Mozart in English

[Musicology]

The story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) is so amazing, has been so deeply embedded within the popular imagination by books and films and is believed to be such an integral and valid part of western music history that few have ever examined his life and achievements in critical detail. Certainly not in print. Nor have they been encouraged to do so. Such things are considered unnecessary. Thus, he dominates the western cultural landscape as an icon of unquestioned musical expertise and genius. As a member of musical and cultural pantheon, in fact. But facts are stubborn things. Here are some of the findings of modern research on Mozart’s early life and career. Part of an ongoing criticism of Mozartean convention as a whole. And of a musicology which has routinely ignored its own track record over the past two hundred years. Some details of which are supplied freely here to readers as part of a far larger examination of the Mozart phenomenon by Luca Bianchini of Italy and Robert Newman of England whose studies in these areas stretch back several decades. Samples below -


‘’KV 44’’

http://www.mediafire.com/?ccy3ch5s9d3h9h3

‘’Mozart, Munich and 1762’’

http://www.mediafire.com/?wl7x87jcoij23uw

‘’KV85 (Considerations on the Supposed Music Teaching of W.A. Mozart by Padre Martini of Bologna)’’

http://www.mediafire.com/?8agr218yx5ae8db

‘’The Golden Spur (Part 1)’’

http://www.mediafire.com/?ti1hxeknllp8exv

//

[lellyvigni]

Hi Robert

There is a ver important text written by Corrado Ricchi which Bianchini has cited in his paper refering to the events of 1770 in Bologna with Mozart. It is stated clearly there that the voting for Mozart was NOT unanimous. But we are always told he passed his examination with all white balls. Aren't we ? However, we see now, the actual records of the examination which Luca Bianchini has attached show the vote contained both black and white balls. What do you think ? What the hell have these scholars been teaching around the world on Mozart in the light of these facts ?

"Moreover, the judges of the Academy did not give them a great deal of insight. In their report of that day they stated that one Francesco Piantanada was admitted with all white votes (and also his relative Giovanni Piantanida) while, concerning Mozart, they make only a reserved and cold statement which, when allowing for the circumstances, his exam result was considered sufficient – ‘As the votes in his case were concerned it is certain they were not all white: but in any case the jury found in his favour’"
(Corrado Ricci)

[Musicology]

Hi there Lellyvigni,

Yes, you are completely correct. The documentary evidence of the exam taken by Mozart is crystal clear. Mozart's exam in 1770 Bologna was a failure according to various judges. The story that he was unanimously awarded the Diploma is fiction. Like so much else. The scale of exaggeration and falsehood on this one issue is huge. The writers of textbooks have simply ignored the facts. Have obscured and buried them. Exaggerating others. And inventing still others. The facts of which are published here for the first time by Luca Bianchini in detail. Mozart faked the exam itself (which was written for him by Padre Martini of Bologna).

In the next few days there can be other articles about the legend of Mozart. Of the same kind.

I will shortly post a link to the above article by Bianchini. Which has already been seen by thousands worldwide already. And stands uncontested as documentary fact.

Regards








Hi Robert

There is a ver important text written by Corrado Ricchi which Bianchini has cited in his paper refering to the events of 1770 in Bologna with Mozart. It is stated clearly there that the voting for Mozart was NOT unanimous. But we are always told he passed his examination with all white balls. Aren't we ? However, we see now, the actual records of the examination which Luca Bianchini has attached show the vote contained both black and white balls. What do you think ? What the hell have these scholars been teaching around the world on Mozart in the light of these facts ?

"Moreover, the judges of the Academy did not give them a great deal of insight. In their report of that day they stated that one Francesco Piantanada was admitted with all white votes (and also his relative Giovanni Piantanida) while, concerning Mozart, they make only a reserved and cold statement which, when allowing for the circumstances, his exam result was considered sufficient – ‘As the votes in his case were concerned it is certain they were not all white: but in any case the jury found in his favour’"
(Corrado Ricci)

[lellyvigni]

Hi Robert

The article by Bianchini is extremely important.
He shows by documentary and published evidence that for nearly 150 years biographers and musicologists have confused the piece known as 'Quaerite' made by Martini with that of Mozart.
The documents show that Mozart has signed this antiphon by Martini with his own name. He (and his father) claimed this work of Martini (a very famous composer of harmony and theory) was his own exam paper and that he had composed it there in 1770. His father Leopold copied this same antiphon and signed it with the name of Mozart also but added the wrong date when he did so.

When another article on Mozart is ready please tell me because I understand there are several that are available for readers free of charge. I will certainly read these with great interest. Please give my regards to Luca Bianchini who has kindly shared these things with you and us.
Thanks.

[Emil Miller]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91), a creature of popular culture and former citizen of Salzburg and Vienna, is to be discussed exclusively here in the English language. Thus avoiding the inelegancies and limitations of German, Italian, French, Dutch, and all other inferior languages from countries which the said Mozart travelled to and lived in. This in the interest of harmony and accuracy. For our eductional, cultural and musical benefit.

Always remembering that -

'Everything you've heard is true'

(Trailer to the film 'Amadeus')

Using a cast of thousands and two centuries of institutionalised folklore. In conformity to the rules and attitudes of students and teachers everywhere. And presided over by learned men and women whose only motivation is free speech.

Thank You

Musicology,

You are right in principle but not in practice. This site is owned by someone else and he has the perfect right to decide on how it is run.
I speak as someone who has also had threads terminated for violation of the rules. Ultimately, without rules there is no freedom, unless it is the freedom of the jungle and, on this basis, we must curtail our individual preferences to accommodate the requirements of others who we may not agree with; especially when they are monitoring the sight

[Musicology]

You are perfectly correct Brian. As you can see, there has been some flack from those who do not wish the facts surrounding Mozart to be publicly and freely appreciated. 200 years or so, to be more accurate.

So we have arrived here on this thread and are happy to post only in English.

Which, hopefully, will be of interest to musicians and lovers of music.

Regards



Musicology,

You are right in principle but not in practice. This site is owned by someone else and he has the perfect right to decide on how it is run.
I speak as someone who has also had threads terminated for violation of the rules. Ultimately, without rules there is no freedom, unless it is the freedom of the jungle and, on this basis, we must curtail our individual preferences to accommodate the requirements of others who we may not agree with; especially when they are monitoring the sight

[lellyvigni]

Musicology,

You are right in principle but not in practice. This site is owned by someone else and he has the perfect right to decide on how it is run.
I speak as someone who has also had threads terminated for violation of the rules. Ultimately, without rules there is no freedom, unless it is the freedom of the jungle and, on this basis, we must curtail our individual preferences to accommodate the requirements of others who we may not agree with; especially when they are monitoring the sight

Hi Brian

I am sorry I cannot write in Italian but I understand and accept the administrators here can decide as they please.

Thank You

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is there a rule against creating multiple accounts and then manufacturing false conversations?

[OrphanPip]

Is there a rule against creating multiple accounts and then manufacturing false conversations?

Why the powers that be choose to tolerate Musicology's odd antics is beyond me.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Hello Robert, hope all is well and welcome Lellyvigni.

Regarding Mozart’s schooling and the possible reason for the poor exam scores.

Mozart did not go to a school, but rather was homeschooled from the years 1761 to 1768 by the hermit Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia with support from Leopold. You may recall from my past discussions regarding Andiamo and his role in the hermit lend-lease program established between St. Maximus in Salzburg and Saints B____ and S____ in La Mancha and Azpeitia (Loyola), Spain respectively. Andiamo was sent to Salzburg in 1759 and took up residence in the St. Maximus hermitage located in the cliffs just above St. Peters of Salzburg.

Here’s a link regarding the St. Maximushole hermitage:

http://www.showcaves.com/english/at/misc/Maximus.html

Each Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Andiamo would emerge from the caves and make his way to the home of Leopold in Salzburg to administer lessons. Andiamo’s curriculum concentrated primarily on the “three R’s”, but some time was dedicated to teaching elementary music and calisthenics.

It is worth noting, that homeschooling had become a popular alternative to the Jesuit controlled public schools of the latter half of the 18th century. Many conservatives throughout the Bible belt region of Europe, such as Leopold, had grown despondent with the secular and humanistic curriculum instituted by the Jesuit controlled board of educators.

The “PDF” article you’ve been promoting on other threads makes no mention of Andiamo or Mozart’s homeschooling.

I have personally seen the hermit caves during a visit to Salzburg back in 1988. Inside one of the hermit cells, one could view several slate tablets on display which Andiamo used as a teaching aid. Upon close examination of the slates, one could clearly discern musical notation such as staff lines, traces of quarter, whole notes, clefs and rests, etc. Samples of limestone “chalk” powder were removed from the slates and sent to the geology department at Utrecht University for source analysis. It was determined that the limestone matched the characteristics of limestone found in the region of La Mancha, Spain deposited during the waning years of the cretaceous period.

Now admittedly, young Amadeus’ did not excel in his musical studies under Andiamo’s tutelage which eventually led to the poor exam scores and eventual plagiarizing of Coronado, but we’ll let that sleep’n dog lie for now.

Respectfully submitted,

Gilliatt

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hello Robert, hope all is well and welcome Lellyvigni.

Regarding Mozart’s schooling and the possible reason for the poor exam scores.

Mozart did not go to a school, but rather was homeschooled from the years 1761 to 1768 by the hermit Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia with support from Leopold. You may recall from my past discussions regarding Andiamo and his role in the hermit lend-lease program established between St. Maximus in Salzburg and Saints B____ and S____ in La Mancha and Azpeitia (Loyola), Spain respectively. Andiamo was sent to Salzburg in 1759 and took up residence in the St. Maximus hermitage located in the cliffs just above St. Peters of Salzburg.

Here’s a link regarding the St. Maximushole hermitage:

http://www.showcaves.com/english/at/misc/Maximus.html

Each Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Andiamo would emerge from the caves and make his way to the home of Leopold in Salzburg to administer lessons. Andiamo’s curriculum concentrated primarily on the “three R’s”, but some time was dedicated to teaching elementary music and calisthenics.

It is worth noting, that homeschooling had become a popular alternative to the Jesuit controlled public schools of the latter half of the 18th century. Many conservatives throughout the Bible belt region of Europe, such as Leopold, had grown despondent with the secular and humanistic curriculum instituted by the Jesuit controlled board of educators.

