, Hume held the appointment of Under Secretary of State for the Northern Department. In 1768, he settled in Edinburgh.
(Lord Hertford was HM's embassador to Paris)


Yanni,

Amongst various notes on J.J. Rousseau I have found the following two published references to his activities during his time in England - both related to music and to plays -

'Various autographs are found at Holland House in London also, and there are various manuscripts of famous characters - among them are those of Catherine, Empress of Russia; Napoleon I., Voltaire, Addison, Petrarch, letters of Philip II., III., and IV. of Spain; and also, interestingly, some music by Pergolesi which was copied here in London by J.J. Rousseau'

(Source - 'Old and New London' Volume 5 (1878) - 'Holland House and its History' by Edward Walford p. 161)

A second reference (from the same source, Volume 1) -

"Dick's Coffee House" in London (No. 8, south) was managed during the reign of King George II by a Mrs. Yarrow and her daughter, who were much admired by the young Templars who patronised the place. The Rev. James Miller, reviving there an old French comedy by J.J. Rousseau, called "The Coffee House," and introducing malicious allusions to the landlady and her daughter, so exasperated the young barristers who frequented "Dick's," that they went in a body and forced the performance of that work to be abandoned. The author then wrote an apology, and instead published the play; but unluckily the artist who illustrated that publication took the bar at "Dick's" as the background of his new sketch. The Templars were even more angry by this event and the Rev. Miller, who had earlier translated Voltaire's, "Mahomet" for the playwright David Garrick, never appeared again. It was at "Dick's" that Cowper the poet showed the first symptoms of his derangement''

//

Musicology
12-09-2009, 04:53 PM
Yes, I'm sure the Wiki source is right about JB Rousseau and 'The Coffee House'.

The subject of Rousseau copying Pergolesi's 'La Serva Padrona' is far more interesting. And important. According to various sources this work of Pergolesi had already been performed in almost 60 places across Europe over the decades after its first premiere in 1733. And -

Rousseau used 'La serva padrona' as a model for 'his' own French intermezzo, Le devin du village (1752). Its text was by Gennaro Antonio Federico after Jacopo Angello Nelli's play - first premiered in Naples, Teatro S Bartolomeo, 5th September 1733.

http://arts.jrank.org/pages/9424/Serva-padrona-La-(%E2%80%98The-Maid-Mistress%E2%80%99).html

And, out of this work, via Rousseau, and others comes, eventually, of course, 'Mozart's' Bastien. Which idea was given to Mozart, according to several sources, from their family connection with Anton Mesmer. It was (according to popular belief) premiered in Mesmer's own garden in Vienna. Recent research suggests this work of 'Mozart' was actually begun in Salzburg and not in Vienna.

You refer to J.C.Bach and the famous private concerts at the Carlisle House in Soho owned by Mrs Cornellys (an italian lady acc to Donald Burrows) where they met the Mozarts (they arrive April 1764 and stay for fifteen months), January 1765. Yes indeed ! In fact Casanova was closely associated with this very same Mrs Cornellys. And the careers of Gallini, JC Bach and Abel are all linked to theatrical productions in London at this time and in attempts to buy theatres and even to be rivals to the Cornelys Carlisle House productions. (It was not really 'rivalry' but the development of a cartel in the London music scene).

According to Casanova he admits he had a daughter by 'Mrs Cornelys' in Holland before her first arrival in England. (It's refered to in his own memoirs and they definitely met again in London). Casanova visited her at Carlisle House soon after his own arrival in London from Paris. The Carlisle House in Soho was of course for years a centre of musical activity and was as you say visited by Mozart and his father. In fact, it was a virtual centre of musical intrigue during the whole 'Enlightenment' period.

One source says -

On the east side of the square, at the southeastern corner of Hanover Street, the large building now known as the Hanover Club, or Cercle des Etrangers, had for many years, down to the beginning of 1875, borne the name of the Queen's Concert Rooms, more popularly known as the 'Hanover Square Rooms' The site of the building was anciently called the Mill Field (from a mill which adjoined it, and which Mill Street, hard by, still commemorates), or Kirkham Close. It was originally in the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, though in 1778 it was joined on to that of St. George's, Hanover Square. It appears to have formed part of the premises in the occupation of Matthew, Lord Dillon, the ground landlord being the Earl of Plymouth, who sold it to Lord Denman, who re-sold it to Sir John Gallini, by whom the house and the original concert-room were erected, in the first half of the reign of George III. Gallini, an Italian by extraction, but a Swiss by birth, who, coming to England, was engaged to teach dancing to the then youthful royal family, realised a fortune at the West-end, received the honour of knighthood, and married Lady Betty Bertie, daughter of Lord Abingdon. In 1774 Gallini, joining with John Christian Bach and Charles F. Abel, converted the premises into an "Assembly Room," no doubt, in order to act as a counter attraction to the fashionable gatherings in Soho Square, under the auspices of Mrs. Cornelys, and other places where music went hand-in-glove with masked balls and other frivolous dissipations.

'Hanover Square and Neighbourhood',pp. 314-326.

I will check to see if this Rousseau copy of Pergolesi's work is still existing in England.

Yanni,

Curiously -

In the book - ‘Holland House’ by Princess Marie Leichtenstein is reference to -

Metastasio’s ‘Olimpiade’ with Pergolesi’s music. Copy made by JJ Rousseau in London.

http://www.archive.org/stream/hollandhouse02liecuoft#page/n295/mode/2up/search/rousseau+pergolesi

(I know Josef Myslivececk made a version of 'Olympiade' on the Metastasio text in 1777/8 which was premiered in Naples, Italy that year). But Pergolesi's is far older, of course.

(L'Olimpiade is an opera libretto in three acts by Metastasio, that was originally written for Antonio Caldara's 1733 opera. Following Caldara's success, more than 60 baroque and classical composers used the libretto for their own renditions)

Pergolesi's musical setting dates from two years later (1735).

yanni
12-10-2009, 01:43 AM
"Yes, I'm sure the Wiki source is right about JB Rousseau and 'The Coffee House'. "

I am not at all sure on the existence of a JB Rousseau, due to the 1766 efforts by "Grimm" to justify Hume's relations to "Rousseau", ie himself....

Paris, 15 Octobre, 1766. Il y a environ trois mois qu’on reçut à Paris les premières nouvelles de la brouillerie de J.-J. Rousseau avec M. Hume. Excellente pâture pour les oisifs ! Aussi une déclaration de guerre entre deux grandes puissances de l’Europe n’aurait pu faire plus de bruit que cette querelle. Je dis à Paris; car à Londres, où il y a des acteurs plus importans à siffler, on sut à peine la rupture survenue entre l’ex-citoyen de Genève et le philosophe d’Écosse; et les Anglais furent assez sots pour s‘occuper moins de cette grande affaire que de la formation du nouveau ministère et du changement du grand nom de Pitt en celui de Comte de Chatam (sic).’ Correspondance Littéraire de Grimm et de Diderot, ed. 1829, http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=652&chapter=62078&layout=html&Itemid=27

....and Hume's subsequent (1768) withdrawal from public service.

Re "Olympiade"

Of interest that out of all opera works staged by Cocchi-Rousseau only this Olympiade by Pergolesi (was it really Pergolesi's? It is signed as "by several Eminent Masters’ executed under the direction of Guglielmi". Also see Demofonte, by Metastasio and Cocchi,below) exists today in London*

Metastasio's Olympiade was perhaps first staged in London 1755, while Cocchi was NOT there ie he possibly signed as "Rousseau" his 1754, Venice, Metastasio version and had it sent to London

(LADIES IN THE WHEATSTONE LEDGERS: ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3153fb16-2775-488a.../ATTACHMENT14:

Comment
While Demofoonte was going on with good Success, Vanneschi came to propose to me Metastasio’s Olimpiade, telling me, that he would show it to me as it was shortened and altered after his own theatrical Notions, that is, mangled and spoiled as usual; but instead of keeping a Promise that Nobody had forced him to make, he sent one Day his Cop[y]ist to bring me my Part written out, with a Message full of his usual Politeness, that he did not think fit to let me see the Opera-book, and that I had nothing to do, but to learn my Part against the Time that this new Opera was to be exhibited.
I had in Mind to look out in my Collection for some other Musick, to put to this new Opera of Olimpiade, as I did to Demofoonte; but on this scandalous Behaviour, after my late Kindness to him, I resolved to do nothing more for his Advantage but what my Contract bound me to...372 footnote 372 :Regina Mingotti, An Appeal to the Public London, [1755]), 11–12.)...


...and we thus have possibly another Demofonte in London, 1755, NOT mentioned by Wikipedia's Demofonte article, an opera of the "common" repertorio of Myslivecec, Gluck, Rousseau and Cocchi...

OR , most propably...

...."Mattia Vento" and "Rousseau" are one and the same (Cocchi) and we speak of early 1765 ( Mattia Vento, Demofoonte March 2, 1765 London)while Cocchi/"Rousseau"-leaving in a hurry?- and the Mozarts were there,

but the music of both operas is by Cocchi in any and either case!


Cheers.

*actually thre are another 9 manuscripts of various works by Cocchi at the British Library.

Musicology
12-10-2009, 04:31 AM
Yanni,

Both of the items you've just posted here are interesting. Certainly Pergolesi is one of the most massively misattributed composers in music history. Almost 200 works credited to him and today there are less than 30 which can really be associated with him ! A sort of rehearsal for the 'official' career of Mozart.

Also, Josef Myslivecek wrote a version of both 'L'Olimpiade' and also 'Demofoonte' (both in Italy).

According to all the biographies, Rousseau was employed as a part-time music copyist during different times of his life. He was indisputably involved in the propagation of 'Englightenment' music in England and elsewhere and was actively involved in the promotion of Mozart's career at different times. Acting as a catalyst. One of a network of libertines which included Casanova. Without a doubt Mozart and his father must have seen this Rousseau copy of 'L'Olimpiade' at Holland House when they came to London. Supporting your view that Rousseau, to the young Mozart, was an accomplished composer of the time. His influence in Mozart's career with Le devin du Village (Bastien) is further proof of this. I will look more closely at the history of this musical arrangement of 'L'Olimpiade' made by Rousseau at Holland House in London.

yanni
12-10-2009, 06:57 AM
Hume to his brother John Home.

‘Lisle Street, March 22, 1766. Rousseau left me four days ago….
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=652&chapter=62076&layout=html&Itemid=27 (read through the letter exchange)

Grimm, Friedrich Melchior Autograph letter signed to [??]; Paris, 14 Mar 1766. 1s.(3p.) ........FAKE
http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~hou01430
15th March 1766 no 18 letter of Hennin to Bernandin de saint Pierre from Geneva....FAKE
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UO8FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA256&dq=hennin&lr=&hl=el#PPA72,M1

Rousseau writes Hume his famous letter May 23rd (Early responses to Hume's life and reputation, Volume 1 By James Fieser,p145)

With the delicate quarrel Hume vs Rousseau(on Rousseau's music as basic reason-Fieser) ending the way it did (and the, impossible to decipher, cover up that followed by at least one side-as above) the most interesting conclusion deducted from my above post is the great "influence" exerted by "Rousseau" already in 1765 in Europe (London included) which leads us directly to his father(!), high ranking mason Antonio Cocchi who +1758:

Gioachino "Rossini-Rousseau" Cocchi somehow(!!) inherited his father's position.

BTW according to http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Rae/raeLS14.html : Hume and Rousseau traveled ("returned" is a better term perhaps for "Rousseau") to England January 1766 which is the correct date (and not 1764 as previously mentioned-mea culpa)

(In answer to your "libertine" and earlier "charlattan" labels. I personaly avoid normaly easy conclusions!)

Musicology
12-10-2009, 12:08 PM
Yanni,

I agree with Samuel Johnson who said of Rousseau -

’I think him one of the worst of men; a rascal who ought to be hunted out of society, as he has been. Three or four nations have expelled him; and it is a shame that he is protected in this country…. Rousseau, Sir, is a very bad man. I would sooner sign a sentence for his transportation than that of any felon who has gone from the Old Bailey these many years. Yes, I should like to have him work in the plantations.”’

Boswell's 'Life of Johnson', ii. 11.

And why ? Because Rousseau, occultist, agent of the Jesuit/Venetian takeover of England through his paymaster, the East India Company, had just arrived in England from Paris with Scottish philosopher Hume to assist (like so many other artists, musicians, performers, writers, philosophers etc) in the continuing cultural takeover of the country already being achieved for decades in music, literature and the arts by attempted domination of publications and performances such as opera at the King's Threatre, and elsewhere. Rousseau's travelling colleague from 'Enlightenment' Paris, the philosopher Hume, one of the 3 noted philosophers of the emerging British Empire. (A British Empire that had of course been secretly created with the full assistance of the Venetians ever since the time of Henry 8th. Complete with founding the City of London and the Bank of England). The English 'Enlightenment' involved the cultural takeover of England using occultist fraternities that were being organised through leading members of the English aristocracy of that time. Cornelys, Gallini, Casanova, Rousseau, Voltaire and all the others were pawns in this process. The transformation of England in to the new craze of Venetian decadence. One of whose first products for the emerging middle classes of England was Freemasonry. Formulated from Venetian occultism by Venetians themselves in England and finally released in 1717 from London itself. And, later, virtual domination of the performing arts etc. A cultural crusade, in fact, of which Rousseau was definitely a part. Removing, in fact, any threat of any kind to the oligarchy that now ruled 'Enlightenment' England as a whole. Including even English talent. The composer Thomas Linley (1756-1778) is one such example. A scheme patronised by barons, prime ministers and other high ranking members of the English aristocracy.

This environment was the one that could and would defeat England where attempted military conquest had failed at the time of the Spanish Armada and was to fail again at the time of the Stuart rebellion of 1745. A cultural counter-reformation occurred, in fact. Out of which, finally, on the musical side, emerged the manufactured cult of Mozart.