The “PDF” article you’ve been promoting on other threads makes no mention of Andiamo or Mozart’s homeschooling.

I have personally seen the hermit caves during a visit to Salzburg back in 1988. Inside one of the hermit cells, one could view several slate tablets on display which Andiamo used as a teaching aid. Upon close examination of the slates, one could clearly discern musical notation such as staff lines, traces of quarter, whole notes, clefs and rests, etc. Samples of limestone “chalk” powder were removed from the slates and sent to the geology department at Utrecht University for source analysis. It was determined that the limestone matched the characteristics of limestone found in the region of La Mancha, Spain deposited during the waning years of the cretaceous period.

Now admittedly, young Amadeus’ did not excel in his musical studies under Andiamo’s tutelage which eventually led to the poor exam scores and eventual plagiarizing of Coronado, but we’ll let that sleep’n dog lie for now.

Respectfully submitted,

Gilliatt

Cool! Another one!

[JCamilo]

Why the powers that be choose to tolerate Musicology's odd antics is beyond me.

Because it is very funny?

[Musicology]

Ah, the usual suspects trying to wreck threads on the subject of W.A. Mozart ?

The reason threads are tolerated is because those who make them are producing hard evidence (documentary and other kinds) of the fake musical career of W.A. Mozart. And you, being employed to wreck threads everywhere, are trying to wreck this one.

Anything you can post on the life and career of W.A. Mozart will be appreciated by me, other readers of this thread and by its moderators. But you have nothing. As usual. We can see this clearly.

Amazing what people will do for 30 pieces of silver. Isn't it ?

Looking forward to your own posts on the life, career and iconic (dominant) status of Mozart, a project of mystification, exaggeration and musical and cultural falsehood. Presided over by the usual elites, fraternal fraudsters and 200 years of institutionalised folklore.

:nopity:

Because it is producing detailed, unanswerable facts on the real life and career of W.A. Mozart. From documented, verifiable, well researched sources.

As everyone can see.Hope you can contribute. If not, just keep reading. But where are the 'experts' when you need them ?

Always remember, 'Everything you've heard is true'

(Trailer to the film 'Amadeus')




Because it is very funny?

[ERS]

In light of recent discussions about Mozart, I remember the usual names I grew up with as a classically-trained musician: Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc. As a Horn player I have long ordered scores and parts from Kalmus (“If it’s classical, it’s Kalmus.”). I did a search for works of some of the unfamiliar and obscure composers: Gyrowetz, Pichl, Clementi, Gossec, Pleyel, Wranitsky, Myslievecek, Krommer, Herschel, Kraus, Baguer, Vanhal, etc. I found perhaps one or two orchestral scores at best. When I was at conservatory, these obscure composers were treated as pariahs. There was virtually no interest in the performance of their works, the study of their lives, or their influence on history. The usual “warhorses” were heralded, given High Mass, and were performed to the scent of incense and the sight of statues.

I have experienced this prejudice first-hand.

For instance, how many know that Herschel wrote 24 symphonies, was a renowned astronomer, and discovered one of the planets of our solar system? That Clementi helped to refine the design of the piano as we know it today - and his music is virtually unperformed to this day? To me, the real shame is that these obscure composers wrote some really fine music, yet they are STILL being ignored. It seems that “history” would have us believe that while Mozart and Haydn were plying their trade and pumping out masterpiece after masterpiece, all these other composers were scratching their backsides and rubbing sticks together. By the way, isn’t it interesting that some of Gyrowetz’s works were published under Haydn’s name?

I’m seeing a pattern here.

A note of comedy: on the Amazon site, check out the Bamert “Contemporaries of Mozart” CD reviews for the Salieri disc. One bright bulb impugns Salieri based on the plot line of the movie “Amadeus!” I suppose if “everything we've heard is true,” it is. To the Myths.
We are being short-sheeted on a scale that beggars belief.

[Pyras]

I am also musician and taught music. Excuse my English is not so good.

I agree with you, ERS.
I know there is so much beautiful music, of many authors, but often no one notices about that, just because throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century all the interest was concentrated on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.
In the case of Mozart it seems to me that there are many doubts about the studies of counterpoint that Mozart did and also about his first compositions. Styles in compositions of early years are completely different the ones respect to the others. One seems to be 1400, the other 1500, the other 1600, another one Bach, Martini and so on, another one Sammartini, Nardini etc. According to German musicologists Mozart wrote a lot of early music in all styles, and perfectly, without also the possibility to have studied them. How it would be possible that a genius is genius without a school? Then some musicologists have realized that some of those pieces were not by Mozart. I bought discs carrying Mozart's name with music that Mozart didn't compose (for example the first piano concertos). Mozart has just copied them. Perhaps it is time to make things clear. The thread is interesting. If Mozart did not resolve the exam, then he didn't study also with Padre Martini. WHo then was his Master, except Leopold, who was also without a Master?



In light of recent discussions about Mozart, I remember the usual names I grew up with as a classically-trained musician: Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc. As a Horn player I have long ordered scores and parts from Kalmus (“If it’s classical, it’s Kalmus.”). I did a search for works of some of the unfamiliar and obscure composers: Gyrowetz, Pichl, Clementi, Gossec, Pleyel, Wranitsy, Myslievecek, Herschel, Kraus, Baguer, Vanhal, etc. I found perhaps one or two orchestral scores at best. When I was at conservatory, these obscure composers were treated as pariahs. There was virtually no interest in the performance of their works, the study of their lives, or their influence on history. The usual “warhorses” were heralded, given High Mass, and were performed to the scent of incense and the sight of statues.
I have experienced this prejudice first-hand.
For instance, how many know that Herschel wrote 24 symphonies, was a renowned astronomer, and discovered one of the planets of our solar system? That Clementi helped to refine the design of the piano as we know it today and his music is virtually unperformed today? To me, the real shame is that these obscure composers wrote some really fine music, yet they are STILL ignored. It seems that “history” would have us believe that as Mozart and Haydn were plying their trade and pumping out masterpiece after masterpiece, all these other composers were scratching their backsides and rubbing sticks together. By the way, isn’t it interesting that some of Gyrowetz’s works were published under Haydn’s name?
I’m seeing a pattern here.
A note of comedy: on the Amazon site, check out the Bamert “Contemporaries of Mozart” CD reviews for the Salieri disc. One bright bulb impugns Salieri based on the plot line of the movie “Amadeus!” I suppose if “everything I’ve heard is true,” it is. To the Myths.
We are being short-sheeted on a scale that beggars belief.

[Musicology]

Hi there ERS,

Yes, and I believe the time is arriving when we see more clearly what has been done. The literal invention of a few handfuls of 'great' composers whose music and whose careers have undergone a sanitised 'makeover' (with the help of publishers, patrons, and music managers), these accepted as gospel and now towering over the musical landscape as virtual gods of a pagan musical pantheon. While 7,000 composers of the 18th and 19th centuries are not only unperformed and almost completely unknown, but the status of these 'great' composers is pumped out ad nauseum and performed to the exclusion of all others with virtually zero criticism or cross-examination of their real lives and careers.

Mozart was not the first 'faked' composer. Nor was G.F. Handel. (Although both were really actors). Nor was Josef Haydn or even Ludwig van Beethoven. The reality of Mozart is here is a body of music (much of it wonderful) that has been attributed by hoary convention and countless biographers with virtually no critical examination of what has been attributed to the 'genius of Salzburg' whose biography and career history is virtually never questioned. Though its well known particulars fall to pieces at each and every stage when subjected to the light of day. I believe we can even speak of a pseudo-musicology, the net effect of which has made fools of all of us and which has robbed us of the lives and musical achievements of hundreds, even thousands of composers. Mozart is the Adidas or the Nike of the musical world. Unable to stand on its own without patronage and 'experts' who never seem able to defend what they write and teach.

This is the fruit of a philosophy. The 'enlightenment' philosophy. Which needed secularised heroes. And found them. In 'geniuses' who rubbed shoulders with the very men who manufactured them, and whose ancestors defend them to this day. And so musicology, a great science, was virtually kidnapped and emasculated from the time of its birth, made to conform to the emerging myths of the state. With the history of music as we know it a bunch of myths, under corporate, even global control. This is the importance of a modern and critical examination of Mozart, myth and reality.

I can assure you that almost nothing written of W.A. Mozart is true. Biographically and musically. And what are the implications of that ? I can no longer be surprised that such and such a work is not, in fact, his. And I am not alone in saying so.

Regards

[Scheherazade]

... Thus avoiding the inelegancies and limitations of German, Italian, French, Dutch, and all other inferior languages from countries which the said Mozart travelled to and lived in. This in the interest of harmony and accuracy. For our educational, cultural and musical benefit.

... In conformity to the rules and attitudes of students and teachers everywhere. And presided over by learned men and women whose only motivation is free speech.
Hi Brian

I am sorry I cannot write in Italian but I understand and accept the administrators here can decide as they please.

Thank You
Is there a rule against creating multiple accounts and then manufacturing false conversations?
Why the powers that be choose to tolerate Musicology's odd antics is beyond me. F i n a l_____W a r n i n g

Keep it off the boards.

Those who feel the irresistible urge to question any moderation decisions,

please do so by PMing the Moderators

and

please feel free to ignore any discussions that do not appeal to you.

Discussions are not limited to those are favoured by the majority.


Posts containing off-topic or inflammatory remarks will not be tolerated.

[Pyras]

Hi Gilliatt

Yes I suspect that this ipothethical man Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia, you're are talking about, was probably the same person who told a lot of stories about his pupil Amadé, for example that he was a genius by nature, without any school, that his exercices in Bologna was perfect, that the music by Padre Martini actually was his music, that he copied by memory the Misere by allegri and so on. Lot of innocent people then belived in the man of tyhe mountain. For example Nissen, Jahn, Abert, Saint-Foix told the same according to this man. I obviously do not belive in this man, I don't belive he has never existed. But I know that also there are people that belive in such tales.


Hello Robert, hope all is well and welcome Lellyvigni.

Regarding Mozart’s schooling and the possible reason for the poor exam scores.

Mozart did not go to a school, but rather was homeschooled from the years 1761 to 1768 by the hermit Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia with support from Leopold. You may recall from my past discussions regarding Andiamo and his role in the hermit lend-lease program established between St. Maximus in Salzburg and Saints B____ and S____ in La Mancha and Azpeitia (Loyola), Spain respectively. Andiamo was sent to Salzburg in 1759 and took up residence in the St. Maximus hermitage located in the cliffs just above St. Peters of Salzburg.

Here’s a link regarding the St. Maximushole hermitage:

http://www.showcaves.com/english/at/misc/Maximus.html

Respectfully submitted,

Gilliatt

[Musicology]

Thank you Pyras,

I will reply to you in detail in a few minutes. In the meantime -

Those interested in this controversial subject of Mozart (biographical and musical) can read below a further excellent article on the subject by Luca Bianchini on the background to a work known in the Mozart music catalogue as KV44. A church work composed (it is believed) around the same time of Mozart’s first visit to Italy in 1770. Hopefully the facts will speak for themselves.


//

[Pyras]

I'll download it, thanks. I have also a philips CD of this KV44. It is recorded as a piece by Mozart. I'm curious to read this pdf.


Thank you Pyras,

I will reply to you in detail in a few minutes. In the meantime -

Those interested in this controversial subject of Mozart (biographical and musical) can read below a further excellent article on the subject by Luca Bianchini on the background to a work known in the Mozart music catalogue as KV44. A church work composed (it is believed) around the same time of Mozart’s first visit to Italy in 1770. Hopefully the facts will speak for themselves.

http://www.mediafire.com/?gy9lsgxhx925c0x


//

[Musicology]

Yes Pyras,

KV44 is an important piece for various reasons. I am sure this free article will add to your enjoyment of this music.

Regards



I'll download it, thanks. I have also a philips CD of this KV44. It is recorded as a piece by Mozart. I'm curious to read this pdf.

[Pyras]

Mozart in the Cibavit KV.44, according to the musicologist Hermann Abert is proving himself very talented in counterpoint. Scholars Saint Fox and Wyzewa show KV44 must have been composed in 1770.

I see in the .pdf that subsequent studies are more detailed in identifying the precise location and date of its composition: Bologna, the church of San Domenico on October 6th, 1770.

I'm happy. I know that my CD of KV44 was recorded in 1991, by the recording company Philips as part of the Complete Mozart Edition.
And also the Augsburger Mozartfest in may 2010 used all academic resources in the musicological research field to propose the mozarteans KV44 and KV86 (the Antifona we also are talking about in this thread ) to show the Mozart's knowledge of the counterpoint.

BUT:)

Wolfgang had merely copied the first from an Introitus composed by Johann Stadlmayr who lived (1575-1648) !!! and the second from Padre Martini !!!

So the Cibavit KV44piece first created around 1600 is not at all comparable with th second work already shown to have been made for Mozart for the exam by Martini in 1770.
"KV44 was also written in a totally different era and the two works were written in different places under completely different circumstances"

And different styles, also.
It's amazing.

[yanni]

Would that be Padre Giovanni Battista Martini or perhaps padre Cirillo Martini?

[Pyras]

Would that be Padre Giovanni Battista Martini or perhaps padre Cirillo Martini?

I think there is just a Padre Martini, I don't know if there are others Martini. In those times I always read about Padre Martini, I think the full name is Giovanni Batista
Who is that Cirillo?

[yanni]

According to Katy Romanou and Yannis Belonis-my deepest compliments to them- 'Abate Cirillo Martini is the one Burney and the Mozarts met in Venice in August. He-'allegedly'*-supplied Burney and G.B.Martini both with info on greek orthodox music (Cretan via Corfu-Antonio Cocchini's San Giacomo theater-and Zante) they next included in their Music Dictionnaries. He had just returned from the East'.

Funny thing though: Abert and Spencer ommit the fact (they just mention Burney and the Mozarts 'attended a performance of a mass amd vespers' on the 13th of August**(p 132) avoiding to mention abate Cirillo, Balthasar Galuppi (whom they also met) and his friend and associate (their elbows touched at the -Cocchi's-hospitale degli incurabili) Gioachino Cocchi (missing from London as from 1764-5. resurfaced there 1771). (I believe they avoid mentioning Venice alltogether in fact.)

Funnier still: The 'August blank' at http://www.mozartproject.org/biography/ch_66_70.html concerning the Mozarts whereabouts in August, in harmony with http://letters.mozartways.com/eng/disp_lettera.php?ID1=2&ID2=8&ID3=3&IDL=4

But worry not: Saint Martin in the fields (of musicology) will do his miracle again!

In fact, he already did!

Ta-ta!

Antonios Emm. Kokkinis.

* Allegri's precious 'Miserere' was copied about that time(August) by Burney. One of the three only copies existing at the time, belonged to padre G.B.Martini.
** Actually on August 15th (Ascension day, see The Doge of Venice Departing for the Lido, drawing by Giovanni Antonio Canaletto) they (if together with their 'shadow' C.Burney) were at San Marco Cathedral in Venice to hear their host, Galuppi maestro di Capellla, and enjoy the festivities!
According to Leopold: "We`re still on the estates alla Croce del Biacco that belong to Comte Bolognetti but which Count Pallavicini has leased for a number of years. The great annual festival that the members of the Bologna Philharmonic Society celebrate every year with the greatest magnificence with Vespers and High Mass will take place on the 30th August. (Bologna 21 Aug. 1770) Guess WHO IS REALLY this 'count Pallavicini'!!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I have always believed that language was given to us to communicate. That we should avoid disjointed exchanges on subjects where the connection is not plain and obvious. The moderators have given us one last chance to have a discussion of Mozart's career. And your last post returns to an obscurantism and innuendo which, as usual, requires some clarification. For those who may be reading this thread.

The simple fact is that eastern influence (occultic and other kinds) was coming in to European music over centuries through a very ancient connection between the republic of Venice and Byzantium (aka Constantinople/Istanbul), which dates back in to pagan antiquity. The early history of opera (a revival of classical antiquity) is clear evidence of this. Hence the early patronage of opera in Italy by families whose roots were those of the Etruscans etc. Take for example Medici patronage of opera and the territory of the oldest kingdom in Europe - Tuscany. The translation of ancient texts from the east was a major part of obtaining libretti for these stage productions. And yes, Abbe Cirillo Martini is involved with these texts. So was Abbe Vogler on his long travels. And yes, they are all connected.

The connection you have refered to (between the Hospital degli Incurabili in Venice and various composers) is of course plain fact. Once again showing that Venice is importing what we can call a revival of the 3rd 'religion' that was rapidly growing in influence within European culture through the secret societies and fraterntities (often unknown to its members at lower levels). Lorenzo da Ponte, Casanova etc etc examples of this. With the models being the pagan eastern empires of Babylon, Assyria and (eventually) Egypt and their beliefs. These combined. Hence the interest in ancient Egypt by the 1780's in operas such as Die Zauberflote and also the Egyptianisation of Freemasonry by Cagliostro and others during that same decade (the 1780's). These things are clear. By which time Freemasonry had long ago transfered from Venice to England and their Empire. (Modelled as it was on the Venetian).

An article will shortly be posted here on the legend of Mozart writing from memory the Allegri 'Miserere' in Rome. That story is fiction. And the music of the 'Miserere' was not difficult to obtain. Copies were available in Rome, Vienna and many other places. What WAS difficult is the fact that it was always sung differently each time it was performed. (There was a system of variations). The Burney version is a mess. Burney was closely associated with the emerging British Empire, his daughter working directly for George 3rd in London. So was the version attributed to W.A. Mozart (which disappeared because it was a total mess. In fact, Mozart made no such version and merely scribbled notes on a piece of paper, twice). The rest is folklore, hyperbole and nonsense.

You asked me to identify who is 'this' Count Pallavicini. The Pallavicini were a large family. Many of them Jesuits. This is well documented. They had close association with the Cecil family of England and one of them was head of the Venetian intelligence services during the time of Elizabeth 1st. All of this is well known. Much less common is to bring these things together so that everyone can know what is being talked about. I hope this may improve the situation.


Regards

[yanni]

Never expected you would address my last in detail, Robert.

'This' count Pallavicini, already identified by italians as "Pallavicini-Durazzo', is the same man as Durazzo/Gluck/Galuppi/padre Martini-Galiani ie Gioachino Cocchi (plus many more aliases).

Will be addressing the matter soon in my other thread (Puzzle of Bach variations).

As to your 'The moderators have given us one last chance':
Speak for yourself only, please.
No thread of mine has ever been banned in this forum.

There are some of 'us' who do defend the right of free expression, you see!

My regards to you, the markiss, pyras etc!

[Musicology]

Hi there Yanni,

I am pleased you have never had a thread blocked in your entire career. This reminds me of the case of a woman who drove so slowly and without controversy that she became the most controversial driver in England - one fraustrated driver of a milk lorry doing a profitable trade in cottage cheese as the traffic jam extended more than 30 miles behind her.

But seriously, yes, the Pallavicini, besides having several members who were papal material and a few cardinals were of course well known as a Jesuit family from the 16th century. Of special interest here are those involved in acting as patrons to Mozart in Bologna during his 1770 stay. (A sheer coincidence, of course). And if you find some proofs of Pallavicini/Gluck/Galuppi/Padre Martini-Galiani/Giochino Cocchi and many other aliases being one and the same human being that would certainly justify a long post on the thread you refer to. Which would be a great service to those who would read it including myself - since that kind of post requires a trail in front rather than behind. Which you have kindly supplied.

Regards

[yanni]

Before your next accident, Robert aka the Stirling Moss of Musicology, why don't you try explaining the Grove-ling 'source-inconsistencies', evident in my post 25 above (the two or three 'padre Martini', the absolute absence of records-including Leopold Mozart's own 1770 correspondence, on his earlier 'London maestro friend'-on Cocchi's 1765 to 1771 whereabouts, on the coordinated and systematic 'blank' covering August 1770 meeting in Venice of C.Burney-whom you have thoroughly researched as you claimed to then introduce Cowper instead-with a totally unknown and equally fictitious 'abate Cirillo Martini' handing over to Burney 'greek orthodox music'*instead of the "Miserere', on Galuppi performing in Cocchi's-and Hasse's- Incurabili while Cocchi was there etc etc), instead of accusing me for jamming the road to your "blame for all" jesuits "Happy End"?

Are the "sources", singing their false tunes in harmony as above, jesuits in disguise?

Ta-ta!

*Antifonas is a greek word!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I am convinced you are keeping an elephant in your home. Whose main function is to compress your posts by sitting on them. Thus achieving for mankind in a few paragraphs a solution for the problems of the whole universe (real and supposed) but with special care taken to omit the subject of our enquiry.