(Johnson's suggestion that Rousseau should be sent to the plantations to work is a mocking allusion to Rousseau's notorious 'Social Contract', a book describing his ideas of the government he conceived of being useful for the enslavement of the future world - this modelled on the slave plantations of Jesuit Paraguay which he, Rousseau, is known to have greatly admired). And, to slave trading, opium trading, usury practicing barons in England, these ideas were welcomed within the British Empire itself.

Concerning 'Rousseau's' supposed system of musical notation (which he submitted to Paris in 1743) this really comes from Jean-Jacques Souhaitty, a 17th century French music theorist. Although his system (like various others of the time) appears not to have become popular, interest in it was briefly awakened through a dispute set off by musical writer Jean-Benjamin de La Borde (LaBordeE - 1783 ) who alleged that Jean-Jacques Rousseau (in his ‘Projet concernant de nouveaux signes pour la musique, lu par l’auteur à l’Académie des sciences, le 22 août 1742’) had plagiarized the ideas of Souhaitty in presenting the system as his own.

//

yanni
12-10-2009, 12:47 PM
You are entitled of your opinion, of course, but if Boswell is your source, then:

Boswell returned to London in February 1766 accompanied by Rousseau's mistress, with whom he may have had a brief affair on the journey home.[3] After spending a few weeks in the capital, he returned to Scotland to take his final law exam. He passed the exam and became an advocate. He practised for over a decade, during which time he spent no more than a month every year with Johnson. Nevertheless, he returned to London annually to mingle with Johnson and the rest of the London literary crowd, and to escape his mundane existence in Scotland. He found enjoyment in playing the intellectual rhyming game crambo with his peers.

Some of his journal entries and letters from this period describe his amatory exploits. Thus, in 1767, in a letter to W.J.Temple, he wrote, "I got myself quite intoxicated, went to a Bawdy-house and past a whole night in the arms of a Whore. She indeed was a fine strong spirited Girl, a Whore worthy of Boswell if Boswell must have a whore"[4] A few years earlier, he wrote that during a night with an actress named Louisa "five times was I fairly lost in supreme rapture. Louisa was madly fond of me; she declared I was a prodigy and asked me if this was not extraordinary for human nature."[5] Though he sometimes used a condom for protection[6], he contracted venereal disease at least seventeen times[7]

by Wikipedia

So, try producing facts only re Mozart's relations to Cocchi-Rousseau if you please!

Musicology
12-10-2009, 01:36 PM
Yanni,

Boswell is not really my source. The source was of course Samuel Johnson himself. But of Boswell, we know very well he lived a very different life than Johnson himself. He attached himself to Johnson. Rather than vice-versa. Yes, Boswell had links with Rousseau (!) and on the subject of J.J. Rousseau it's very clear the two men had strongly different views. Isn't it ? Which begs the question of where Boswell's loyalties really were.

Rousseau's arrival in England (with Hume) from Paris caused Hume to lie about the date of his arrival. In fact, they both arrived together although Hume separates the dates by 3 days. This because, officially, people were not to know that Hume and Rousseau were close associates.



You are entitled of your opinion, of course, but if Boswell is your source, then:

Boswell returned to London in February 1766 accompanied by Rousseau's mistress, with whom he may have had a brief affair on the journey home.[3] After spending a few weeks in the capital, he returned to Scotland to take his final law exam. He passed the exam and became an advocate. He practised for over a decade, during which time he spent no more than a month every year with Johnson. Nevertheless, he returned to London annually to mingle with Johnson and the rest of the London literary crowd, and to escape his mundane existence in Scotland. He found enjoyment in playing the intellectual rhyming game crambo with his peers.

Some of his journal entries and letters from this period describe his amatory exploits. Thus, in 1767, in a letter to W.J.Temple, he wrote, "I got myself quite intoxicated, went to a Bawdy-house and past a whole night in the arms of a Whore. She indeed was a fine strong spirited Girl, a Whore worthy of Boswell if Boswell must have a whore"[4] A few years earlier, he wrote that during a night with an actress named Louisa "five times was I fairly lost in supreme rapture. Louisa was madly fond of me; she declared I was a prodigy and asked me if this was not extraordinary for human nature."[5] Though he sometimes used a condom for protection[6], he contracted venereal disease at least seventeen times[7]

by Wikipedia

So, try producing facts only re Mozart's relations to Cocchi-Rousseau if you please!

yanni
12-10-2009, 01:40 PM
I take the liberty to publish my view on Cocchi, already emailed to you some time ago, for the benefit of other readers


Here is my overall theory and “Cocchi”.(~1720-1820).

Following the collapse of the Medici, “multi cultural”, enlightened”, neoclaccisist” and “bankers paradise ” Florence is no more independent but under Austrian rule. From earlier times even, the Holy Roman Emperor’s interest to promote romancatholicism did not coincide with the interests of France, with their large hugenot population, the more so after the seven year war, because of their sharing,with lutheran Prussia and French loving(!) greekorthodox Russia, their spoils from Austria (today’s Poland).
This new central European equilibrium, headed by France, cannot be romancatholic, more now than ever before, because of their long views (and established presence-and mainly the trade potential) “across the Atlantique”, something they can only do united (cannot risk another war between themselves leaving England, their common enemy, have the whole cake).
The Bourbons in Spain have already the South, the others, France (along with Malta,collapsing Venice, Genoa and other parts of Italy), already controlling the Mediterranean and the Baltic, are shooting for the North, so, together with Prussia,they prepare the ground for 1773-74: American Revolution.
From that point on until post Napoleon, Rome is at the mercy of France and their allies. Rome does not dictate policy but obeys. Defeated Austria must stay content with Marie Antoinette’s marriage to the throne of France.
(After American Independence).
The period 1784-1815 is, from research point of view, one of the darkest historically: The rise of mercantilism and the use of “modern sciences” makes merchantmen rightly believe in their new “promised land” of milk and honey that unites them all in profit. Bankers are upgraded, jews are accepted socially. A great Masonic convention, 1785 Wilhelmsbad , agrees to divide ‘their world” in 10 parts, including Russia.
Military humiliated by the rebels Britain is ruled by a sick King, France is ruled by a weak young King who has trouble consummating his marriage and is controlled by his courtiers, a network of shrewd politicians..
The war between France and England goes underground, the social changes, fabricated by French
encyclopedists partly as the “new system” to govern USA and partly to weaken their opponents, blow up on the face of France.

In common agreement with friends, associates and other members of his huge family(many across the Atlantique) the most important, most active and most exposed member of the clan controlling France, Gioachino Cocchi, having already burried his “Helvetius,Rousseau, Gluck, Saint Germain(the war minister), Chastellux, Graslin, Cochin” aliases, remains in control of things politically- as Raynal(Napoleon’s mentor), P.M.Hennin (almost succeeding De Vergennes as French foreign affairs minister)* -and underground fraternities (Ami Reunis, Nine Muses, Philalalethes, Strict Observance** as “Dixmerie, Strogonov, von Gleichen and Saint Germain the occultist)”until after the terror reigns in France and the royal family is decapitated. He then leaves France and settles in Russia where he is very active politically(under quite a few more “Russian” aliases) to his end, 1819 or 20.
Promoting the d’Orleans succession, he faithfully served “his” France to his last, regicide not excluded.
As chief architect of today’s “world”, he remained a well kept secret until 2005, when a senile greek decided to trace his roots online and find why his grandfather, a “very active” tenor (1870-1925) drank himself to death a very cold January in Saloniki.

* and "german" Grimm, historian

** The "Orthodox Scottish Rite of Strict Observance"


Yanni,

Boswell is not really my source. The source was of course Samuel Johnson himself. But of Boswell, we know very well he lived a very different life than Johnson himself. He attached himself to Johnson. Rather than vice-versa. Yes, Boswell had links with Rousseau (!) and on the subject of J.J. Rousseau it's very clear the two men had strongly different views. Isn't it ? Which begs the question of where Boswell's loyalties really were.

Rousseau's arrival in England (with Hume) from Paris caused Hume to lie about the date of his arrival. In fact, they both arrived together although Hume separates the dates by 3 days. This because, officially, people were not to know that Hume and Rousseau were close associates.

Boswell "quoting Johnson" on Rousseau is your source and therefore as unreliable as everything else written on "Rousseau" so far (including his own fake "Confessions", used by most of his biographers-commentators as "source", LOL!)

Boswell propably "burries" Rousseau (with "Rousseau's" own accord, post 1778) while trying to raise Johnson to the level of another Goethe or perhaps Mozart etc, ie to give each "community" their national-cultural model. Problem is, Boswell lacks "grace" and, instead of achieving his goal on Johnson, he takes him down as well!

Cheers.

virginiawang
12-11-2009, 07:01 AM
Why do we believe as we do ? In the case of Mozart it's because nobody has ever examined and cross-examined the whole story. Till now.

you may examine, cross-examine or even penetrate into the whole story, but chances are nobody knows whether you have touched upon the reality or not. Evidence may lead to falsehood more likely than you wish. The hidden truth lay buried forever.
I love the film Amadeus, and I will consider Mozard in a way all people have considered him till now. It is rude to make a slanderous guess.



I am of course very familiar with each and every one of the 10 books you have just listed by name. In fact (unlike you) I have actually read them - many times. I've done more than this. I've obtained and studied hundreds of others on the same subject. And that's not all. I've examined diaries, letters, unpublished manuscripts and anecdotes of musicians and writers on music of the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Sorry I have to shed some light upon an undesirable fact, which might have escaped you for a long while indeed. You can read as much as you like, but you may not get closer to the reality by reading, investigating, or doing whatever you think may lead you to the truth. The amount of books you've read concerning this topic only indicates the strenuous effort you've made, but that's got nothing to do with the real Mozard. It is simply because you are not Mozard.



A tradition has existed in 'Mozart research' for almost 200 years of writers quoting someone who has quoted someone else, who has quoted someone else, and who has quoted someone else. Whose original source is false.
Then it is a real wonder that you know it is false.


This nonsense is called in the Mozart industry 'expertise' and it is well funded. A farmer knows more of musical history than those fools.
Obviously you've read more books on this topic than a mere farmer.


Perhaps you should retire from the field claiming injury, having 'defended' your point of view by saying nothing at all ! And it would be very typical. You can even say your 'experts' have educated you.
To say nothing is the best policy for a subject, which all people can only fuss around wild guesses they've made by investigating into the distant past.


That 'biography' begins with Niemetscheck's claim to have known and been close to Mozart. When, in fact, Niemetscheck never met Mozart in his whole lifetime ! Niemetsheck's lies (including his claim to have heard Mozart in public performance in Prague) are very typical of so-called early Mozart biographies. Since Niemetscheck never visited Prague once until after the death of Mozart !
You can never know whether Niemetscheck has ever seen Mozard or not because you're not him. The fact may have escaped the eye of the keenest spy in his time. How can you know anything about it? Sorry, but your tone sounds so funny.


Please let me educate you on this one issue of F.X. Niemetscheck and his 'biography' of Mozart so that you will not stop wasting the time of readers here and your own.
What? You want to educate people with mere guesses? Perhaps Niemetscheck may want to jump out of his grave and educate you.



Readers of this thread already see how difficult this subject is for you. They see how absurd your arguments really are.
Many readers will enjoy your humor, in making exaggerations about something pretty much in the air.


Try something new. Something really radical. Visit your local library and start reading.
Do I have a bad memory? You just told us that people quoted and requoted about things that are fake? How you know your library won't deceive you?

Musicology
12-11-2009, 10:34 AM
Virginiawang,

Thank you for volunteering to help us in our quest to know what is true and what is a fairy story on the life, career and musical reputation of the great icon that is Mozart. Because we live on our cultural island. An island like Easter Island. And, towering over us are idols. One of which, culturally, is Mozart. But nobody can tell us anything about the facts surrounding his mythical reputation. Which, we are told, are contained in textbooks and in manuscripts. So we want to see them.

I don't know if you've actually read this thread but we have spent weeks trying to find out from 'Mozart research' the answer to the basic question of where W.A. Mozart studied music (harmony, orchestration, etc) as a child and as a youth, during which time (according to legend) he managed to write hundreds of symphonies, concertos, masses, operas, sonatas, trios and other marvels of musical art. Maybe he studied this on his coach trips. You know ? While bumbing around the roads of Europe. Or in between his 'genius' activities as a performer. Maybe you can help us with this basic question on his musical education and can tell us his teacher and where he actually studied music and for how long ? This is just a gentle question from thousands that exist on this towering icon of western musical culture. We will be very grateful if you can help us since none of the 10 published sources cited above say anything about it. Please show us differently if you can. And we will be forever grateful.

But, more importantly, musicology (unlike soap operas and their stories) is a science. This means it accepts and even welcomes criticism of its teachings. But the history of 'Mozart research' consists solely of presenting and re-presenting dogmas and gross exaggerations on this character, Mozart, which allow little if any criticism. The musical 'education' of Mozart is only one such case. And it shows.

Please dig deep in to your sources and provide some evidence for what is popularly taught and believed on him and his 'genius' career. You will find, after your detailed studies, that the small number of criticisms given here on the 'genius of Salzburg' are fair, honest and accurate. That these criticisms are contradicted only by the well known fairy story of Mozart, sponsored by and pumped out by the Mozart industry and recording industry over the past 200 years, by the tourist industry, and by dogmatists who control and have controlled in all that time the teaching and learning of music history (so-called). Since the facts of musical history are strangely alien to the pilgrims and devotees of 'Mozart studies' (so-called). And always have been. So we want to pin them down to some basic questions, such as these.

All we want to see is some of the 'evidence'. Not much to ask for, is it ? Maybe you've been hiding it from us ?