You will be pleased to know the 'Miserere' of Allegri and the story of Mozart writing it down from memory in Rome will be the subject of an article to be posted here in the next week or two. As for Baldassare Galuppi ('Il Buranello') - (1706-85) that composer was closely associated with the last ruler of the Medici (Giovanni). It was the Medici who first imported texts from ancient Greece and elsewhere centuries earlier on which librettos of early operas were based. Venice being hugely important in opera development. (Where the Incurabili is located). Overseeing a huge development of opera roughly corresponding with the aims of the Council of Trent - shortly after the formation of the Venetian sponsored Jesuit Order, soon being the principal agents of Counter Reformation. A counter reformation which involved the wholesale patronage of art, sculpture and music. As for Talmudic connections of early Jesuit order members and their strong links with Venice (including the Incurabili) these are of course purely coincidental. As usual.

You are of course right Charles Burney was employed by the elites of England (as were others of the British nobility) in a growing system of cultural globalism by means of this occultism and although you never said it I feel specially generous in crediting this fact to you. (Burney's daughter, Fanny, employed for years as a personal assistant to Queen Charlotte, the German wife of George 3rd). Cardinal Contarini (of that Venetian family who provided numerous Dodges to Venice) was as you know the first patron of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit Order. And, St. Francis of Assisi was, of course, a Doge of Venice himself. Which is important because Assisi (the location) features highly in the career of Padre Martini and others of Bologna and its Aristotelian university. (The Venetians and the 'new' Venetians of the British Empire liked Aristotle's conception of government very much).

Apart from this your post seems remarkably free of inconsistencies and of genetically modified contents.

Regards

[yanni]

Yes, ace, Julius Ceasar and Marcus Antonius are to blame for occultism/globalism too.

Young Buranello's relations to Gian Gastone Medici are on record but do not refer to music exchange!

Already famous, after Gian Gastone, he was very popular in London 1741, became maestro degli Incurabili in 1762 (after Cocchi, around 1752, then corespondent only) and was then invited to Russia whereform he returned in 1768.

He was strongly influenced by "general" Koch-Cocchi-Grimm etc, was not one of his aliases, and is on record as Burney's host, August 11-16th 1770, in Venice.

He did not have one of the three copies of the Miserere to give him, ie Burney copied padre G.B.Martini's, the invention of a Cirillo Martini circulating sometime after to cover up.

[yanni]

With regard to Earl Cowper and Charles Burney, here is a question for Robert to address while racing around his groveling pile:

Did they meet at all during Burney's first trip to the continent in 1770?

According to Wikipedia, Burney ....left London in June 1770, carrying numerous letters of introduction, and travelled to Paris, Geneva, Turin, Milan, Padua, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Rome and Naples

He certainly missed 'shadowing' the Mozarts, hosted in Florence by Cowper, Martini etc, March, and in anycase, must have been in a great hurry to reach Venice early August as he did.

You know what?

There never was a real C.Burney or a real Earl Cowper either, they are both aliases of youknowho, agent of their Hannoverian -then pangermanic already-Majesties!

Ta-ta!

PS Read H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, on 'Cowpers' first and last visit to London and draw your further(!) conclusions at your ease.

[Musicology]

''There never was a real C.Burney or a real Earl Cowper either, they are both aliases of youknowho, agent of their Hannoverian -then pangermanic already-Majesties! ''(Yanni)

I find this to be nonsense and tedious nonsense ! It is as silly, as absurd, as your theory that JS Bach was the same man as GF Handel ! With not a shred of actual evidence to support it also. Despite being asked repeatedly to provide some.

Here is a painting of Charles Burney (1726-1814) - one of several - made in 1781. Would you like others ?

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

Here is a painting of the 3rd Earl Cowper (1738-1789) - one of several. Would you like others ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clavering-Cowper,_3rd_Earl_Cowper

May I suggest you stop making silly posts ? I am no longer reading any such lazy minded rubbish. My energy is devoted to other things. This thread is on W.A. Mozart. Please keep it that way. The writings of Burney and of 3rd Earl Cowper (both voluminous) are available to be seen in several libraries here in England. They are entirely different handwritings. That too is a hard and simple fact which torpedoes your latest fantasies.

Thank You.

And, while the world goes mad - some sanity -

JS Bach
Aria
Cantata 198/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7V_Dxpq4nY&feature=related

BWV 198/6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpJeLBqXVg&feature=related

[yanni]

I am truly sorry you feel that way but have to accept as sincere your rude reaction so that I may ask you, one more time, the same as previously:

Did they(Burney and Cowper) meet at all during Burney's first trip to the continent in 1770?

In http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54106&page=30 and earlier, you claimed that Burney shadowed the Mozarts in their trip to Italy, 1770, evidently ignorant even of the "fact" (Wikipedia) of Burney's alleged June 1770 departure from London (let alone your remarkable overall ignorance of history, lack of a timeline, 'divinely inspired' conclusions and/or fixated squareness).Furthermore, as 'lo scompigliato'* later claimed, further to the Miserere copy he borrowed 'sometime' from 'padre Martini' in Bologna (and the greek church music he copied from his alleged 'abate Cirillo Martini', August in Venice) he also obtained another copy, 1770, in Florence (p137, footnote 59 'W. A. Mozart',Hermann Abert,Stewart Spencer), so the question if and when he met (then or ever) his 'fellow englishman Cowper' -or the Mozarts-is very much within your subject.

As for the portraits**: 'Youknowho' bought them along with the artists, they were drawn as he wished (as his alias should, in his opinion, look), I have made this observation (in this forum -The puzzle of the socalled "Bach variations") while discussing alias 'Immanuel Kant' and his orders to his portraitist but you were propably 'elsewhere' at the time. His cousin was Charles Nicholas Cochin btw who controlled art in Paris 1750-1790's something.

Answer my question and I'll provide the solution to the puzzle (of Dennis Pajot) "Concerto for Two Lyres" attributed to "Maestro A. Mozart" [Ms. 5829-Naples] *** of 1770!

Or dissappear and I'll solve it anyway!


*Ex jesuit Requeno, naming Burney 'lo scompigliato' ('Saggj sul Ristabilimento dell' Arte Armonica de' Greci e Romani Canton' Parma, 1798), is referring to Cocchi's 'La famiglia in scompiglio' London, 1762. His (comte de Saint Germain's) cover was blown after 1784-Regensburg!

**'Burney's' portrait may be true however: He looks very much like Mozart's 'other' patron, Nicolaus von Jaquin http://www.dieuniversitaet-online.at/dossiers/beitrag/news/mozart-und-die-familie-jacquin/367.html, another alias of maestro Gioachino Cocchi/Comte de Saint Germain.

***In the MS puzzle 'Milord Cowper' IS involved (Pajot quoting Fabbri).

[yanni]

'Silentio post clamores' , freely interpreted as 'Cat got your tonque!' (affirmative)

[Musicology]

Ricetti gramezza e pavento -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYJ9aWTfndc

[yanni]

All of a sudden..."Tuo saver al tempo e l'età contrasta", dear markiss!

:ciappa:

[Musicology]

'Mozart, Munich and 1762'

(The little known 'first musical tour of the Salzburg genius', Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) in January 1762).

http://www.mediafire.com/?wl7x87jcoij23uw

R.Newman
2011

[yanni]

-Andrea Bernasconi has practicaly no biography
-1762 is very important
-'Handel/J.S.Bach/Van Swieten/An.Cocchi etc' was alive.
-'G.Cocchi/Grimm/Rousseau/Gluck/Durazzo/H.G.Koch/Hasse etc' was extremely busy
-stick to 1770 for the time being, I still have 'Durazzo(2)/Pallavicini' to clear
and
-I need another lifespan if each year is to be placed under the microscope.

Of interest the 'other' "JCBach" working for Chandos & 'Handel' in 1721, hah-hah!








'Mozart, Munich and 1762'

(The little known 'first musical tour of the Salzburg genius', Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) in January 1762).

http://www.mediafire.com/?wl7x87jcoij23uw

R.Newman
2011

[Pyras]

'Mozart, Munich and 1762'

(The little known 'first musical tour of the Salzburg genius', Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) in January 1762).

http://www.mediafire.com/?wl7x87jcoij23uw

R.Newman
2011

Thank you Robert for the link. I've read your pdf.

I think you're right. This year 1762 is very important also, for the career of Mozart. I've never thougth about that. I see that Mozart had just composed a Minuetto, or very few things, and then he did a concert in the residence of the Emperor :lol:. How could it be possible? And also what Nannerl had written is very misterious.

[yanni]

"The career of Mozart" is of minor concern to me whereas 1762 is important for my hero (who apparently patronised Mozart all along having Leopold, his trusted associate, propably substituting for him and that's why Leopold does not record the event, "Bernasconi" being an invention perhaps).

Cocchi: Alessandor nell'Indie (13.10.1761 London KT)
Gluck: Le Cadi dupé (9.12.1761 Wien B)

Mozarts in Munnich/Bernasconi

Cocchi:Le nozze di Dorina (spr.1762 London KT)
Cocchi:La famiglia in scompiglio (spr.1762 London KT) (he then dissappears from London until 1771)


"It was for Andrea Bernasconi that Gluck is said to have written his opera ‘Alceste’."

You mean Antonia?

[Pyras]

The career of Mozart is important in my opinion, because this thread is devoted to Mozart.
The pdf by Robert I see is not just about a year in general, but about a month in particular, and focuses on three weeks in that year. Interesting, because nobody studied this part of the Mozart's biography until now.
In Munich I think Leopold Mozart eventually met some important people, who probably helped him to promote Wolfgang. Who knows.............
I searched for Minuetto K1 on Kochel and in NMA edition. I see the piece is VERY simple and also short, there are others of them, all the same, and not so good. Somebody I've read in some other articles is also not sure they are written by Wolfgang Mozart.

It's very strange that Mozart was a perfomer at that time. And I wonder why in the following years nobody would remember Mozart would have performed a Concert in Munich in that Jauary 1762. Very strange indeed. What do you think Yanni?


"The career of Mozart" is of minor concern to me whereas 1762 is important for my hero (who apparently patronised Mozart all along having Leopold, his trusted associate, propably substituting for him and that's why Leopold does not record the event, "Bernasconi" being an invention perhaps).