There is a story of 5 year old child who could fly Jumbo jets from Chicago to Washington. His father told us that he was born with this gift. And who are we to doubt it ? And another child who could do brain surgery. And still another who could design suspension bridges before he went to school. The sort of things which we credit to Mozart, in fact.

Regards

yanni
12-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Don't fight it, Robert, Dennis Pajot's study "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas" leaves little doubt that Mozart, age 8, could compose and adapt music for both piano and violin (and harpsichord) before learning to write his own name!

...and don't forget to tell your readers who were included in Mozart's long list of contacts in London. (For Paris and Versailles, 1764 and 1766, don't bother, they are irrelevant!)

Cheers

Musicology
12-11-2009, 04:45 PM
Don't fight it, Robert, Dennis Pajot's study "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas" leaves little doubt that Mozart, age 8, could compose and adapt music for both piano and violin (and harpsichord) before learning to write his own name!

...and don't forget to tell your readers who were included in Mozart's long list of contacts in London. (For Paris and Versailles, 1764 and 1766, don't bother, they are irrelevant!)

Cheers


Yes Yanni,

We all know Mozart was composing a piano concerto while he was still in the womb of his mother. And an opera before he could walk. The only problem is these early manuscripts of W.A. Mozart are literally riddled with the handwriting of his father, his older sister (Nannerl) and in many cases where the musical handwriting is actually his it is filled with crude musical errors.

This situation had definitely not improved by the time he reaches the age of 14. At which time he has been sent to Italy. By whom ? By the Prince Archishop of Salzburg at that time. Whose name was Firmian. The letter from Salzburg to Bologna's music director, Padre Martini, is very revealing. It says that Wolfgang has 'learned nothing' of music. So that he is being sent to Italy to learn the basics.

Needless to say, this letter appears in no biography. And nor does any detailed study of 'Mozart's' music up until this time.

On 9th October 1770 (almost 15 years old) Mozart, in Bologna for a day at the time takes an admission test for the Bologna Accademia dei Filarmonici, a prestigious musical institute in Italy. The test Mozart was set to solve there was to compose a 4-part piece on an anonymous piece of church music, a gregorian antiphon, 'Quaerite Primum Regnum Dei' : "Seek ye first the kingdom of God". The results of this test, which lasted 3 hours, were disastrous. In fact, they were musically so bad the test question was altered. And the 14 year old boy was given a second chance with an easier example. One which, eventually, Martini provides TO Mozart himself ! And it gets worse. Since this second 'test' is far more simple than the first. So W.A. Mozart sets to work for a second time. And even here, in his second exam, the results are very poor.

Those who have studied this subject (including experts in 18th century music such as Professors Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta, this over the past few years) have also found the administrator's remarks of that 'exam'. Which says that in spite of all the help provided to Mozart (with the answers virtually given to him on a plate) the panel of musicians were NOT unanimous in giving him a pass. In fact, the second exam paper is also filled with basic errors.

But no problem ! The second version of the test is the one you will see in biographies. From the highly sympathetic Padre Martini of Bologna.

Where does this 'road show' finally end ? The answer is that it never does. It continues back in Austria. Where Mozart had already been laughed out of Vienna in 1768 (2 years earlier) for trying to defraud the Emperor that he, Wolfgang had written an opera). A shameful incident which led to the opera being cancelled. (Whose name was 'La finta semplice').

And still the fictions continued. They continued up to the time when, in 1781 he begins to live in Vienna. At which time 'his' first Vienna opera, 'The Abduction from the Seraglio' is exposed as a fraud by a music writer of the time, Count Zinzendorf. And this fraudulent career continues, despite hype surrounding his fabled career in the press of that time. It continues further to him producing a version of Figaro in 1786 which was nothing more than an an arrangement of music written by others. And it continues with his mythical composition of hundreds of 'masterpieces' by him. Virtually all of which were published for the first time long after his death. This comedy of errors and exaggerations ends with the 'Requiem'. A work which, even by 1825, was exposed as having been written by a series of other composers.

But the legend has not even started yet. The music publishers, the patrons, and a series of fraternal writers now started to pump up the fairy story even more. The result ? By the early 19th century this wholesale fraud was now 'music history' and the true origins of this music was buried, concealed, fabricated. So that the iconic status of the 'genius of Salzburg' was created. And the legend of Mozart, 'musical superman' was born.

Fortunately facts matter. Detailed study of manuscripts, journal articles, letters and publications makes it possible (with difficulty) to slowly challenge the myth.

Now, you would expect this sort of criticism to be already happening in 'Mozart studies', wouldn't you ?

The short answer is this. The music industry is one thing. And musicology is another.

You may ask how we can prove Mozart did not compose, say, the 10 operas of his last decade (1781-91) or how he did not compose the 27 piano concertos or, say, the last dozen symphonies etc.

The answers in each case take time and I hope people take the time to read the final story. But the short answer is simple. Mozart's career was manufactured and so is the legend of his musical abilities.

yanni
12-12-2009, 01:41 AM
My confidence on the science of musicology is growing as of late:

Quoting from Mr Pajot's article on "K449 Piano Concerto in Eb"

Mozart's autograph of this Concerto reads "Di Wolfgango Amadeo Mozart per la Sigre Barbara de Ployer Viena il 9 di Febro 1784". It is also the first entry in Mozart's thematic catalogue, dated again February 9, 1784. On February 20, 1784 Wolfgang wrote to his father: "The concerto [in Eb] you may have copied. Remember, do not show it to a single soul, for I composed it for Fräulein Ployer, who paid me handsomely..".

........

Now enter another interesting tidbit on the Concerto. In a recent article by Gerhard Croll in Essays in Honor of Laszlo Somfai we are informed of a theme similarity between the beginning of the 2nd movement of K449 and the beginning of the aria "Oggi Amor fra lacci miel" from Christoph Wiliblad Gluck's opera Tetide. Croll gives us the first 8 measures of both compositions and the similarity is striking. As Wolfgang Plath told Croll, "a simple coincidence is out of the question". For a detailed account the article should be read.

Gluck's "serenata" was written on the occasion of Crown Prince Joseph's first marriage and the only staged performances we know are on October 10 and 15, 1760. A concert performance is documented on February 8, 1761. Croll states it is unlikely any more performances ever took place.

How Mozart would have come across this Aria can only be speculated at. Again, a reading of Croll's article will give his "guesswork", as he admits it is. What we do know is that Mozart visited Gluck in his home in August of 1782 and March of 1783. The influence of Gluck on Mozart has been stated many times in the literature, and we know Mozart used a Gluck theme for the variations K455, as well as for the Andantino for Piano K236. The Gluck influence may be stronger than previously thought

With "Gluck" being the same man as "Grimm" (who, according to Pajot's "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas", introduced the Mozarts to the Luis XV court and somehow "assisted" Wolfgang in engraving his outofnowhere first masterpieces and also wrote himself the wunderkind's greeting cards to members of the french royal family), "Rousseau", "Rossini the first", ie Gioachino Cocchi, the "provenance of Mozart's music" problem is, or rather will soon be, solved*, bearing in mind "Gluck's" other personalities and their duties pre and post his alleged 1787 death in Vienna.

*Gluck to padre Martini, 26th October 1773:
This is assuredly a bold undertaking and there will be serious obstacles, for we must face up to national prejudices against which reason is of no avail.

(Robert: Your contribution to this thread will be the more precious once you provide us with answers on Cocchi's biography, unpublished details on his London presence and the Mozarts "long -long list of contacts" while in London 1764-65.
Alternatively:
Please advise details (name of theater, actors etc) on Mysliveček's Orfeo ed Euridice performance "wieder in Italien, wo er noch einmal Mozart traf. Am 4. November 1773 leitete er die Aufführung von Orfeo ed Euridice von Christoph Willibald Gluck."-Wikipedia)

Cheers!

virginiawang
12-12-2009, 04:55 AM
But nobody can tell us anything about the facts surrounding his mythical reputation.
This sentence speaks the true wisdom.


I don't know if you've actually read this thread but we have spent weeks trying to find out from 'Mozart research' the answer to the basic question of where W.A. Mozart studied music (harmony, orchestration, etc) as a child and as a youth, during which time (according to legend) he managed to write hundreds of symphonies, concertos, masses, operas, sonatas, trios and other marvels of musical art. Maybe he studied this on his coach trips. You know ? While bumbing around the roads of Europe. Or in between his 'genius' activities as a performer. Maybe you can help us with this basic question on his musical education and can tell us his teacher and where he actually studied music and for how long ? This is just a gentle question from thousands that exist on this towering icon of western musical culture. We will be very grateful if you can help us since none of the 10 published sources cited above say anything about it. Please show us differently if you can. And we will be forever grateful.

There have been too many wonders in the world that may shock unprepared people into idiocy at any moment of their lives. For example, you asked me where did Mozard study music. How can I tell? I can wagger that you can cannot tell either because we are both not Mozard. Even his own father could not tell at which particular moment an inspiration of miraculous melody dawned upon him. Some people don't need to attend schools to acquire an ability or a skill. Schools are tangible structures you see with your eyes that make you believe as the only way towards capabilitities. I wonder if you only believe what you can see with your eyes, why did you dig into the distant past to rummage for something you cannot even see with a telescope?

Too many possibilities might have occurred that led you to the strong beliefs you've held for such a long time. Let me jot down a few of them. Mozard might have studied with a teacher in a subterranean room beyond the knowledge of even his own father for whatever reasons nobody knows, and he might have quit the study for some time to nourish his feelings for music after learning for a while. It is also likely that a stone that tripped up his carriage when he was on his way to Europe stirred up his inner surge of emotions which guided him to write the fantastic operas that the world knew. Perhaps the fact that he once went to Europe was a fake story. Who knows?
I can give you thousands of answers to your question if you like, and you can also give a million different answers to it yourself. If you think you've read more than I did on Mozard, I am ready to consent, but that didn't lead you closer to reality, which has gone already. Nobody can touch a trace of it.

I do wonder at your confidence in this subject. If you believe what you've read so far is nothing but falsehood because you think you know more, how do you know that nobody has delved deeper into Mozard than you've done so far? Perhaps Mozard couldn't have given you a definite answer as to where and how he learned music, if he had been given such a question. Some people don't really know how they've been endowed with great facilities in a particular art.


But the history of 'Mozart research' consists solely of presenting and re-presenting dogmas and gross exaggerations on this character, Mozart, which allow little if any criticism. The musical 'education' of Mozart is only one such case. And it shows.

Please dig deep in to your sources and provide some evidence for what is popularly taught and believed on him and his 'genius' career. You will find, after your detailed studies, that the small number of criticisms given here on the 'genius of Salzburg' are fair, honest and accurate.
It seems that you've contradicted yourself. If all the materials I can find laud Mozard more than you like, how can I get evidence against it?
Sorry, I think the word, criticism, you used is not appropriate. A better one will be, doubts.



All we want to see is some of the 'evidence'. Not much to ask for, is it ? Maybe you've been hiding it from us ?
As far as I know, evidence does not not indicate anything. People can get a great deal of evidence that point to a fabricated event. The reality of Mozard has already gone, high above into the air.



There is a story of 5 year old child who could fly Jumbo jets from Chicago to Washington. His father told us that he was born with this gift. And who are we to doubt it ? And another child who could do brain surgery. And still another who could design suspension bridges before he went to school. The sort of things which we credit to Mozart, in fact.

You only want to believe those you can see with your eyes, reason with your head, but the problem is your head cannot contain everything.

Musicology
12-12-2009, 07:16 AM
Virginiawang,

Why are we surprised your post contains no evidence to support the colossal career status of the 'Salzburg genius' ? Maybe I should take up truck driving or making burgers but I've always been told the hard evidence of Mozart's musical achievements and the scale of evidence in support of him composing them is huge - existing in a mass of documentary evidence (which we can find in great libraries and archives) and is actually said to be larger than that of virtually any other composer in musical history. With tens of thousands of family and personal letters, hundreds of musical manuscripts, anecdotes, testimonies, biographies, journal articles and almost 200 years of specialist research. Here, surely, if we read these documents and study them closely is proof beyond reasonable doubt that we are not believing a fairy story. That Mozart is really one of the most well documented miracles in music history - or so we believe. Why, even J.S. Bach was virtually unknown. Even to the Viennese more than half a century after his death ! But Mozart was the pride of Europe. Paraded around Europe for no less than 7 years. Surely, surely, his musical legend 'must' be true. Right ?

It is the equivalent of seeing a mountain on the horizon and arguing that no such mountain exists. And yet, when we examine it closely, we find it to be a mirage.

You might ask how it's possible that, for example, 'his' 10 great operas of his last decade are not by him. -

Idomeneo
Abduction from the Seraglio
L'Oca del Cairo
Lo Sposo Deluso
The Impresario
Le Nozze di Figaro
Don Giovanni
Cosi Fan Tutte
The Magic Flute
La Clemenza di Tito

'Surely', you will say, 'only a man who has studied too much could argue like this'. And what of the hundreds of other works ?

But let me put forward something for you to consider. Imagine the Mozart story as a sort of bubble. One that was blown from an early age. A fascinating bubble, for sure. One that expands as time passes. Aided and abetted by his patrons, his publishers, his propagandists, his music publishers, his early biographers, his fraternity friends, his family etc etc. As improbable as this may seem, I'd like you to consider it. After all, what is the 'probability' of the genius of Mozart ? It is the same as the probability that it's an elaborate hoax. So, if you will, start with a clean slate. Consider these things fairly.

And how is this to be done ? One of the best ways is to examine Mozart in a sort of heretical way. Studying him within the context of his own time. That is, outside of the 'industry', if you will. Let me give you a few names of opera composers of around that time -

Josef Myslivececk, Fabrizi, Anfossi, Cimarosa, Alessandri, Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Bianchi, Paisiello, Pittichio, Martin Y Soler, Salieri, (to name just a few). Consider next a famous and earlier composer such as Pergolesi (1710-36) whose 300 works are, today, reduced to less than 30 because of massive falsification of his career by propagandists, publishers, writers on music history etc. There's a precedent for us to be aware of ! In short, Mozart is examined in an objective manner. With proper attention given to the musical world of his own time. So that things like letters of his intimate circle are closely examined with a questioning mind and their contents are compared with other evidence. Does that sound fair to you ? And yet it's radical to look at it that way. The truth is the average Mozartean knows virtually nothing of the music and musicians of those times. And it shows.

The Mozart story is certainly amazing. It's not unique. But it's very, very unusual. But the answer to it is equally amazing. (If someone had asked me 15 years ago whether I would ever spend years and years on that one subject I would have laughed).

Anyway, thank you for holding your views. They are shared by thousands and thousands of talented researchers and teachers.

Here's a short track by the virtually unknown Cartellieri -

Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772 - 1807
Flute Concerto in G Major
3rd Movement

http://www.mediafire.com/?vznzct1htmm

I mention Cartellieri to illustrate a point. Cartellieri first appeared in Vienna at exactly the same concert as the newly arrived Beethoven. His works performed there included a great symphony. He was, for a number of years as well known as Beethoven himself. But Cartellieri was to spend the remaining years of his life in service to a patron in Bohemia. Doing what ? Helping with the still unpublished operas of 'Mozart'. (One of many musicians who did so). Having also helped Beethoven. Working in Bohemia with others in advance of eventual publication of 'Mozart's' operas. Since, in fact, not a single opera of 'Mozart' was published in his lifetime. They all appeared posthumously. Some many years after his death. And, of Cartellieri's works (some of which are extremely fine music), virtually none are known today.

Anyway, thanks again -


Don't fight it, Robert, Dennis Pajot's study "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas" leaves little doubt that Mozart, age 8, could compose and adapt music for both piano and violin (and harpsichord) before learning to write his own name!

...and don't forget to tell your readers who were included in Mozart's long list of contacts in London. (For Paris and Versailles, 1764 and 1766, don't bother, they are irrelevant!)

Cheers

Yes Yanni,

Dennis Pajot is one of those very good researchers who tells what he finds. In recent years he has written lots of excellent things on this music of 'Mozart'. I've always found him to be a very good source of interesting material. Pajot does not move out of the generally held view. But he has discovered many, many interesting paradoxes and contradictions. One of the few researchers of real integrity on these things.

As for the list of contacts Mozart had in London I will post shortly. I'm sure you will find it interesting. In fact, one of the best sources is as follows - the travel diary of Leopold Mozart -

http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+Leopold/Reiseaufzeichnungen+1763-1771/Register/2.+Verzeichnis+der+im+Buche+vorkommenden+Komponist en,+Musiker

And other excellent Cocchi material here -

http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=cocchi&k=Bibliothek

And, of London/Mozart/Cocchi etc. (starting from page 12 to 17 etc). Cocchi appears here in these London pages.

http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+Leopold/Reiseaufzeichnungen+1763-1771/2.+Leopold+Mozarts+Reise-Aufzeichnungen+1763-1771/Seite+33+-+Tafel+12

Regards

yanni
12-12-2009, 07:49 AM
Have researched in the past www.zeno: The only reference there to Maestro Cocchi by Leopold Mozart is on Seite 35 - Tafel 14 propably at Cornelys, no date noted.

Of great interest the theater where Myslicevek staged his (Gluck's) Orfeo ed Euridice, November 4th, 1773. Try locating it, if you please.

Wish you a good weekend!

Musicology
12-12-2009, 11:30 AM
True. The only reference to Cocchi there is on Tafel 14. But if you examine closely this list of Leopold Mozart's London contacts and their careers we see further the vast scale of organisation that must have existed even before their arrival. Part of the further 'Englightenment' (or what some would call 'counter-reformation') or others would call the transformation of the British and European musical scene by cultural oligarchs and patrons who began to dominate the musical scene of Europe through Venice and Rome. Using Paris as a base at this time. We see this very clearly in the development of opera in London at the King's Theatre and elsewhere.

You may be interested in knowing of a remarkable book - which I recommend strongly.

‘’The Impresario’s 10 Commandments’’ - By Curtis Alexander Price, Judith Milhous, Robert D. Hume. Which is described by its publishers (rightly) as -

The extraordinary correspondence between impresario Felice Giardini and his friend Gabriele Leone lies at the centre of this study of Italian opera in London in the eighteenth century. Hired by Giardini in 1763 to engage Italian performers for a season of opera and ballet at The King's Theatre, Leone was sued by the impresario when the performers he had recruited proved to be second rate. His response was to publish the letters and instructions that Giardini had sent to him, which feature the impresario's ten commandments for the novice foreign opera agent. These letters are transcribed and translated in this volume. As the authors reveal, the documents provide a vivid and detailed source of information about the world of eighteenth-century Italian opera, both in London and in Italy.

This massive crusade of musical, operatic and artistic culture on London, which involved recruiting singers, opera managers, composers etc.from Italy, Germany and elsewhere and virtually taking over the theatrical life of England from the time of Handel onwards was evidence of England, culturally, being already in the hands of Venetian bankers and merchants. And that's the true context of musical development there and elsewhere in contintental Europe during the mid to late 18th century.

You ask me to search for the venue of Myslivececk's opera, 'Ofeo ed Euridice' of November 1773.

Before trying to answer your question I might point out that 6 symphonies of Josef Myslivececk were published in London in the 1760's. Here is a track from one of these, and you will note the familiar, youthful 'Mozartean' style. Very attractive music, yes ? The patron of the Bohemian Josef Myslivececk at this time in Italy was Earl Cowper of Florence. A vitally important figure, in fact, in the development and patronage of opera during much of 'Mozart's' career. Especially in London. From Italy and France Cowper was one of the great figures behind the scenes of musical developments in Europe. In fact, one of the most vital figures to study. He later became a baron of the Holy Roman Empire.

I will try to answer you on the venue of that 1773 opera later today. In the meantime -

Josef Myslivececk (1737-81)
Symphony in C Major
1st Movement
F26
c. 1761/2

This, while Mozart was less than 5 years old !

http://www.mediafire.com/?zymmzuyjt2m

Rgds


Have researched in the past www.zeno: The only reference there to Maestro Cocchi by Leopold Mozart is on Seite 35 - Tafel 14 propably at Cornelys, no date noted.

Of great interest the theater where Myslicevek staged his (Gluck's) Orfeo ed Euridice, November 4th, 1773. Try locating it, if you please.

Wish you a good weekend!

In answer to your question, you are of course refering to the 1773 performance of 'Orfeo' which was attributed to Gluck at the King's Theatre in London. An excellent subject !

Indeed, the advertising page for that London production survives for this mysterious work which is described there as -

'Altered as it was originally performed at Vienna. The music composed by Signor Gluch. With new dances adapted to the Opera, intermixed with Grand Choruses'.

This strange production has certainly caused many headaches over the years. First, because it was supposedly premiered in Vienna in 1762. It was advertised in London newspapers and on playbills for prouduction at the King's Theatre during March of 1773. First performed on 9th March there that year. And further performances given there in May. One researcher says it was performed in London as early as 1770.

But how is this linked to Myslivececk who was in Italy at this time. His operas that year were as follows -

'Il Demetrio' – Metastasio – May 1773
'Romolo ed Eruilia' – Metastasio – Naples – August 1773
'Antigona' – Turin – Dec 1773

That Gluck's career was massively falsified is easily proved. But I see no obvious link here between this King's Theatre production and Josef Myslivececk. Except the fact that Gluck's career in Paris is closely associated with the same people who controlled Cocchi, Mozart and Myslivececk.

yanni
12-12-2009, 01:48 PM
You ask me to search for the venue of Myslivececk's opera, 'Ofeo ed Euridice' of November 1773.

Before trying to answer your question I might point out that 6 symphonies of Josef Myslivececk were published in London in the 1760's. Here is a track from one of these, and you will note the familiar, youthful 'Mozartean' style. Very attractive music, yes ? The patron of the Bohemian Josef Myslivececk at this time in Italy was Earl Cowper of Florence. A vitally important figure, in fact, in the development and patronage of opera during much of 'Mozart's' career. Especially in London. From Italy and France Cowper was one of the great figures behind the scenes of musical developments in Europe. In fact, one of the most vital figures to study. He later became a baron of the Holy Roman Empire.

I will try to answer you on the venue of that 1773 opera later today. In the meantime -

Rgds

Lacking both interest on classical music and loudspeakers for my computer too, I cannot really appreciate “Myslivecek’s” youthfull style, paralleled undoubtably to “Gluck’s” own, “Rousseau” and Cocchi’s as well (btw I already edited a previous comment on one only Cocchi music manuscript in existence in London, there are many more, nine in the British Library alone) as all these “maestri” were one and the same (unless Cocchi had a twin brother, hence my question on 1773 “Orfeo ed Euridice” by “Myslivecek”).

Lord Cowper’s Florence links (1760 to 1789) as well as his titles by Bavaria in 1777 and Austria (Joseph II) 1778 are indicatory of his links to the “English lodge” in Florence and as such to its head, “first Italian mason” Antonio Cocchi, or rather his “heir”, Gioachino Cocchi. His patronage of “Myslivecek” and the latters publishing of six symphonies in London in the 1760's (while Cocchi is managing
Haymarket Theater and later hosting the Mozarts) is a further indication of the multiple identities of G.Cocchi.

Cowper’s own lifelong patronage by King George III alongside the Regent’s (later George IV) first ever “royal grand entry” to a Masonic Lodge have certainly be already explained historically, one way or another (myself included, in this here forum) and as such I will not be drawn in discussing the remaining part of your “view of things” other than to say that “Enlightment” originated in Florence, music included, whereas the roots of Masonry are still highly disputed and, higher still, controversial.

Of note that Myslivecek is not mentioned in …

…Le Delizie dell'Opere. Being a Collection of all the Favourite Songs in Score, collected from the Operas compos'd by Bach, Perez, Cocchi, Ciampi, Jomelli, Giardini, Galuppi, Vinci, Pergolesi, Leo, Lampugnani, Terradellas, Hasse, Porpora, C. St Germain, Pescetti, Veracini, Bononcini
ISBN: B0000CV06Q / Unknown Binding
Publisher: Printed for I. Walsh / 1776
http://www.bookfinder4u.co.uk/book_...2/D_Cocchi.html

…whereas Cocchi appears, first time ever, alongside “C.St Germain”, his alias (who, following the declaration of independence of USA in July which he allegedly attended, gets married (to my swiss ggggmother no less) assumes the name count Welldone for a while, goes to Dresden, while serving as war minister of France (27 October 1775 -27 September 1777-but already disgraced in May 77).

So, lets stick to music only!

Will answer your next post next.

Musicology
12-12-2009, 02:29 PM
Gaetano Guadagni (1729-92) sang the title role in Gluck’s ‘Orfeo’ in Vienna in 1762. And in 1771 he was in London. In fact, that year he was charged at court in Bow Street Magistracy for singing without a licence at Carlisle House ! He had been in London since 1769 at this time and was at the time of his arrival at the height of his fame. The ‘Public Advertiser’ of 5th September records he had been recruited to sing at the King’s Theatre and had been recruited by George Hobart, its new manager. He appeared in Piccini’s ‘Olimpiade’ of that year (from 18th November) and Guglielmi’s ‘Ezio’ from 13th January 1770. But at the end of 1770 he is also credited with having sung in a performance of ‘Orfeo’ (one which is said to have included arias added by J.C. Bach, Guglielmi and Guadagmi himself. 12 performances of this were supposedly given between 7th April and 30th June. Charles Burney speaks of ‘very great applause’ on his performances that year of ‘Orfeo’.

So ‘Orfeo’ was definitely in London as early as 1770. Whether by Gluck or other composers. And the work was being sung by the leading soloist of the Vienna 1762 premiere.

Yanni,

I do recommend that you get some speakers or, at least, some headphones. Because these musical examples are evidence also.

Regards

Earl Cowper is of course massively important in this period for the spread of opera and for arranging soloists, composers and musical fashions across much of Europe. So also Count Durazzo in Italy. In fact, these two men were working together, for years. There were others doing the same in Bohemia including Prince Lobkowitz and Esterhazy, rulers at Donaueschingen, Bonn, Regensburg, Mannheim, etc.

In fact, both Cocchi's visited Canterbury in England to the estate where the Mann family lived. Horatio Mann was an envoy of the English in Italy connected to the prime minister of England. It was there where Leopold Mozart and Wolfgang also came and stayed in the final days before they left for Holland.

The Wikipedia article on A. Cocchi -

In 1722 he had travelled to England as the guest of the 9th Earl of Huntingdon, the father of the 10th Earl. He was a close friend of the British envoy in Florence, Horace Mann. Mann's friend, Horace Walpole, commented to a correspondent in 1740, 'I am very well acquainted with Doctor Cocchi; he is a good sort of man, rather than a great man; he is a plain honest creature with quiet knowledge, but I dare say all the English have told you, he has a very particular understanding.'

yanni
12-12-2009, 02:44 PM
I read with interest your last post (and attachment) noticing that Gluck-Myslivecek's "Orfeo ed Euridice" was supposed to be staged on "Cocchi's" earlier Haymarket theater and that at the time of publication, no reference is made of the mysterious November 4th, 1773 peformance of the opera.

No, I was quoting from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Myslive%C4%8Dek earlier who mentions it without defining however place or theater or other details.

Am 4. November 1773 leitete er die Aufführung von Orfeo ed Euridice von Christoph Willibald Gluck.

The list of his "opern" in same article however does not include this performance .....