[Musicology]

Hi there Pyras,

Thanks for that. Wurttemberg and Schwetzingen were major in the public career of young Mozart also. Yes, 1762 was a crucial year. Hopefully it shows from the very start the myth and the reality were completely different. The Minuet in F Major (KV2) must be one of the greatest works ever written by mankind. That explains it. Yes ?

:nopity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbComO-51Fk



Thank you Robert for the link. I've read your pdf.

I think you're right. This year 1762 is very important also, for the career of Mozart. I've never thougth about that. I see that Mozart had just composed a Minuetto, or very few things, and then he did a concert in the residence of the Emperor :lol:. How could it be possible? And also what Nannerl had written is very misterious.

[yanni]

"This thread is devoted to Mozart" and, soon as 1770 showed its teeth, it(thread) jumped to 1762, pyr-as*!

[Pyras]

Hi there Pyras,

Thanks for that. Wurttemberg and Schwetzingen were major in the public career of young Mozart also. Yes, 1762 was a crucial year. Hopefully it shows from the very start the myth and the reality were completely different. The Minuet in F Major (KV2) must be one of the greatest works ever written by mankind. That explains it. Yes ?

:nopity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbComO-51Fk

Yes Robert,

it's extraordinary, just because I see that these pieces are not Minuetti at all. They are not complete, also, and are very simplified versions. I think also this K1a K1b etc. were composed in 1761 or 1762 (before or after the trip to Munich?), they don't know. I suppose they seem to be, in my opinion, a sort of a kind of orchestral music simplified by Leopold, who took a piece form the violins, a piece from the Basso, and so on, just to provide a simplified and childish version. It would have been very usefull to exercice the young boy. Actually these compositions are too small to have a meaning, without a trio and so on. And too strange, for they have no context at all. They are not composed in the notebook. They are just copied in the notebook. There is no sign of mistakes, no changes were made.

[Pyras]

"This thread is devoted to Mozart" and, soon as 1770 showed its teeth, it(thread) jumped to 1762, pyr-as*!

Hi Yanni, I wonder why did you change my name.
I'm not English, but I suppose this is not the way I've answered to you. I also suppose that what do you mean is VERY impolite. So, please if you want to tell me something you cannot write here, send to me please a private message and explain me directly what do you want and why do you think I'm not allowed to write here.
I was polite with you, try to consider I'm here just because I'm interested in this topic about Mozart. If you don't like my posts, please just ignore them, ok. If you'll ask me, I'll do the same with your messages. Thank you, and consider that, because I'm not English, I have some difficulties to express my ideas.

1762 and 1770 are intersting the same, in my opinion, for these years are intended to be related to Mozart. So I thank Robert for his messages, that are giving me some links, I consider them very important and interesting.
I'd like also read your message, Yanni. But I do not understand what they have to do with Mozart and with the pdf provided by Musicologist

[yanni]

Ofcourse you are allowed to write here and express your thanks to Robert for the wonderfull job he is doing, switching subject and/or year, expanding or minimizing limits and focus, everytime the going gets tough. He has been doing it eversince coming to this forum.

We were discussing 1770 when, all of a sudden, he felt his pants were in flames (pyr in grk) and thought, wrongly as usual, he could find comfort in 1762!

Robert does have a detailed timeline afterall but uses it selectively, never going beyond Mozart's diapers.

Ta-ta!

[Pyras]

Hi Musicology

Do you think, as Yanni apparently told me, that you finished to publish chapters about 1770, or are you and Mr. Bianchini planning to talk more about that?



Hi there Pyras,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbComO-51Fk

[Musicology]

Hi there Pyras,

No, there are many subjects we can still discuss here on this thread on the subject of Mozart 1770. (Mozart was certainly not wearing 'diapers' in that year). The years between his 'first tour' to Munich of 1762 and his decade long life in Vienna (for the last 10 years of his life) in 1781 (aged 25) is (as is now able to be shown) one enormous pile of exaggerations, falsehoods, half truths, and errors, published over 200 years. Musically, culturally and historically. With virtually no cross-examination or criticism. So the fact of this may be shared freely here. This is able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. With detailed evidence. Which anyone can criticise if they wish. Or not. On issue after issue. Musically and in other ways. That is how these things are done. Or ought to be.

The best thing to do has always been to present detailed evidence. You will notice nobody has denied these little known things because they are really not able to be refuted. This is what Luca Bianchini with his extraordinary musical analysis and myself (historically and in other ways) have started to do. Freely, for readers here. With article after article to show there IS a huge problem. When this basic fact is established we can suggest how this nonsense ever came to be a standard part of our musical and cultural 'education'. A few examples from the early years of Mozart are obviously not enough and never have been. Dozens are not enough also. But there is a cutoff point (perhaps after the 3rd tour of Italy by Mozart which ended in March 1773 ? ) where it may be best to pause and offer a detailed reason for what was going on and the rise to iconic status of this still ongoing, giant fiction. A fiction which (believe it or not) continued in Vienna between 1781 and 1791. And which continued for decades after Mozart's death in 1791. (In fact, it accelerated).

Mozart and his father toured Italy three times. Their first trip (December 1769 - March 1771) introduced them to the Italian upper class, the noblesse, the higher nobility and church dignitaries and even the Pope. He met there an old friend from London, the castrate Manzuoli, and another 'wunderkind' of his own age in Florence, the English boy Thomas Linley. These two boys developed a close friendship. Pope Clement XIV conferred on W. A. Mozart the Order of the Golden Spur, making the composer "Sir Wolfgang, Signore Cavaliere Mozart". In Bologna Mozart is even said to have studied counterpoint with the Franciscan Padre Martini. Which, as we have already seen, is simply not true. He later conducted 'his' opera Mitridate, Re di Ponto Milan. Details of we will also examine here on this thread.

Father and son set off again from Salzburg for Milan in August 1771. Mozart is then credited with writing "Ascanio di Alba" as a wedding gift for the Archduke Ferdinand to Princess Beatrice of Modena. The Mozarts again returned to Italy from October 1772 to March 1773. Mozart having been commissioned by Milan to write another opera. The premiere of "Lucio Silla" was itself catastrophic. As a consequence, Mozart failed to receive any further commissions from Italy.

Close to 20 articles could be written on the Italian years alone. Proving beyond fair and reasonable doubt the 'genius of Salzburg' is literally riddled with major problems. His later visit to Paris of the same kind as is the background to the Munich opera of 1780'Idomeneo'.

And all of this before Mozart even comes to live in Vienna for his final decade.

If you have questions on 1770 and Mozart please post them here and I will see if we can help.

Best wishes



Hi Musicology

Do you think, as Yanni apparently told me, that you finished to publish chapters about 1770, or are you and Mr. Bianchini planning to talk more about that?

[yanni]

one enormous pile of exaggerations, falsehoods, half truths, and errors, published over 200 years

There is indeed one Mozart pile, as you say.....

....and then there are the "Cocceji", "Koch", "Melchior Grimm", "Jean Jacques Rousseau", "Pierre Michel Hennin","Marquiss de Chastellux", Gioachino Cocchi, "W.C.Gluck", "Franz Joseph Haydn", "Frederick de Nicolay", "Immanuel Kant", "Martin Wieland", "Casanova", "Philidor", "JA Hasse", "baron Stroganov", Antonio Cocchi, "Amyand", "Fr.Handel", "J.S.Bach", "Gerhard van Swieten", "Desaguliers", ....."padre Martini" (three piles), "abbe Galiani", "Muslivecek", "Durazzo"(two), "Pallavicini", "Cowper", "Marquiss de Ligninville", "C.Burney" .....etc etc piles (quoting from memory, never really bothered listing all "comte de Saint Germain's" aliases, nor his father's). And you can't really separate the Mozart pile from the rest because the Mozarts were absolutely dependent from "them all".

to present detailed evidence. ....This is what Luca Bianchini with his extraordinary musical analysis and myself (historically and in other ways) have started to do

Keep up the good work and here is a whitewash recipy to help you along for a piu bianco bianchino for your goats: http://fiascofarm.com/recipes/whitewash.html

And which continued for decades after Mozart's death in 1791.

Wolfie didn't die in 1791, as you well know (ie you are "at it", rather "in it", throat deep again). He lived happily as Niessen* with his wifie and was busy curing his (your, our) manure to the end of his life, along with his life-long sponsor "C.L.von Nicolai"/Saint Germain, living at the time (1815 plus) across the pond in Vyborg. Everything, all memoirs, letter exchange, testimonies, later studies, was and still is 'manufactured'.

It all started early 18th century in masonic/banking lodges in german ruled London, it's the most revolting, disgusting story of THE conspiracy of crooked greedy fools who, after stealing eastern 'gnosis' in every possible manner, further developed it, industrially, for their own profit, while playing God and cheating others, their own people or their 'enemies', provoking wars for profit, blackmail, usury, world governance. They called it "philosophy" and "democracy", "new social contract" and "the people's freedom". Rome (a part at least) played along after 1770 or so.

It's "our" only "story", I fear, "we" have no other....but it was- and still is-an evil farce!

:nopity:

*See post 343 and later of http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=836028&highlight=Nissen#post836028

[ERS]

In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases :lol:?) wrote the Opera "Demifoonte."
Also, Vanhal's popularity, shortly after some of his symphonies were published, was such that his music was performed in the Colonies.

Is it true that Vanhal's output (he wrote ~ 1,200 works) inexplicably "paused" when he lived near Mozart?

[Musicology]

Hi there ERS,

The opera 'Mitradate' that is attributed to Mozart and which was premiered in his name in Milan in 1770 during his first tour contains music by at least two composers, Josef Myslivececk (1737-81) and Francesco Gasparini (1661-1721).

As for the Bohemian composer GB Vanhal, yes, he stopped publishing his music in Vienna shortly after 1781 and the story was invented in Vienna he was mentally ill. This conveniently removes from access a major composer of huge importance to Mozart (as he had been since long before he arrived in Vienna). At the library of the Gesselschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna is a short, handwritten (and unpublished) biography of Vanhal's career written soon after his death which tells us he personally went to meet Mozart at the time Mozart arrived to live in Vienna in 1781 and presented him at that meeting with a keyboard sonata of his own composition. (A practice which, for W.A. Mozart, appears to have been rather common ! ). Numerous church works by Vanhal made during this Mozart decade are remarkably 'Mozartean' and have, until recently, not been performed or at all appreciated. The fact Vanhal lived as a virtual next door neighbour to Mozart during his Vienna decade (and particularly around the time of the premiere of Le Nozze di Figaro' in 1786) is of course a sheer coincidence. The kind which we get used to in this area of research. The lists of published music by this remarkable composer (mostly symphonies and chamber music) by Viennese publishers of the 1770's and their popularity at the time will confirm the above. There are also (I am told) almost 9 remarkable masses by Vanhal from this silent period of 1780 and beyond, only 2 of which I have heard.