Romolo ed Ersilia (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 13. August 1773, Neapel, Teatro San Carlo);
Antigona (Libretto: G. Roccaforte, UA: 26. Dezember 1773, Turin, Teatro Regio);
La clemenza di Tito (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 26. Dezember 1773, Venedig, Teatro San Benedetto);
Atide (Libretto: T. Stanzani, UA: 1774, Padua);
Artaserse (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 13. August 1774, Neapel, Teatro San Carlo);
Il Demofoonte (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 20. Januar 1775, Neapel, Teatro San Carlo);

...while "Myslivecek", as "Grimm", attends the wedding of his unfortunate son, Paul I of Russia (Grimm....1771 erhielt er von Kaiser Joseph II. das Baronat, und so konnte er Prinzessin Wilhelmina Luisa von Hessen-Darmstadt nach Sankt Petersburg begleiten. Die Prinzessin reiste nach Russland, um dort Zar Paul zu heiraten… den sie am 10. Oktober 1773 heiratete).

Hence the discrepancies in his adventurous "Orfeo ed Euridice", not staged immediately on his return to Paris spring 74, (his -Glucks- Iphigenie was selected) but later on in August....

2-24th August 1774 Gluck is in Paris, hosted by Marie Antoinette, staging Orphee and Euridice. He praises Rousseau’s “Devin”. (Letters of Distinguished Musicians: Gluck, Haydn, P. E. Bach, Weber, Mendelssohn By Christoph Willibald Gluck, Ludwig Nohl, Joseph Haydn, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Carl Maria von Weber, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Grace Wallace, Grace Stein Don Wallace)

...and later on in the year in Naples.......

A revised version of Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice, with inserted pieces by Johann Christian Bach and others, was performed at the San Carlo Theatre in Naples on 4th November 1774. By collecting and analysing little known, or newly found, archival documents, the article shows the complex evolution of the theatrical season, and points out the role played by Josef Mysliveček in the choice, manipulation, and execution of the score; an ignored judgement by the Bohemian composer on the work is also examined, in connection with the specific features of the Neapolitan performance. A brief discussion is devoted to the payments for two (of the nine) drammi per musica written by Mysliveăek in Naples, which are compared with the rewards of other maestri di cappella, in order to show the degree of professional achievement reached by the musician. The manuscripts of Mysliveček’s operas, preserved in the library of the Conservatorio di Musica “San Pietro a Majella” in Naples, are considered in the last paragraph; one of them (Farnace) is probably a partial autograph, while the other seven belonged to the collection of the Queen of Naples, Maria Carolina; she, the daughter of Empress Maria Teresa, could have favoured the author’s Neapolitan career.
(Josef Mysliveček e l'esecuzione napoletana dell'Orfeo di Gluck by L Tufano - 2006)

Metastasio, working for "Gluck" and "Chastellux" and Cocchi at the time, before and after, would never give any of his libretti to "a Myslivecek"!!

Cheers


In answer to your question, you are of course refering to the 1773 performance of 'Orfeo' which was attributed to Gluck at the King's Theatre in London. An excellent subject !

Indeed, the advertising page for that London production survives for this mysterious work which is described there as -

'Altered as it was originally performed at Vienna. The music composed by Signor Gluch. With new dances adapted to the Opera, intermixed with Grand Choruses'.

This strange production has certainly caused many headaches over the years. First, because it was supposedly premiered in Vienna in 1762. It was advertised in London newspapers and on playbills for prouduction at the King's Theatre during March of 1773. First performed on 9th March there that year. And further performances given there in May. One researcher says it was performed in London as early as 1770.

But how is this linked to Myslivececk who was in Italy at this time. His operas that year were as follows -

'Il Demetrio' – Metastasio – May 1773
'Romolo ed Eruilia' – Metastasio – Naples – August 1773
'Antigona' – Turin – Dec 1773

That Gluck's career was massively falsified is easily proved. But I see no obvious link here between this King's Theatre production and Josef Myslivececk. Except the fact that Gluck's career in Paris is closely associated with the same people who controlled Cocchi, Mozart and Myslivececk.

Re Guadagni.

This is how Wikipedia covers his 1771-1773 performances:

Guadagni left the company there, and took part in unlicensed performances of Mattia Vento's Artaserse, sponsored by the former singer Theresa Cornelys at her home, Carlisle House, in Soho Square: for these he was fined £50, and threatened with Bridewell Prison, and maybe another whipping. His performances in London in the season of 1770-71 included a pasticcio version of Gluck's Orfeo, with additional music by Johann Christian Bach, Pietro Antonio Guglielmi, and one aria arranged by Guadagni himself.
By 1773, the singer had fallen in with the blue-stocking Maria Antonia of Bavaria, Dowager Electress of Saxony, and had followed her to Munich. Here Burney encountered him again, and reports fascinatingly on his ability to sing perfectly in tune: so exact was his intonation in duets with his fellow castrato Venanzio Rauzzini that their singing generated "difference tones". He sang further settings of the Orpheus story by Antonio Tozzi (1775) and Ferdinando Bertoni (1776), which by no means continued the reformist tendencies of Gluck.

…and one has to look for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspare_Pacchierotti to exclude San Carlo from the 4 November 1773 performance of "Myslivecek's" Orfeo and wonder why Pacchieroti's apparent Myslivecek 1773 association(contary to Burney's assertions, he was already very old then, ie second tier, ie "Myslivecek" was propably not present even in the 13th August 73 performance -but neither was he in Paris) was terminated (and where-St Petersburg?-Gluck's specific Orfeo was staged, if at all)

Acronte Romolo ed Ersilia dramma per musica Josef Myslivecek Naples, Real Teatro San Carlo 13 August 1773
Adriano in Siria dramma per musica Giacomo Insanguine Naples, Real Teatro San Carlo 4 November 1773
Orfeo ed Euridice azione teatrale per musica Antonio Tozzi Munich, Hoftheater an der Residenz 9 January 1775

Curiously, another site, previously discussed herein, also misses on specifics referring to "a" Myslivecek's 1773 Orfeo as follows:

....was Josef Myslivecek, who himself directed a performance of Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice in the Teatro San Carlo in Naples in 1773.
http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/special/insighttext.htms?ID=kozena-arias&DETAIL=2

Same site refers to the next play by same composer

"On 26 December 1773, the overture to the opera Antigona, to a libretto by Roccaforte, opened the carnival season at the Turin Royal Theatre. The second act closes with a da capo aria sung by the raging Creon (originally written for tenor) "Sarò qual è il torrente" with an onomatopoeic glissando on the word "torrente"

Only for premieres or "firsts" can a researcher take the composer's presence for granted-as evidence-not so for repetitions of older plays, on December 26 in particular. Furthermore this last site also misses to mention yet another "Myslivecek" play that was staged on the same date, (Venice, La Clemenza di Tito, 26 December 1773), the two simultaneous performances of two older plays on the particular calendar day highly indicatory of the maestro's absence and upgraded popularity too)


IE

In view of

a) Gluck's letter(wherefrom I wonder!) on the 26th October 1773 to padre Martini re what to stage next in lower, Bourbon controlled, "Italy" and what not
b)"Myslivecek's" relations to "Gluck-Grimm" and
c)"their" presence in Saint Petersburg at the time and
d)the common provenance of the -inadequately supported- "stories" of the particular performance

unless evidence is produced on the venue of this Orfeo to the contrary , the "manufactured" story must be expanded to include all concerned masters with the note "the process still continues".

The same for the convenient "Myslivecek"- twin brother/composer or not- story (which fails as above to confirm any re presence in Italy from late August 1773 to late 1774 ie "Myslivecek-Gluck's" ie Cocchi's next Orfeo in Naples, Nov 4th 1774- IF he was there, as his revised "french" Orfeo was already premiered in August-Paris.His October-November Paris presence is not at all evident however as well*.).

*In fact, one of the "more trustworthy" sources to be found on our hero's further 1774 movements reads as follows:

....M. Björnstahl writes in his book of travels:--
"We were guests at the court of the Prince-Hereditary Wilhelm von Hessen-Cassel (brother of Karl von Hessen) at Hanau, near Frankfort.
p. 148
"As we returned on the 21st of May 1774 to the Castle of Hanau, we found there Lord Cavendish (William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, then married to Lady Georgiana Spencer) and the Comte de St. Germain; they had come from Lausanne, and were travelling to Cassel and Berlin.

Yet, even this "trustworthy source", fails to mention that shortly before, March 30 1774, the wife of their host, one of the most learned women of her time, had died: Henriette Caroline Christiane Louise of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken, wife of the Landgrave of Hessen-Darmstadt.

The couple were Saint Germain's inlaws, their daughter Wilhelmina-Louisa married the previous year to Saint Germain's son, Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich of Russia, later emperor.
Another of their children, Louisa's brother, Pince Karl of Hesse, a top leader later of the Strict Observance, assisted in the creation of "Saint Germain's" secret, now finally and definitely unveiled!

A minor part of his secret was his music and its fate, thus the creation of the Mozart myth, with his initiative and consent!


Cheers! :santasmil

virginiawang
12-13-2009, 04:37 AM
Musicology, I have no idea whether Mozard was the real composer of all his works or not, but I feel it will be very difficult for one to create works for another artist. Mozard's music is different from Beethoven's music, and they could not compose works for each other. You can feel how they are different by listening to their music. I guess it will be more difficult to have so many people create music in the same style, one that fits into Mozard's music.

By the way, was it written in a book that Cartellieri created operas for Mozard? How did people get to know this?

I think you really know a great deal in this field.

Musicology
12-13-2009, 08:45 AM
Thank you Virginiawang,

You are right that it's very difficult to create works for another artist. At least, those of a mature artist. The childhood works, and those of Mozart's youth are actually similar to many composers of the time. So, in that case, the modern audience hears 'Mozart's style' only in the sense of not having heard the works of his own contemporaries at the time. 'Mozart's' style is really that of various composers of those years, of which Myslivececk is only one.

You are right too that this gets harder and harder as time passes. For the last decade of Mozart's life (1781-1791) the manufacture of 'his' style succeeds only with great difficulty. With a system in place to do different things.

1. To hide from general appreciation the works of his own contemporaries (as before)

2. To secure from general appreciation the true composers of this music and their active participation in 'his' success.

3. To allow the publication and performance in his name of their own music, this after it had been revised, edited, and manipulated. So that the impression is given that these works are products of a single genius. None other than W.A. Mozart. This impression given further credibility by a vast mass of documents, letters, anecdotes, testimonies and early biographies. Followed, of course, by the posthumous publication of a vast mass of music in his name. And the rise of a musicology which would defend, uphold and propagate his reputation. So that, as time passed, and as the legend grew, the myth was consolidated. And Mozart became (with a handful of others) icons of western musical culture. Whose legend and whose reputation came within decades to control and even to define the 'history of music'. By reference to these group of elite composers.

In answer to your questions on the remarkable life and career of Cartellieri, it's only in the past few decades that much research has been done on his life and career. His very first works show evidence of his links with the court composer Antonio Salieri. That is, with him somehow being close to the 'status quo' within the musical scene of that time. His arrival in Vienna coincided with that of the giant figure of Ludwig van Beethoven. And, since a concert was arranged where his music and that of Beethoven would both be performed it was there, at the Palace of Lobkowitz in Vienna, where these two men had their first concert. The reports of this extraordinary event are full of praise for Cartellieri's works played there. But music history, of course, simply records the success of Beethoven at that same event. Who would bother to examine the virtually unknown Cartellieri. We know, for sure, that he was recruited by the same Prince Lobkowitz of Bohemia as a result of his extraordinary works performed there. (A short biography of him was made by his son which is still unpublished but is today found in a music library of Vienna. I've read it). And this source (plus other publications of the time) show that Cartellieri worked for Lobkowitz in Vienna. Together with Ludwig van Beethoven. In fact, the two men became friends. But Cartellieri goes virtually without any reference in Beethoven biography. From Vienna we know too that he entered into the service of Lobkowitz in Bohemia and he was to remain there for the rest of his short life. We know too that Lobkowitz's father was a major patron of W.A. Mozart. And close study of the music archives of Lobkowitz in Bohemia (which is one of the major Mozart sources) shows his close involvement with music-making there. The younger Lobkowitz continued with their family association with Mozart's career in building a theatre there. And we know that in Bohemia Cartellieri worked alongside another famous composer of the time, Anton Wranitsky, brother of Paul Wranitsky, who was celebrated as a composer back in Vienna. So that these two men worked on operas and other productions made in Bohemia at the estate of Lobkowitz. This years before 'Mozart' operas were ever published. Since, as said, no 'Mozart' opera was published in the whole of Mozart's lifetime. (The only exception being an edited version of 'Die Entfuhrung aus Dem Serail' which appeared in Vienna in 1785 - 3 years after its premiere. This consisting only of excerpts. This German Singspiel, better known as 'The Abduction from the Seraglio', had been condemned by a local music writer at the time of its premiere). So, with this exception, no operas of Mozart were printed during his lifetime. It took many more years before they finally appeared, in some cases more than a decade after his death.

But Cartellieri was not the only person working on 'Mozart' operas. The whole story is quite involved. So too were people in London. And in Italy and France. And in Prague. It is only with much difficulty that we are able, slowly, to piece together how these operas were written and how they came to be associated with their beneficiary, W.A. Mozart.

A year ago a detailed analysis of the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was made in Italy by Professors L. Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta of the music from the score used at the Vienna premiere of that opera in 1786. They concluded that this music is really a hastily made arrangement of already existing music which had been newly translated from German into Italian. And not 'Mozart's' work at all. Reaction to this major work was muted within the 'Mozart industry' and it remains so today.

The other operas all have their own story. But they all bring us back to the same facts. That a network of composers, arrangers, patrons, and publishers were complicit in the manufacture of 'his' musical reputation and this was achieved with every effort being made to conceal reality at the time. The publication of the first biographies further helped to conceal the truth. So that, within a few decades it seemed that nothing could possibly challenge the view we have of his life, career and achievements.

But, slowly, it was possible to work with what we have. To compare it with other facts (less well known) and to piece together, with much difficulty, the real story. A story hardly told. And one which, at least, people can read and compare for themselves with what is found in textbooks and standard works of reference.

Regards


Musicology, I have no idea whether Mozard was the real composer of all his works or not, but I feel it will be very difficult for one to create works for another artist. Mozard's music is different from Beethoven's music, and they could not compose works for each other. You can feel how they are different by listening to their music. I guess it will be more difficult to have so many people create music in the same style, one that fits into Mozard's music.

By the way, was it written in a book that Cartellieri created operas for Mozard? How did people get to know this?

I think you really know a great deal in this field.

Yanni,

Yes, this is all fascinating stuff which you've given here on 'Gluck's' opera 'Orfeo'. For the benefit of readers I think we can say that here, with Gluck (and indeed with so much else) things are never quite what they seem to be in 18th century music. Mozart was by no means the first composer to be manufactured and this process was actually quite advanced by the time of his life and career. It is simply that with Mozart the 'system' and the vast networks which sustained it had developed to the point where they allowed the control and export of their own versions far beyond what was ever possible before. The careers of Pergolesi, Handel and others before that time may also be mentioned. So too the career of Josef Haydn. And even those beyond Mozart, including Beethoven, and Mendelssohn.

None of which changes the fact that this music which we know is often wonderful.

The subject of Gluck is very fascinating. And, yes, I am aware of his career. Various researchers have examined the details of his life and career in critical detail in recent years. It certainly followed many similar tracks we find years later with Mozart. For example, Gluck's links with Bohemia and with the same patrons we find in Mozart and even Beethoven.

Beyond reasonable doubt the rise of the music industry from the early 19th century onwards began to take control of what was taught and believed on musical accomplishment. Involving, often, the suppression of facts and the invention of others. The creation of icons, in fact. But its interests were contradicted (and still are) by those of musicology itself. In fact, the founder of musicology, J.N. Forkel, spent decades warning students of music in the late 18th and early 19th century that the interests of music managers and of publishers and propagandists were sure to clash with those of music itself. His writings on this subject are fascinating. And Forkel was so right. He, Forkel, often laughed that the Viennese were still ignorant of J.S. Bach and other works of the late baroque. Works which, he said, were of higher value, musically, to students, than the icons of his own time.

yanni
12-13-2009, 01:02 PM
My previous post has just been edited Robert, "Mozart's music" included.

Our cooperation has been productive, thanks!

Musicology
12-13-2009, 02:55 PM
My previous post has just been edited Robert, "Mozart's music" included.

Our cooperation has been productive, thanks!

Yes, Yanni, anything that throws light on this period of cultural history is good. The cultural immortalisation of a handful of particular composers corresponds with the strange beliefs of those occultists who, themselves, believe their heroes are 'immortal'. Cagliostro is only one example of this doctrine. A person becomes an 'immortal', culturally, in the sense that he inherits the achievements of others before him or/and represents what his predecesors worked for. So that he never dies. etc. Thus Mozart and a handful of other composers become 'immortal' or, as Franz Schubert put it -

''Mozart, immortal Mozart, how many, how infinitely many inspiring suggestions of a finer, better life have you left in our souls! - Diary

The sense in which 'great' composers are immortalised corresponds not so much with their real achievements (which can be and are grossly exaggerated and may even have been manufactured on a wholesale scale, as in the case of Mozart) but is derived from the status within society of those who first patronised them. In this case monarchists and elite families whose deeds and whose own prestige are carried on as a sacred duty from one generation to the next. A virtual dynasty. And so one 'great' composer joins the pantheon of what become known as 'great' composers to students and he is immortalised, by the very industry and by the very bloodlines who first created them. The conservatism of this thinking and academic/cultural control of what is eulogised and published on these individuals is plain enough, whether we are talking of Cagliostro or St Germain, or Casanova, Mozart, Rousseau, Voltaire or any of the other 'heroes' of cultural history. Since the writers of biographies, of encyclopaedias, of journal articles, etc. are patronised by the very people whose primary interest is to maintain the 'status quo' which they and their ancestors have invented.

Thus, in answer to the question of 'Can 200 years of Shakespeare scholarship, or Mozart scholarship, or Rousseau scholarship, or Voltaire scholarship be wrong' ? we must answer that such 'scholarship' consists of little, if any, appreciation of the society in which these men lived, or of the lives and careers of their own contemporaries. Since hero worship is idol worship and has the effect of suppressing and marginalising inconvenient truths. So that flaws we may find and show beyond reasonable doubt as true in the lives of any person and which may bring us in to the real world are considered inappropriate and such evidence is routinely suppressed or offset by the steady stream of eulogy which takes the place of historical reality.

In the musical sense this was all anticipated long ago by the German writer on music, J.N. Forkel. Who, when asked what he considered to be 'great' music and 'great' composers argued (at length) that what is great in music is that which is useful for students and that 'great' composers are those rare individuals who have served mankind despite the industry which ignores and even suppresses them.

yanni
12-14-2009, 01:48 AM
You may, to eternity, refuse acknowledging who the true composer of "Mozart music" was, you may continue, as above, mixing up "non musical charlattans"(your definition of Rousseau, so revealing of your intentions) with Mozart to confuse the issue...

BUT

....Forkel had "Rousseau" and "Saint Germain" (and "Gluck" and Cocchi, you do tend to ommit them) in mind when defining "great music" and "great composers" as per "their" little secret "we" just unveiled.

Scripta manent!

(For those who "cant get no satisfaction": Elementary musicology courses of Orfeo in "novella musica" at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Courses/MUSL243/orfeopg.htm)

Musicology
12-14-2009, 05:39 AM
Yanni,

How much time have you spent examining music of the late 18th century ? Do you know the musical careers of Vanhal, Sarti, Luchesi, Cocchi, Paul Wranitsky and dozens of others who were definitely involved in this subject ? I have said from the start that Rousseau was involved in this network. But so were many others. This seems to escape you. Now, your interest in Rousseau, Cocchi and countless aliases is interesting. But your scattergun approach tends to confuse everyone and you really should link up your ideas into a more coherent post on this thread. People do not wish to have five or six aliases for a person they know virtually nothing about. You have not told us who Rousseau's employer was. Nor have you told us his motives and objectives. And, of course, the main subject here is Mozart, not Gluck. With these small improvements I am sure your posts would be far more interesting and coherent. No-one is refusing to accept any facts. It's simply that discussing facts is always better when we have a rough outline of the subject under discussion.

I can only describe your contributions here as erratic but interesting. Why not take the time to give us one simple overview of the situation as you see it. Gluck is already agreed by many researchers to have been 'manufactured' and his career really ended before that of Mozart's final years.

So, who was managing Rousseau (alias Cocchi etc) ? This will at least be a good starting point.

Regards





You may, to eternity, refuse acknowledging who the true composer of "Mozart music" was, you may continue, as above, mixing up "non musical charlattans"(your definition of Rousseau, so revealing of your intentions) with Mozart to confuse the issue...

BUT

....Forkel had "Rousseau" and "Saint Germain" (and "Gluck" and Cocchi, you do tend to ommit them) in mind when defining "great music" and "great composers" as per "their" little secret "we" just unveiled.

Scripta manent!

(For those who "cant get no satisfaction": Elementary musicology courses of Orfeo in "novella musica" at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Courses/MUSL243/orfeopg.htm)

yanni
12-14-2009, 06:47 AM
"Free thinkers", like ideas and other mental processes, are never "managed" but occasionaly (very rarely if they are "great" as well) converted trough dialogue and negotiations. .

"Comte de Saint Germain" was "very high" on the "Scottish Orthodox Rite of the Strict Observance" (how many times do I have to repeat it?). A small part of his library (that was left behind when he left Paris) belongs today to the or "a" Scottish Lodge in Edinborough (via a gemtleman by the name of "Thory" if I remember rightly).

How high?

By all means contact and ask them about him, I did, a year or more ago, they never replied, thus persuading me complete my research.

Quoting from my post #2 in this thread:

When you carefully examine each and every of my “Saint Germain” aliases, you’ll realise that british interests were not neglected when they (Strict Observance) partitioned “their world”, thus you’ll be able at least to explain Gluck’s irish successes at the time of Luis XVI and wife “removal” (and also strengthen your rather weak "transition of power to other societies" post 1773 argument).

I say “at least” because the “cover up” was and remains much broader than just music, so broad in fact as to still tip today the balance between “truth” and “common good” in favour of the latter, as all “too big to fail” lies still do.

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

You see, I don't believe in "persuading" others, feeding them with ready made garbage conclusions, it's either "their own conclusions" or none at all!

Cheers!

Musicology
12-14-2009, 09:31 AM
Yanni,

I have no doubt that your research in these areas is of real value. That you have accumulated material of real importance to understanding the realities of aspects of the 18th and other centuries which relate to culture and music, and, particularly, on that era known generally today as the 'Enlightenment'.

But, since you wish to make no contribution to simplifying this complex subject let me try to be constructive myself (for the benefit of readers). Since nobody doubts we are both dealing here with complexity in a situation which really calls for simplicity. I therefore offer the following sketch as an attempt to express, at least from my perspective, the broad outlines of what interests both of us.

Let me start by describing how, a few years ago, here in London, I passed a mechanic who was working for the telephone company at one of its junction boxes. On a street in central London. Now, these junction boxes here are mostly dark green in colour. With two small doors. A box, in fact, of metal. Which, from time to time is serviced by the telephone company. And, on that day, I passed such a box in the street on my way to another place. As I passed I glanced at the mechanic and noticed that he was working with a row of wires and connections. All of these (and there must have been several thousand of them) having small wires, of different colours. A picture of such complexity that I marvelled how anyone could possibly work on it. Wires everywhere. And all compressed within that junction box. Now, I know that each of those wires is connected in some way to a telephone line within the area. And that the mechanic was involved in servicing this box.

Our posts are rather similar. We are dealing with specifics in a field which can be highly complex. Your observations and mine are of value, though their relationship to mine are from a slightly different perspective. Your interests are closely allied to mine, and mine yours. Although our specific priorities and goals are not the same.

The way I see it is this. From the time of late Imperial Rome the opportunistic leaders of that empire in Rome oversaw the merger, by decree, of the dying Roman Empire with that of the newly emerging papacy. So that a 'marriage of church and state' was created. This, most famously, expressed in the decrees of Theodosius (381-382 AD). And which attempted to impose on Roman territories across Western Europe this 'marriage of church and state'. Later followed by the fraud we know as the 'Donation of Constantine'. Which laid the foundations for the rise of a new Empire. That of papal Rome. And which had the effect of beginning the rise of kingdoms and elite families who would rule over these territories as vassals of the papacy. This scramble for power in Western Europe culminated, in 800 AD with the crowning in Rome by the pope of that time of Charlemagne, Emperor of the so-called 'Holy Roman Empire'. A vast empire which would last in European history up until 1814. Punctuated by such events as the Reformation. But this, at least, is the rough outline of events during those long centuries in continental Europe. But a major element not yet described is the break in the Roman Empire which occurred before 800. The division of Imperial Roman rule in to two different parts, that of the West and that of the East. Byzantium. So that the Holy Roman Empire was already divided at the time of Charlemagne coming to rule over most of Europe.

And Europe, nominally Roman Catholic, maintained, preserved, in fact, much of its paganism, even after it was part of the 'Holy Roman Empire'. It was from these pagan influences (often inflitrating the Roman Church itself) that the earliest fraternities of Western Europe came. Such as Rosicrucianism, and, much later, Freemasonry etc. These things finally culminating in the movement known as the Illuminati.

Venice was never, in fact, a part of western civilization. In fact Venice became a seat of occultism. An oligarchy and one which was in close contact with Byzantium. A Venice which was a slave trading nation. With its banking system and usury etc. A Venice which, eventually, helped to found the British Empire from the time of Henry 8th onwards. So that occultism in England was the channel by which Venetian influence grew there.

The Reformation in Germany and in Bohemia were powerful facts of European history. So powerful, in fact, that an attempt was made to counter its effects on Europe. This by the Council of Trent, which sat for years, to decide on what to do about its spread. A 'counter-reformation' was decided on. One which would re-evangalise Europe in the name of Rome. And, to help in this process a new (military) order would be created. That of the Jesuit Order, the 'Society of Jesus'. This 'counter-reformation' that came out of the Council of Trent gave the new Jesuit Order its prominent place in the education and cultural life of much of continental Europe. A Jesuit Order which (in fact) was supported from the start by the occultists of Venice. So that this idea of Protestant versus Catholic is not completely correct. A third element also had a massive role. That of occultism, of fraternities, and, in fact, of anti-Christian influences.

The development of Freemasonry out of England was done with Venetian influence. So too the mercantile empire and banking system of England and the financing of the emerging British Empire. So that England became a mercantile, slave trading, usury banker, opium trading empire in the same way as the model itself, Venice.

The Jesuit teachers (employed across much of continental Europe until 1773 -though banned from France, Portugal etc from 1762 onwards) were massively important teachers of art and music before that date. This is very clear if one studies, say, the composers in Vienna of the early to middle 18th century.

There was, therefore, an internal battle being waged within the Roman Catholic Church itself. Between occultism and Roman Catholicism. And this, of course, accounts for rivalry between Venice and Rome. Just as much as Protestant/Roman Catholic rivalry accounts for the battles between Britain and Roman Catholic Europe. The Jesuit strategy after 1773 (now covert) was nothing less than to spearhead the 'Enlightenment'. So that when you say 'Rome has nothing to do with it', you may be avoiding the fact that, at the highest levels of the Holy Roman Empire were occultists in the arts and sciences.