I hope that an article on 'Mitridate' can be published here before long.

G.B. Vanhal
Symphony in D Major
c. 1775-6

1st Movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMa_BAW4RI&feature=related

Regards



In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases :lol:?) wrote the Opera "Demifoonte."
Also, Vanhal's popularity, shortly after some of his symphonies were published, was such that his music was performed in the Colonies.

Is it true that Vanhal's output (he wrote ~ 1,200 works) inexplicably "paused" when he lived near Mozart?

[yanni]

By all indications the answer is yes but I'll be able to confirm 'alias Vanhal' if the exact date and place where .....English music historian Charles Burney visited Vanhal in 1772 (Wiki) ......is provided by any daring/truth-seeking english musicologist, once recovered. But then he, our ideal musicologist, would have to first respond somehow to the puzzle of "Concerto for Two Lyres" attributed to "Maestro A. Mozart" [Ms. 5829-Naples] , bring Rosetti and Ordonez into the 1770 picture, to then speak about the Sturm und Drang period of Vienna* and F.J.Haydn/Vanhal/Ordonez/Rosetti's:lol: relative change of style (running in parallel to the Cocchi-to-'Gluck' tranformation) etc etc.

And then address Michael Kelly's credibility as "source"!

PS It's "Demofonte" actuallly!

*'The first golden age of the Viennese symphony: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert' by A. Peter Brown

:nopity:


In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases :lol:?) wrote the Opera "Demifoonte."

[Musicology]

There are numerous other posts available on other aspects of Mozart's first tour of Italy in 1770 and some of these can be made soon.

[yanni]

Will Johann Georg Sulzer and his book 'Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, Leipzig 1771' be included in your forthcoming endeavours?

:lol:


There are numerous other posts available on other aspects of Mozart's first tour of Italy in 1770 and some of these can be made soon.

[Pyras]

There are numerous other posts available on other aspects of Mozart's first tour of Italy in 1770 and some of these can be made soon.

Yes I think it is a good idea, just to talk about few things, not to mix all together.

This K.44 is related to Antiphon K.86 that's because this K.44 was used to prove Mozart that Martini was his teacher.
I suppose K.44 is piece well written, but I see that it is not by Mozart. It is a piece of later Renaissance, not a 1770 composition as it is written in my CD :).

But I also see that, according to the examples given in pdf, there are also mistakes in the Antiphon K.86, the one written by Mozart. That's the reason Martini wrote another version of this Antiphon. So I wonder why Mozart cannot control voices inside a vocal piece? That's strange. I see there are also errors, braking the rules of Philarmonic Academy, in the parts. I see Mozart cannot write simple imitations in K.86, he cannot control parts that produce parallel octaves, and parallelism in conducting parts, is a way to show that the composer actually wrote voices that are not indipendent. Mozart I see cannot prepare and resolve dissonancies. He used an instrumental language, but he was requested to write a vocal piece in ancient style. At least I see so in the example provided in .pdf. I see the piece also in Mozart Critical Edition. It is so, no doubts. That's very strange.

[Musicology]

Thanks Pyras,

Yes, KV44 is routinely used to 'prove' Martini was Mozart's teacher. And yes, it's an arrangement of a late Renaissance work written by him in Salzburg before he ever got to Italy. Do you think they are going to tell you that ?? No, you are right. And why is that ? It's because they deserve work mopping floors or baking bread. This is systematic fiction.

As for the Antifon KV86 it's a shameless piece of work. But most amazing is the fact this boy could not possibly have written anything of musical quality before or after this exam for voices or independent parts. Which is precisely what we find months and many years later in the actual evidence !

Take, as one great example, Mozart's canons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(music)

http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/ca_12.html

(Some of these were produced when he was more than 30 years old in Vienna). But virtually all are written in octaves, in unison. For soprano voices. And virtually every single published reference source discussing these same canons of Mozart describes them as being wonderful works from a 'genius' composer ! The truth is any 14 year old music student could do better. But the same nonsense celebration of those works is even found in the Critical Edition of Mozarts works. (A standard work read everywhere on Mozart). Here is a list of Mozart's canons -

Really, it's laughable nonsense ! It's dishonest. It's untrue. And yet nobody ever tells the truth about this. Why ?

Is there are single music teacher or music writer who can show us the musical value of Mozart's musical canons ? Let him/her post here. Any of them ? No, of course not. They have urgent appointments elsewhere. Because they're all nonsense. Most of these works are musical canons stolen from others. And they are still nonsense even in Mozart's plagiarised versions of them !


Yes I think it is a good idea, just to talk about few things, not to mix all together.

This K.44 is related to Antiphon K.86 that's because this K.44 was used to prove Mozart that Martini was his teacher.
I suppose K.44 is piece well written, but I see that it is not by Mozart. It is a piece of later Renaissance, not a 1770 composition as it is written in my CD :).

But I also see that, according to the examples given in pdf, there are also mistakes in the Antiphon K.86, the one written by Mozart. That's the reason Martini wrote another version of this Antiphon. So I wonder why Mozart cannot control voices inside a vocal piece? That's strange. I see there are also errors, braking the rules of Philarmonic Academy, in the parts. I see Mozart cannot write simple imitations in K.86, he cannot control parts that produce parallel octaves, and parallelism in conducting parts, is a way to show that the composer actually wrote voices that are not indipendent. Mozart I see cannot prepare and resolve dissonancies. He used an instrumental language, but he was requested to write a vocal piece in ancient style. At least I see so in the example provided in .pdf. I see the piece also in Mozart Critical Edition. It is so, no doubts. That's very strange.

[yanni]

Can an abstract theory of Empfindsamkeit aesthetics have any value to a musician wishing to study composition in the classical style(?). The eighteenth-century German theorist and pedagogue Heinrich Koch showed how this question could be answered with a resounding yes. Starting with the systematic aesthetic theory of the Swiss encyclopedist Johann Sulzer, Koch was creatively able to adapt Sulzer's conservative ideas on ethical mimesis and rhetoric to concrete problems of music analysis and composition. In this collaborative study, Thomas Christensen and Nancy Baker have translated and analysed selected writings of Sulzer and Koch respectively, bringing to life a little-known confluence of philosophical and musical thought from the German Enlightenment. Koch's appropriation of Sulzer's ideas to the service of music represents an important development in the evolution of Western musical thought.

So it is really essential to reestablish and reconfirm the absolutely 'central european' origins of "Johann Georg Sulzer" even if his portrait mirrors our very own 'Frederic de Nicolay' or 'Friedrich Nicolai', his absolutely anglosaxon publisher!

Much like J.S.Bach's/Fr. Handel's likeness to Antonio Cocchi's 'friend', Bernardo Tanucci, host of the Mozarts etc in Naples, 1770: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tanucci_Bernardo_01.jpg

Uomo, come io sono,non puo mancare, e s'io non fossi, un altro sarebe sulla scena in cui sono io, con poca differenza sello spetacolo. Tanucci to Antonio Cocchi 29 July 1755.
'A man like me cannot lie and (but) if I don't another will be on stage with little difference to the show'


IE


"Johann Sebastian Bach/Georg Friedrich Handel/Claudius Amyand/Desaguliers/Gerhard van Swieten" ie Antonio Cocchi* died as 'marchese Bernardo Tanucci', (see http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/Tanucci.html and http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofpopesfr37past/historyofpopesfr37past_djvu.txt), 1783 or 1793.

*For an early, Florence about 1734, portrait of Antonio Cocchi see http://www.chimera160.it/pdf/accad.pdf : His later 'portliness' is already evident (and so is his likeness to later 'Bach/Handel' portraits).


:lol::lol::lol::lol: ('Koch' chorus).

There are just a few more questions still to answer on 18th century classical music masters, but for the moment our ideal english musicologist should focus on H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, on 'Cowpers' first and last visit to London and then grace us with his re conclusions.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Since we are focused on W.A. Mozart, and especially on Mozart during the year 1770 (during his first of three Italian tours) the question of the aliases who were associated with furthering his career at that time or any other, whether there were three, five, or twenty nine is really of secondary importance. Of prime importance is to establish for anyone who wishes to see it (by documentary, historical and musical proof) that there is a subject worthy of study by anyone. Namely, the false/manufactured musical career of W.A. Mozart. Without the scale of this falsified career being shown by evidence it would be pointless to drift in to discussions such as the role of this man, or that man, or any other men. Alias or not. Nor would it be appropriate to discuss how the fairy story was achieved, by whom, and why. Aliases are a major factor in the ‘show business’ world of 18th century opera. That is a fact. Nobody disagrees with that. But there are a series of music related articles still to come on 1770 and music that is (and always has been) attributed to him. By the end of which (on 1770 and on the early years) you can indulge yourself in discussing as many aliases or supposed aliases as you please. Since rule number one in an area as controversial as this is to first establish that there is a subject worthy of examination. And there is. But many believe differently. That is why the priority remains to provide a series of proofs on the actual music, the actual track record of it being attributed (wrongly) to the ‘genius’ of Mozart. Which, I believe (and so do others) is able to speak for itself. But which first needs to be demonstrated with more of the same.

And let us see if critics can reply to what is presented. I think you see the answer. And, if not, you soon will.

You have complained in the past of 'switching' from period to period, and from subject to subject. Fine. That was because the subject is a large one. So we are now focused on music attributed to W.A. Mozart from the time of his first tour to Italy. We are fixed upon it. And, as you see, there is no answer to what has been presented. Because it speaks for itself. 'They' have no answer. Why is this ? Because it is the actual evidence.

[yanni]

Oh no, not back to the diapers again!

You tend to forget that
-Mozart's manufacture never was disputed by me and that
-my disagreement was on the identity of his manufacturer.

This condition of yours seems to worsten the more facts are known on the manufacturer, the more aliases are identified, the more info is made available on his links to british diplomacy, on his financial ties and allegiance to Britain!

Such is the case with 'Cowper' and H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, which, believe it or not, is very much related to 1770 and the Mozarts.

You just don't -wish to-know it!

[Musicology]

Yanni, believe it or not there are many people who do NOT know that the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart is a plain, verifiable fact. And since they require more than games with multiple personalities and aliases that is what is the priority. But you are free to make a thread of your own on that subject. At any time. This thread is on Mozart, and it is dealing with the music that is attributed to him from the time of his first tour to Italy. On which you (and anyone else) can see documentary and other evidence.

If you wish to provide us with evidence of multiple aliases please do so. Nobody has ever stopped you.

I am well aware of Cowper's relationship to Britain and to the Holy Roman Empire. More than you may realise. (He became an aristocrat of the Holy Roman Empire himself and almost never visited England after his arrival in Italy). And I am well aware of Walpole's correspondence with Horace Mann.

If you wish to tell us about H. Walpole's letter to Horace Mann of 29th May 1786 please do so. Especially if it relates to Mozart and 1770.

What I wish to know is why you don't tell us ? So that we can all see it for ourselves.

[yanni]

Here are the most revealing parts of Horace Walpole's letter of May 29, 1786:

....to see an English Earl who has passed thirty years in Florence and is more proud of a Pinchbeck principality and a paltry order from Wirtenberg than he was of being a peer of Great Britain when Britain was something....

He answered very well to my idea, for I should have taken his Highness for a Doge of Genoa;he has the awkward dignity of a temporary representative of temporal powers.

What is Walpole writing about?

Did 'your Cowper' ever receive his orders from Wirtenberg, pretend to be a Doge of Genoa or temporarily represented a temporal power?

'Mine' did!

Ta-ta!

PS As for Cowper's 'principality', I'll leave it for later.



I am well aware of Cowper's relationship to Britain and to the Holy Roman Empire. More than you may realise. (He became an aristocrat of the Holy Roman Empire himself and almost never visited England after his arrival in Italy). And I am well aware of Walpole's correspondence with Horace Mann.

If you wish to tell us about H. Walpole's letter to Horace Mann of 29th May 1786 please do so. Especially if it relates to Mozart and 1770.

What I wish to know is why you don't tell us ? So that we can all see it for ourselves.

[Musicology]

Yanni wrote this in his previous post -

''Such is the case with 'Cowper' and H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, which, believe it or not, is very much related to 1770 and the Mozarts''

Great ! Please tell us the details of the relationship between this letter of May 29th 1786 and Mozart's visit to Italy of 1770 !! We are STILL waiting. This is request number 3.

I think you are becoming an obscurantist, once again. Try walking in the sunshine.

And now we see how wise it is to stay on our subject of Mozart. Since your letter does NOT 'very much' relate to Mozart and 1770. Does it ? You have showed no such relationship. As everyone can see. Do some homework please !

If we cannot deal with simple things, how can we deal with harder ones ? I stay with what is already being done - the early tours on Mozart. Which lead, step by step in to areas which cannot be (and were not) by Mozart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfdI6zlL65A&feature=related

'And who would credit that ? None. One works. And I have already. And yet you will hear them always '

(Maria Theresia von Paradis)
1759-1824

[yanni]

You skipped answering my previous post by referring to the one before.

I repeat:

Did 'your Cowper' ever receive his orders from Wirtenberg, pretend to be a Doge of Genoa or temporarily represented a temporal power?

If you have difficulty answering, ie Walpole's- 'pearl' of a- letter is 'all greek to you', why don't you just admit it?

Ta-ta!




Yanni wrote this in his previous post -

''Such is the case with 'Cowper' and H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, which, believe it or not, is very much related to 1770 and the Mozarts''

Great ! Please tell us the details of the relationship between this letter of May 29th 1786 and Mozart's visit to Italy of 1770 !! We are STILL waiting. This is request number 3.

I think you are becoming an obscurantist, once again. Try walking in the sunshine.

And now we see how wise it is to stay on our subject of Mozart. Since your letter does NOT 'very much' relate to Mozart and 1770. Does it ? You have showed no such relationship. As everyone can see. Do some homework please !

If we cannot deal with simple things, how can we deal with harder ones ? I stay with what is already being done - the early tours on Mozart. Which lead, step by step in to areas which cannot be (and were not) by Mozart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfdI6zlL65A&feature=related

'And who would credit that ? None. One works. And I have already. And yet you will hear them always '

(Maria Theresia von Paradis)
1759-1824

[Musicology]

You are talking of Cowper and a letter he received in 1786. But this thread is talking about Mozart of 1770 in Italy and subjects related to it. Isn't it ? And you are going to show us connections between these two different things, aren't you ? That is what you have told us here on this thread. In fact, you have repeated it over and over. So here is request number 4. Please show us the connections. Can you do it ? Or is it yet another example of you talking in riddles ?

I have better things to do than be diverted from the actual subject of this thread by endless obscurantism that leads nowhere. We deserve better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALeCjl70m58



You skipped answering my previous post by referring to the one before.

I repeat:

Did 'your Cowper' ever receive his orders from Wirtenberg, pretend to be a Doge of Genoa or temporarily represented a temporal power?

If you have difficulty answering, ie Walpole's- 'pearl' of a- letter is 'all greek to you', why don't you just admit it?

Ta-ta!

And while we wait for Yanni's reply - a little dance music -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ten_1SkCiDY&feature=related

Followed by several more articles on Mozart 1770.

[yanni]

See what you can do then with your "Mozart in Italy, 1770-71"

Here is what Walpole was referring to in May, 1786:

'Doge of Genoa'=Marcello Durazzo* (February 3, 1767 to February 16, 1769)
'orders from Wirtenberg'=Ferdinand Friedrich von Nicolai*(commissioned Wurtemberg's general, 1786)
'temporarily representative'=Marquiss de Chastelux*
'temporal power'=USA
'Pinchbeck principality'=Monaco (under chevalier Antoine de Grimaldi* until 1784).


early 1771 timeline

January 22 Prince Henry of Prussia visits Russia and proposes partition of Poland.

Jean-Frédéric-Henri baron de Cocceji* lieutenant-colonel et adjudant du Roi, nommé envoyé extraordinaire de Prusse à Stockholm le 17 novembre 1763, rappelé le 28 janvier 1771.

9 February 1771 King=s Semiramide Riconosciuta.By Giovan Gualberto Bottarelli (librettist) and Gioacchino Cocchi (composer).Opera.

March 3, 1771 Leopold (51) and Wolfgang Amadeus (15) meet with Count Giacomo Durazzo*,Imperial ambassador to Venice.

March 4-13th Mozart receives a commission for a second Milan opera, to be performed in 1772. It will be Lucio Silla (K. 135). Mozart receives commission for La Betulia liberata (K. 118).


*Alias of Gioachino Cocchi/Saint Germain.





You are talking of Cowper and a letter he received in 1786. But this thread is talking about Mozart of 1770 in Italy and subjects related to it. Isn't it ? And you are going to show us connections between these two different things, aren't you ? That is what you have told us here on this thread. In fact, you have repeated it over and over. So here is request number 4. Please show us the connections. Can you do it ? Or is it yet another example of you talking in riddles ?

I have better things to do than be diverted from the actual subject of this thread by endless obscurantism that leads nowhere. We deserve better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALeCjl70m58

[Musicology]

Here is the real story of still another musical work, the 'Miserere', falsely attributed today to W.A. Mozart from his first tour of Italy in 1770. (Known in the Mozart catalogue as KV 85).

See this article by Luca Bianchini -

''Considerations on the Supposed Musical Teaching of Mozart by Padre Martini of Bologna''

http://www.mediafire.com/?8agr218yx5ae8db

[Pyras]

Thank you,

I've just read the pdf. Yes. It's also an important document that helps me to understand the problematic situation. I wonder how it is possible the considered experts in Mozart not only took ‘Cibavit’ written around 1600 as a piece by Mozart and have even confused the Antifona provided to Mozart by Martini (KV86) with one made by Mozart himself, and confuse music written around 1840 with Martini's music.
:willy_nilly:

About Mozart
I completely agree with Johann Simon Mayr, contemporary of Mozart (I think) (quoted at the very beginning of the pdf) that «Real genius is sacred, not drunken, is educated, not born, is inflamed by sentiment, purified by intellect, endowed by nature and developed by study. That which is rumoured as being blind genius is nothing but a fabulous legend. In Music knowledge gained by musicians has nothing to do with carefree students who are empty of any schooling or art»



Here is the real story of still another musical work, the 'Miserere', falsely attributed today to W.A. Mozart from his first tour of Italy in 1770. (Known in the Mozart catalogue as KV 85).

See this article by Luca Bianchini -

''Considerations on the Supposed Musical Teaching of Mozart by Padre Martini of Bologna''

http://www.mediafire.com/?8agr218yx5ae8db

[Emil Miller]

This charade has been extended beyond endurance. I never thought that Elvis Presley could be useful for anything, except making money out of suckers, but I was wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzV_0l5ILI

[Musicology]

Thank you Pyras,

In our brief study of the early touring years of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) we have taken the unusual (unprecedented) step of presenting actual evidence (musical, biographical and other kinds) for readers on a few musical works related to Munich and the first made with his father Leopold to Italy in 1770. Which have been contradicted by nobody. Not even the Austrian Tourist Board ! Providing (in a style intended to survive apathy and scrutiny) information on the documentary and other evidence on which, as we see, gross contradiction, institutionalised falsehood, new levels of exaggeration and downright fabrication have been until now its substitute. And we have sailed fearlessly against a tide of indifference, misinformation, eulogy, and science fiction. In pursuit of a history of music based upon reality.

You are right to ask how the progress of this young musical genius will continue to unfold in a land (Italy) which, of course, has been as speechless of the 'Salzburg phenomenon' as anywhere else. Any errors found in standard textbooks on Mozart (his life and career) are of course merely accidental and understandable on an issue which defies human comprehension and even which defies criticism. We have modestly not yet discussed the details of the famous first concert given by Mozart in Mantua (which is itself part of this folklore) and nor have we yet examined the legendary feats of memory shown by this ''wunderkind'' in Rome, (when he is reputed to have copied from memory an entire church piece of Signor Allegri at the Sistine Chapel). Nor have we covered the presentation to this young prodigy, this Graduate of the Academy of Bologna, of the Order of the Golden Spur with the approval and admiration of the papacy. (Which was a feat in itself). But these facts (it is said) would settle any controversy on the talents and abilities of this young genius. Any suggestion we are being 'led down the garden path' on musical history over the past 200 years should of course be rejected. Since everyone knows 'everything we have heard is true'.