The manufacture of Mozart involved occultists and church people. Of course it did. Since empires have their hierarchies. As do churches. To suggest that Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Illuminatists etc. were not closely associated with the careers of Rousseau, Voltaire, Mozart and countless 'heroes' of the Englightenment would be absurd. We know they were.

This is the great value of your contributions here on Rousseau and on Cocchi etc.

So, you are not wrong. And nor am I. We are examining these issues from different perspectives. Doing so honestly and sincerely. And I am glad we can exchange our findings, our opinions, so that we might both profit (and others) from our conversation. As I have done. And as I hope you have too.

Regards

yanni
12-14-2009, 10:56 AM
"Venice was never, in fact, a part of western civilization. In fact Venice became a seat of occultism. An oligarchy and one which was in close contact with Byzantium. A Venice which was a slave trading nation. With its banking system and usury etc. A Venice which, eventually, helped to found the British Empire from the time of Henry 8th onwards. So that occultism in England was the channel by which Venetian influence grew there. "

Your selection of terms,as above, really confuses me:

Where would "western civilization be without Rome, Venice, Florence and their eastern contacts that brought "pagan Europe" its two basic foundations:
-freethinking, liberal,enterpriisng Classical Greece, with its arts, sciences and philosophy and
-remorse inducing, stricter Christianity(allegedly judeogreek but jews still misinterpret "allelujah" originating from αλληλουχία, ie interrelations ie supporting oneanother) also based on eastern philosophies (for tribal societies application)?

What remains, in fact, of "Western civilization" without these two and only cornerstones, contradictory as they may be?

Re the rest of your post, the period 1740-1815 in particular, has allready being covered in my previous posts and needs no further refining, thank you:

Rome would be history today had it not been revived, post Napoleon, by winner takes all Britain!

Your grudge against "today"-which I share btw-has nothing to do with the specific period and neither are the founding fathers to blame for what their children have made of their vision.

Which brings us all back to square 1: "Paradise and how to get there in a jiffy" or "now that the end is lost, we better justify the means"!

Musicology
12-14-2009, 12:33 PM
Yanni,

You are puzzled by me saying 'Venice was never, in fact, a part of western civilization'. Although you end your reference to Venice by saying of Venice and Rome (and here I quote) -

What remains, in fact, of "Western civilization" without these two and only cornerstones, contradictory as they may be?

Well, if you agree there are ''contradictions'' let's see what these contradictions are. And whether, in the case of Venice, this might be justified.

Venice, from an early date, was a seat of ancient paganism. A pocket of paganism, in fact, even in Roman Catholic dominated Europe. Its doges formed strong links with areas of the Eastern Roman Empire of late Imperial Rome. Of Byzantium. And with Turkey. It prospered by these links for centuries and because of this it developed amongst other things a huge slave trade, this at a time when Christian Europe was coming out of slavery. Or, at least, where the ethos of Christian Europe tended to make men free, and not slaves. And this at a time when the Golden Rule was really the basis of law and legal systems elsewhere. Is that not so ? The leaders of Venice, who were really a small dynasty of elitist bandits, were also masterminds behind development of what we call today modern banking, usury, and the origins of the modern banking system. Is that not so ? The mammon aspect, that is ? This transplanted, gradually, across Europe. And usury, (must I remind you ?) is the making of money, out of nothing. Since a loan of money should not be justification for printing banknotes on the extra (and notional value) which is the main feature of what became the banking industry. In short, the system of usury, later copied, of course, by Rome, and most famously by England, was the very system which made Venice (and later London) a financial and banking centre and did not have its origins in Christian Europe nor in a society where Christian values were first, but in pagan Europe. There in Venice. And the government of Venice, with its doges became, rapidly, a different place from Europe. This further accelerated by import there of pagan philosophy. And even the continuation there of pagan religion itself. Which any study of Venetian history will confirm. It is from this latent paganism of Venice where we see early formation of 'secret societies', of 'mystery religion', of the beginnings, in fact, of secret agents, and of intelligence services. Indeed, the early English secret service was created on the model of Venice after the time when Venetian advisers and agents helped King Henry 8th and his government to become independent of Rome. Encouraged and assisted by Venice. This tendency towards secrecy and 'degrees of knowledge' was further developed within the ruling elites of Europe in to movements such as Rosicrucianism and, eventually (after its export to England and this at a time when there was an emerging middle class) culminating in the secular cult of Freemasonry, from around 1717 onwards. Since Freemasonry, also, has its real roots in Venetian occultism. As any study of that subject would also confirm. For these and many other reasons (confirmed by any study of that subject) we may see example after example of how Venice was not Western civilization but was, instead, at best, a countefeit of it. The further rise of legal systems based upon commerce (admiralty law etc) owe a great deal to Venetian influence also. Which, over time, overthrew Common Law and replaced it with commercial law and the laws of corporations, revenue courts, and big business. Hence the 'English Common Law', a hybird system which is really a mixture of commercial law, common law, canon law, and admiralty law. This replacing Common Law at the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066. And developed further over the centuries which followed. So that Common Law was, because of the rise of the British Empire, replaced by 'English Common Law' (so-called) and its effects were to corporatise the legal industry. And the rise of occultism at the time of the Jesuit Order (since the Jesuit order were also supported by Venice in their earliest days after they were formed). We also see, in the actions of Venetian academics (most of whom were occultists themselves) the development of bogus reputations such as those of William Shakespeare. And, later, that of Isaac Newton. This too done with the direct assistance of Venetian sources. Again, without Venetian propaganda Newton would not have become an icon of English science but would have been exposed as the occultist he really was. It was Venetian propaganda which glossed over the discoveries of scientists such as Leibnitz for the 'glory of England' and who credited them to this alchemist, Isaac Newton. This as a plain fact of scientific history. And it was from Venice, of course, where so much of 'Englightenment' philosophy was developed. With its hostility towards Christianity (though, of course, these critics such as Voltaire and Rousseau sheltered within the church as their protection). Countless other examples could be offered. Another simple example - the librettos of Lorenzo da Ponte, librettist, were to a massive extent borrowed, plagiarised from the Venetian writer Carlo Gozzi, his very own mentor - a fact only relatively recently recognised by those who write on Mozart/da Ponte.

I am not defending Rome and its contribution to western Civilization. I am saying there are really three, and not just two major factors in any account of western culture. Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Occultism. With the last of these three much hidden, obscured, and so often edited out of our standard textbooks and encyclopaedias. Since the patronage of art and culture, through the last millenium or so, has, of course, to a great extent, been a reflection of those who patronised it, and it remains paradoxical, unnecessarily so, unless we identify these three different and contrasting streams of influence in western civilization (so-called).

yanni
12-14-2009, 01:00 PM
You never answered my basic question, rhetoric as it may have been!

"Occultism" for the few, "obedience though strict observance of the book" for the rest, has already been adressed, thank you.

"Contradictory" is nature, our relation to it, our relations to each other, our relations with self, hence "hallelujah" meaning "togetherness", unfit for loners but sinequanon for "society" as per the ancient definition!

BTW Whatever means your "occult orientals" used to conquer "civilised west" one thing is for sure: They were peacefull!

Musicology
12-14-2009, 01:30 PM
Yanni,

I think I have answered your question on Venice. Well, at least, sketched an answer.

We may describe as 'occultist' that system of beliefs which is hidden. This in direct contrast to what is celebrated in broad daylight, fully revealed and not done in a corner. And so we see the difference. Since mystery has been replaced by that which is revealed. Though what is revealed so freely and is recognised to be the chief context of all history may yet remain hidden from the minds of the wise and prudent and be revealed to mere babes, such as are able to learn from it.

A society consists of those who, being freely born, are not attracted to its counterfeits.

Which brings to mind a famous conversation between members of two different societies -

And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yes. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum of money I obtained myself my freedom. And Paul said, “Yes, but I was free born”.

(Acts Chapter 22).

Regards




You never answered my basic question, rhetoric as it may have been!

"Occultism" for the few, "obedience though strict observance of the book" for the rest, has already been adressed, thank you.

"Contradictory" is nature, our relation to it, our relations to each other, our relations with self, hence "hallelujah" meaning "togetherness", unfit for loners but sinequanon for "society" as per the ancient definition!

BTW Whatever means your "occult orientals" used to conquer "civilised west" one thing is for sure: They were peacefull!

yanni
12-14-2009, 01:43 PM
Never asked you on-your version of-Venice!


Yanni,

I think I have answered your question on Venice. Well, at least, sketched an answer.

We may describe as 'occultist' that system of beliefs which is hidden. This in direct contrast to what is celebrated in broad daylight, fully revealed and not done in a corner. And so we see the difference. Since mystery has been replaced by that which is revealed. Though what is revealed so freely and is recognised to be the chief context of all history may yet remain hidden from the minds of the wise and prudent and be revealed to mere babes, such as are able to learn from it.

A society consists of those who, being freely born, are not attracted to its counterfeits.

Which brings to mind a famous conversation between members of two different societies -

And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yes. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum of money I obtained myself my freedom. And Paul said, “Yes, but I was free born”.

(Acts Chapter 22).

Regards

Musicology
12-14-2009, 02:27 PM
No, but you asked for clarification of my terms. And, to illustrate these I briefly sketched the difference between Venice and Rome.


Never asked you on-your version of-Venice!

Yanni,

In an earlier letter you refer to a letter written by Gluck to Padre Martini in Bologna -

Gluck's letter(wherefrom I wonder!) on the 26th October 1773 to padre Martini re what to stage next in lower, Bourbon controlled, "Italy" and what not

This is very interesting. Is it available online ? Certainly I would like to read its text if available.

Can you please direct me to where it can be seen ?

Regards

yanni
12-14-2009, 11:50 PM
You still failed to answer my basic question (on where and what would "western civilization" be without its two sole pillars).

Re Glucks letter to padre Martini:

See:
"Words on music: essays in honor of Andrew Porter on the occasion of his 75th...." page 148, the re letter quoted from "Collected correspondence and papers of Cristoph Willibald Gluck" pages 45-46.

Gluck is allegedly writing to Padre Martini from Vienna. As he writes, he is about to leave for Paris to prepare for the staging of his next opera there, "Iphigenie" (it's on this performance-staged April 1774- the comments are made).According to same source as above, Padre Martini has previously asked him for a portrait of his for his colllection and Gluck advises him to ask Durazzo for a copy be made from the one in his posession. (ie the existing "Gluck" portrait was supplied and authenticated by "Durazzo")

My opinion:

I have every reason to believe that the letter was "manufactured". Its creator wants to dissasociate "Gluck" from "Grimm"(already in St Petersburg at the time, Prince Paul's wedding on 9th October) while reconfirming the existence of "Durazzo"(another alias) and persuading on the originality of the famous "Gluck" sole portrait (his face distorted from smallbox or syphilis or whatever he supposedly suffered from), all three birds in one shot, the familiar pattern "one alias authenticating another",or more in this case, in full bloom!

IE He was,most propably, the "creator", he did spend an awfull lot of time as from about his "Confessions" onwards to "establish historically" all his important personalities afterall.

Here is his reasoning (quoted from a wise websource yourstruly failed to keep address), an honest "first" of "the end justifying the means" principle or else "how to elegantly acknowledge in public the neccessity- or good use-of dishonesty":

In general, it is not very difficult for little minds to attain splendid situations. It is much more difficult for great minds to attain the place to which their merit fully entitles them.
- [Position]

Montesquieu had the style of a genius; Buffon, the genius of style.
- [Style]

The blind fanaticism of one foolish honest man may cause more evil than the united efforts of twenty rogues.
- [Fanaticism]

The glory of a people and of an age is always the work of a small number of great men, and disappears with them.
- [Glory]

The greatest men have not always the best heads; many indiscretions may be pardoned to a brilliant and ardent imagination. The prudence and discretion of a cold heart are not worth half so much as the follies of an ardent mind.
- [Greatness]

There is nothing so sure of succeeding as not to be over brilliant, as to be entirely wrapped up in one's self, and endowed with a perseverance which, in spite of all the rebuffs it may meet with, never relaxes in the pursuit of its object. It is incredible what may be done by dint of importunity alone; and where shall we find the man of real talents who knows how to be importunate enough!
- [Success]

Musicology
12-15-2009, 03:59 AM
I have not failed to answer your question. If you ask a specific question you get a specific answer.

Civilization is goodwill. The Golden Rule. The rest is meaningless and no definition at all.

Thanks for the information on the letter from Gluck to Durazzo. To me this is very useful. It was Durazzo who bought Vivaldi's manuscripts on his death in Vienna. And it was Durazzo who arranged the career of Andrea Luchesi, the Kapellmeister of Bonn, to come from Italy and be Beethoven's first teacher there. (The same Luchesi who has been deleted from textbooks on Beethoven). Durazzo was also a cousin to Esterhazy, where Haydn was for many years. And Durazzo, together with Earl Cowper and Padre Martini were major players in shaping the musical situation in Vienna, Paris and in London. For decades. It was Durazzo who created the fashion for French productions in Vienna. Cowper, the Englishman who stayed for decades in Florence. Further east was Abbe Georg Vogler and others such as Lobkowitz, plus the rulers in Mannheim, Munich, Berlin, Oettingen Wallerstein and Donaueschingen, etc. A vast network, in fact. Extending even in to Russia. Plus, of course, Prague, major publishers and other propagandists.

yanni
12-15-2009, 04:09 AM
You continue to refuse answering,
and
ommited a few more "Golden rules" of "'western" conception

such as:

"Gold makes the Golden rule"
and an earlier
"The road to Heaven is paved with good intentions"
summarised later in
"All good things are either illegal, immoral or fatening"

btw Vivaldi's (+1741) music archive compares well to Gluck's Venice performances in same year as well as to a previous short Rousseau "first appearance" in Paris 1739, explaining his next "Durazzo" appearance and official duties in lower Italy.

I am interested in Cocchi-"Durazzo's" relation to Esterhazy: "A cousin", you say, but I need more details (fit for a family tree, sort of).

Luchesi's (Cocchi's pupil) relations -as from 1763-to prince Nikolaus Esterhazy, Haydn's patron, are indicatory.

Good day!

Musicology
12-15-2009, 03:21 PM
Yanni,

If there is a question I've not answered please ask it again. To my knowledge I've answered the question you asked. But if not please ask it again. And please be more specific.

Regarding your question on Durazzo's relation to Esterhazy -

1. Prince Nikolaus Esterhazy 2nd (1714-90)
Married on 4 March 1737 Freiin Marie Elisabeth, daughter of Reichsgraf (Count of the Holy Roman Empire) Ferdinand von Weissenwolf.

and -

2. Count Giacomo Durazzo (1717–1794)
In 1750, he married eighteen-year-old Freiin Ernestine Aloisia Ungnad von Weissenwolff.

(Sisters, in fact. So that Durazzo and Niklaus Esterhazy (patron of Haydn) were cousins. And there was a third sister of the same von Weissenwolff family who married an important person in this story).

Reference Luchesi - Andrea Luchesi supplied several symphonies to Esterhazy in his early career. These falsely attributed (with so many others) to Josef Haydn at Esterhazy. (Earlier they had been provided to Esterhazy by Sammartini and others). I can give some details of these if it is interesting. The best research on it has been made by Italian researcher, Giorgio Taboga.

Regards

p.s. The third lady of the same family who married in to an important character in this story was -

3. Franziska Xavera, Gräfin Ungnad von Weissenwolf (1773-1859)

who married -

Prince Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rietberg (1711-1794)

(Kaunitz's most important and influential office was that of Staatskanzler, a position which he held from 1753 to 1792 and which allowed him to greatly influence Austrian, and thus European, events. His service to Maria Theresa brought him and his family elevation to the rank to Reichsfürst (or Prince of the Holy Roman Empire). So these 3 sisters united the Durazzo, the Kaunitz and the Esterhazy families. A vitally important connection in the Mozart story and the story of music at this time).

Regards



You continue to refuse answering,
and
ommited a few more "Golden rules" of "'western" conception

such as:

"Gold makes the Golden rule"
and an earlier
"The road to Heaven is paved with good intentions"
summarised later in
"All good things are either illegal, immoral or fatening"

btw Vivaldi's (+1741) music archive compares well to Gluck's Venice performances in same year as well as to a previous short Rousseau "first appearance" in Paris 1739, explaining his next "Durazzo" appearance and official duties in lower Italy.

I am interested in Cocchi-"Durazzo's" relation to Esterhazy: "A cousin", you say, but I need more details (fit for a family tree, sort of).

Luchesi's (Cocchi's pupil) relations to prince Nikolaus Esterhazy as from 1763 are indicatory.

Good day!

'Antonio Rosetti'
Concerto in E Flat
For Two Horns and Orchestra
c.1785/6

Any similarity to 'Mozart's' horn concertos is purely coincidental (!).:angel:


http://www.mediafire.com/?i5hwmezdmoh

yanni
12-16-2009, 03:26 AM
I did not bring up the subject of "western civilization" being worst off because of "oriental influences" (in fact from the start of this thread I wrote something about "too big to fail" lies and what to do about them) so, let's drop this discussion and return to "count of Durazzo-another alias of
G" ("G"=Gioachino, Gluck, Grimm, Germain etc).:

The as per quote data were new to me and, while I do thank you, I do it noting that they force me to face, once again, the usual "nightmare" every new alias brings along.

The amount of work necessary to unveil the previous, many, more important and better known, faces of "Comte Saint Germain" was great, the "job" completed, the matter closed, no use or fun in further beating a fallen "adversary", so I have refused, until now, to address "Durazzo" but lightly.

I will now do it because of your "Mozart" interest but please be patient: It will take a couple of days but I have to find them first.

Cheers.

(BTW: For early 19th links of various Rosetti names to Cocchi-Caussin check my thread "Two works by Poe decoded")


Yanni,

If there is a question I've not answered please ask it again. To my knowledge I've answered the question you asked. But if not please ask it again. And please be more specific.

Regarding your question on Durazzo's relation to Esterhazy -

1. Prince Nikolaus Esterhazy 2nd (1714-90)
Married on 4 March 1737 Freiin Marie Elisabeth, daughter of Reichsgraf (Count of the Holy Roman Empire) Ferdinand von Weissenwolf.

and -

2. Count Giacomo Durazzo (1717–1794)
In 1750, he married eighteen-year-old Freiin Ernestine Aloisia Ungnad von Weissenwolff.

(Sisters, in fact. So that Durazzo and Niklaus Esterhazy (patron of Haydn) were cousins. And there was a third sister of the same von Weissenwolff family who married an important person in this story).

Reference Luchesi - Andrea Luchesi supplied several symphonies to Esterhazy in his early career. These falsely attributed (with so many others) to Josef Haydn at Esterhazy. (Earlier they had been provided to Esterhazy by Sammartini and others). I can give some details of these if it is interesting. The best research on it has been made by Italian researcher, Giorgio Taboga.

Regards

p.s. The third lady of the same family who married in to an important character in this story was -

3. Franziska Xavera, Gräfin Ungnad von Weissenwolf (1773-1859)

who married -

Prince Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rietberg (1711-1794)

(Kaunitz's most important and influential office was that of Staatskanzler, a position which he held from 1753 to 1792 and which allowed him to greatly influence Austrian, and thus European, events. His service to Maria Theresa brought him and his family elevation to the rank to Reichsfürst (or Prince of the Holy Roman Empire). So these 3 sisters united the Durazzo, the Kaunitz and the Esterhazy families. A vitally important connection in the Mozart story and the story of music at this time).

Regards


'Antonio Rosetti'
Concerto in E Flat
For Two Horns and Orchestra
c.1785/6

Any similarity to 'Mozart's' horn concertos is purely coincidental (!).:angel:


http://www.mediafire.com/?i5hwmezdmoh

Musicology
12-16-2009, 04:14 AM
Yanni,

I hope you found this useful. Your research into multiple aliases needs good source material and is certainly unusual. But, in an age when some people were being described as 'immortal' and when there was no musical copyright, and when 'pen-names' were common, anything may be correct.

The strangest cases in music, perhaps, are major composers of the 18th and even the 19th century who were once famous and who, today, are virtually unknown. Andrea Luchesi, Kapellmeister at Bonn and Beethoven's true teacher of composition is one case. He held a post of being in charge of one of the great music centres of Germany which was sought by Mozart himself, but nobody (almost) has ever heard of Andrea Luchesi. Amazing but true. He worked for over 20 years in that post. Who could imagine entire biographies on Beethoven have been written in which his name does not once appear ! Even books on Beethoven's early years in Bonn ! There really is a huge problem with that. Giorgio Taboga realised this and started his research because of it.

And what of the remarkable French/English composer George Onslow ? Whose works, for years, were as popular as those of Beethoven and other major composers ? (Yesterday I heard his 4th Symphony for the first time). No wonder he was very famous in Germany for years ! As famous as household names today. But who has heard of George Onslow today ? Or his music ? Or the operas of Sarti, and of others ?

There is no doubt the cultural landscape of the 18th and 19th centuries is very distorted which we find in textbooks. But the chief reason may be the suppression of influence and input from those whose very existence is inconvenient for sustaining the industry mythology of 'great' composers. Instead of substituting one hero for another I think we are slowly moving to the realisation groups of people made works of art, or were involved in their creation far more than has often been supposed. So the model of a pantheon of individualist 'great' composers is not really appropriate and probably never was.

yanni
12-16-2009, 07:40 AM
You share, like many scholars (in other fields than just music, I regret to say), an obvious reluctance to discuss the subject of "aliases" of my hero, relatively well laid out in other threads, you as well have been invited to take part in but markedly abstained.

The subject of "greatness" does not concern me but I presented in previous the re views of my hero for you to examine and comment upon, but......nix!

I have even explained, in earlier threads, the essential elements for an opera to be succesfully staged in the times concerning our subject (putting talent backstage to other requirements such as position, power, influence etc) for you to comment upon: Nix and nix again.

So please release me from commenting on such "lectures" otherwise I'll never be able to complete "Durazzo".

Cheers.


Yanni,

I hope you found this useful. Your research into multiple aliases needs good source material and is certainly unusual. But, in an age when some people were being described as 'immortal' and when there was no musical copyright, and when 'pen-names' were common, anything may be correct.

The strangest cases in music, perhaps, are major composers of the 18th and even the 19th century who were once famous and who, today, are virtually unknown. Andrea Luchesi, Kapellmeister at Bonn and Beethoven's true teacher of composition is one case. He held a post of being in charge of one of the great music centres of Germany which was sought by Mozart himself, but nobody (almost) has ever heard of Andrea Luchesi. Amazing but true. He worked for over 20 years in that post. Who could imagine entire biographies on Beethoven have been written in which his name does not once appear ! Even books on Beethoven's early years in Bonn ! There really is a huge problem with that. Giorgio Taboga realised this and started his research because of it.

And what of the remarkable French/English composer George Onslow ? Whose works, for years, were as popular as those of Beethoven and other major composers ? (Yesterday I heard his 4th Symphony for the first time). No wonder he was very famous in Germany for years ! As famous as household names today. But who has heard of George Onslow today ? Or his music ? Or the operas of Sarti, and of others ?

There is no doubt the cultural landscape of the 18th and 19th centuries is very distorted which we find in textbooks. But the chief reason may be the suppression of influence and input from those whose very existence is inconvenient for sustaining the industry mythology of 'great' composers. Instead of substituting one hero for another I think we are slowly moving to the realisation groups of people made works of art, or were involved in their creation far more than has often been supposed. So the model of a pantheon of individualist 'great' composers is not really appropriate and probably never was.

Musicology
12-16-2009, 12:06 PM
Yanni,

Thank you for your last post.

I'm certainly not reluctant to discuss aliases. But in my view your tree of aliases needs to be illustrated graphically, by you, and not so much in words only, so that confusion is avoided and a clear image is presented of its significance, purpose and achievements. Again, by your goodself. Nor have I abstained from discussing this interesting subject. But that thesis is your own and my own is the life, career and alleged musical achievements of W.A. Mozart. So that our respective subjects, though closely related, are not indentical.

Since you wish to examine Durazzo more closely it was Durazzo who, of course, recruited Andrea Luchesi to come to Bonn. Who brought him there to become (from 1771 to 1774) the personal Kapellmeister of Max Friedrich. And, from 1774 this Luchesi became official Kapellmeister of Bonn Hofkapelle. A position he retained for the next 20 years. During which time he was the true teacher of the young Ludwig van Beethoven. A fact which has time and time again been suppressed in textbooks. During which time the new Elector (Max Franz, who arrived in 1784) had already promised the Kapellmeister post at Bonn to W.A. Mozart. But this promise made by the new Elector of Bonn was not kept, and Luchesi managed to remain in his post. From 1784 onwards Luchesi seems to have stopped being the daily teacher to the pupils at Bonn because of the arrival there of men such as Reicha and his uncle.

Durazzo's role in the theatrical productions of Vienna was massive. It was he who oversaw the introduction there of French style operas and ballet, for example. And Luchesi's final years were spent in opera, at the newly constructed German National Theatre in Bonn. The arrival of the Napoleonic army in Bonn in 1794 caused the entire music archive of the Bonn Hofkapelle to be evacuated from Bonn. None of which was ever returned to the city. Parts still today in Modena, Italy and other parts in Vienna and elsewhere. This after briefly being stored for a time in Prague.

So, yes, Durazzo's career is fascinating and vital in the Mozart story. He was one of the major figures. And he was closely associated with the career of Haydn also. (Another figure of great exaggeration). Whose career at Esterhazy is itself full of contradictions and inventions.

Cheers

yanni
12-17-2009, 03:05 PM
I have already enough described and identified beyond doubt Giochino Cocchi’s music related aliases , ie comte de Saint Germain, Rousseau, Gluck, Chastellux, and Grimm, and briefly named a few more, music related as well, that also belong to him (Graslin, chevalier de Chaumont, de Magnanville, Bellegarde*) in parallel to many other aliases, also clearly identified, depicting his long term diplomatic role in Europe (Raynal, Galliani, Stroganov etc) and others linking him to the French Foreign Ministry,the Royal Secret Service while,in parallel, uncovering his particular blood relation to France’s Royal House and the role of other members of his family in French affairs before, during and after his time, his cooperation in particular with his cousin Charles Nicholas Cochin (who managed “secondary to music” arts for France, also engraved the front pages of the Encyclopedia and other books by different aliases of Cocchi).

Compared to his other accomplishements, his musical feats are obviously of secondary importance, thus my recent interest in both Myslivecek and Durazzo,his "massive role in the theatrical productions of Vienna" and what he did with, to, or without, Mozart, must and will forever remain “pianissimo”!

Nevertheless, having searched him through in the web, I have found little original and true info, imo, including the site below that persuaded me to put him through my “all aliases timeline test" and finally and conclusively include him as yet another:

http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-lettere/letterad/Durazzo/DURAZZO2.htm

I can obviously not repeat the exercise on line in this forum but among the many re “indications”, their number in itself excluding mere coincidence, I am now preparing a list which will take some time.

For your preliminary perusal however:

Data from above site immediately tallied with “Pierre Michel Hennin’s” early diplomatic carreer (as from November 1749) while his(Durazzo's) “Armida” pointed to "Gluck’s" own ("Armide")!

In the meantime (may take me a while due to other obligations):

If you can recommend any other informed web source on “your” Durazzo,or have any further biographical info (confirmed presences, place-date) do not hesitate to provide.

Cheers!

*Which translates as "Mirabeau" as well!