I have the suspicion that another series of articles on the tour of 1770 (including these legendary events mentioned above) will add to our picture in removing from our landscape a megalith of grotesque size which has deliberately obscured the musical sunlight and has made fools of us all. Till now.

Further revelations will continue to unfold on the musical career of the said Mozart in the years 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780 and his entire last decade (1781-1791) on which the findings of equally detailed study shall receive a fair hearing.

You are perfectly right to ask how, if Mozart's first years are so riddled with falsehood he should be automatically attributed with the hundreds of musical masterpieces which we stoically believe he wrote from this time onwards. The answer to which, of course, humbles all of us who have examined it and which reminds that truth is free of charge and is a natural product of musicology. Indeed, the findings of real research are the natural and unwelcome andidote to folklore and institutionalised fiction. As is a necessary criticism of convention itself. The sole controversy being the fact that criticism of this monument to human gullibility has never had a fair hearing of this kind. Till now.


Thank you,

I've just read the pdf. Yes. It's also an important document that helps me to understand the problematic situation. I wonder how it is possible the considered experts in Mozart not only took ‘Cibavit’ written around 1600 as a piece by Mozart and have even confused the Antifona provided to Mozart by Martini (KV86) with one made by Mozart himself, and confuse music written around 1840 with Martini's music.
:willy_nilly:

About Mozart
I completely agree with Johann Simon Mayr, contemporary of Mozart (I think) (quoted at the very beginning of the pdf) that «Real genius is sacred, not drunken, is educated, not born, is inflamed by sentiment, purified by intellect, endowed by nature and developed by study. That which is rumoured as being blind genius is nothing but a fabulous legend. In Music knowledge gained by musicians has nothing to do with carefree students who are empty of any schooling or art»

[yanni]

Thank you Pyras,

And we have sailed fearlessly against a tide of indifference, misinformation, eulogy, and science fiction. In pursuit of a history of music based upon reality.

....the fact that criticism of this monument to human gullibility has never had a fair hearing of this kind. Till now.


When you finally sail past Mozart's diapers, let me know!

:lol:

[Musicology]

I would not dream of asking when you stopped wearing diapers Yanni. Although it's my duty to point out that Mozart, in 1770, was 14 years old. (Having been born in 1756).

And you believe he was still wearing diapers at that time, don't you ?

:nod:


When you finally sail past Mozart's diapers, let me know!

:lol:

[Emil Miller]

Reading this, I've just realised there might be something to this argument after all:

Amadeus Wolfgang Mozart was arguably the world's first rock star and his father was his road manager. His birth name, Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Theophilus, was changed to Amadeus, the Latin translation of Theophilus, and as it sounded quite cool, his wise old dad picked it for his signature or stage name. Eat your heart out Madonna and all you other aliases.
Instead of a rattle, he was given a musical talent at birth. This he played loudly and frequently for the duration of his short life. He was a child protegee, virtually at birth, and beat out masterpieces with his spoon on his bowl of mashed veggies, to the great admiration of his father who set out to make him a star. So great was his old man's resolve and so skillful his marketing ability to promote his son's genius, that Mozart is still with us. He lives on, not only in concert halls, but also on stage and the big screen where we indulge him the odd fart.

[Musicology]

Yes Brian,

Which brings to mind that advertisement for a well known Danish beer ''able to reach parts that others cannot''. Since it's an established fact that the dulcit tones of Wolfgang can increase the IQ of the unborn child, can increase yields for tomato growers, even pacify patients at dental surgeries etc. since it has ingredients which have no genetically modified contents or artificial sweeteners whatsover.

I had been so busy gazing at this subject, and for so long - (one which has the ability to change colour and expand like a bubble floating on the academic and public imagination high above the 18th century musical landscape and transcending it at every honest attempt to pin it down) that I wondered how it first came to assume such a mystical/trascendental glow and could to this day so easily escape from criticism. So that I was faced with a number of options -

1. To think of Mozart as a Proteus, a slippery eel, to whom we must all bend the knee if we are to be musically educated or even cultured. Or, alternatively,

2. To think of Mozart as something else that I and all others must accept if we are prepared to examine the actual evidence.

The only other option being to believe -

3. That Mozart falls in to that category (newly invented at the time of himself) called 'genius', which we must never cross-examine nor question in any meangingful sense if we wish to be invited to garden parties. A paradigm, in fact, and of a specially seductive kind.

And thus, in this bewildered state, when trawling through books and articles that have been published on him and his life for close to 200 years I was drawn to the heretical idea that the facts of the case may have survived all these attempts to suppress or distort them. Though I kept my mind open on that possibility for many years. Discovering only in recent years (and to my great surprise) some highly talented researchers have been doing the very same. With the same results.

None of which alters the fact this body of music (much of it being of wonderful quality) exists. Though nobody has ever doubted that. But from which critical perspective it was possible to consider the manufacture of a virtual pantheon of great composers by patrons, managers and later biographers of whom Mozart (and a handful of others) were deliberately designed to be members - with all the resources of the emerging music industry etc - the net effect of which has been as we see - the silencing of all criticism and the effective hijacking of musicology as we know it. The slopes of the vast and now familiar Mozartean mountain towering upwards to include 'unchallengable' works such as dozens of mature symphonies, masses, operas, concertos and sonatas.

How and why this was done are questions which flow from the above and on which, again, I think we, today, are able to provide some answers. Though it is only a part of the whole process. It must first be established there is a subject worthy of study before we attempt to provide an explanation for it. Here, in early 2011, I am not alone in thinking virtually nothing attributed to W.A. Mozart was actually composed by him. The implications of which differ depending on whom we talk to. The interests of others being a factor in them remaining silent on it.

Examining these early years of Mozart may be compared to being at the shoreline of that great ocean which is 'Mozart study'. Although I have found nothing from his middle and later years which causes me or others to change our considered verdict. I can only suppose that expertise exists (in a biographical or musical sense) which is about to leap unitedly to his defence. Having exhausted its supply of smoke and mirrors.

'They' have literally invented musical history. Most certainly 'they' have.

Regards




Reading this, I've just realised there might be something to this argument after all:

Amadeus Wolfgang Mozart was arguably the world's first rock star and his father was his road manager. His birth name, Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Theophilus, was changed to Amadeus, the Latin translation of Theophilus, and as it sounded quite cool, his wise old dad picked it for his signature or stage name. Eat your heart out Madonna and all you other aliases.
Instead of a rattle, he was given a musical talent at birth. This he played loudly and frequently for the duration of his short life. He was a child protegee, virtually at birth, and beat out masterpieces with his spoon on his bowl of mashed veggies, to the great admiration of his father who set out to make him a star. So great was his old man's resolve and so skillful his marketing ability to promote his son's genius, that Mozart is still with us. He lives on, not only in concert halls, but also on stage and the big screen where we indulge him the odd fart.

[Emil Miller]

I thought I was being ironic but, then again, perhaps you are being so too.
In connection with my post, I thought it appropriate to include a quotation from my novel A Tangled Web which deals, inter alia, with the promotion of pop music.

“Well Mozart wrote background music and the electric guitar is the favoured choice of instrument nowadays. In my day it was the clarinet or the trumpet,” said Mr Silberman.

“Mozart did write Tafelmusik but it was composed and notated, not sung along to an electric guitar. Moreover, he didn’t walk about in a pair of jeans with his knees hanging out like a farm labourer and revel in the vernacular. Of course the electric guitar is the favoured instrument today rather than the clarinet or trumpet, and why? I’ll tell you why, it’s because you can’t strum a reed or a brass instrument, both of which have to be learned,” said Jolyon contemptuously.

[yanni]

After Mozart's diapers, Robert, you might as well start cleaning 'Burney's' Crotch*

Ta-ta.

*C. Burney(Wikipedia): In 1779 he wrote for the Royal Society an account of the young William Crotch, his next wunderkind, at the time aged five.


I would not dream of asking when you stopped wearing diapers Yanni. Although it's my duty to point out that Mozart, in 1770, was 14 years old. (Having been born in 1756).

And you believe he was still wearing diapers at that time, don't you ?

:nod:

[Musicology]

Yes, Yanni

This is a good example. William Crotch (1775-1847) is certainly another example of Charles Burney and the 'Enlightenment' obssession with what soon became known as musical genius. The talents of Crotch were equally exaggerated from the start. Baron Knigge (a leader of the German llluminati) was involved in first publishing Charles Burney's Musical Tour book into the German language. The same Knigge who is credited with writing the first German libretto of the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Whose association with the house of Hanover is, of course, merely coincidental.



After Mozart's diapers, Robert, you might as well start cleaning 'Burney's' Crotch*

Ta-ta.

*C. Burney(Wikipedia): In 1779 he wrote for the Royal Society an account of the young William Crotch, his next wunderkind, at the time aged five.

[yanni]

Yes, just don't use bleach!

Ta-ta!



Yes, Yanni

This is a good example. William Crotch (1775-1847) is certainly another example of Charles Burney and the 'Enlightenment' obssession with what soon became known as musical genius. The talents of Crotch were equally exaggerated from the start. Baron Knigge (a leader of the German llluminati) was involved in first publishing Charles Burney's Musical Tour book into the German language. The same Knigge who is credited with writing the first German libretto of the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Whose association with the house of Hanover is, of course, merely coincidental.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

No additives or artificial sweeteners !! And no bleach also.

J.S. Bach (1685-1750)
Fantasie
BWV 903/1

Masaaki Suzuki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHtgLlwFcG8&feature=related

[yanni]

Handel/Bach died as Bernardo Tanucci, sometime after 1784.

Ta-ta!


Yanni,

No additives or artificial sweeteners !! And no bleach also.

J.S. Bach (1685-1750)
Fantasie
BWV 903/1

Masaaki Suzuki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHtgLlwFcG8&feature=related

[Musicology]

No, Yanni. I think you are on the wrong thread.

A number of other musical articles will shortly be posted here soon on Mozart's first Italian tour of 1770. From which readers can of course draw their own conclusions on the evidence presented.

[yanni]

Perhaps, but your performance in 'cleaner cleaning' history and musicology is so wonderfull, I just can't miss it!

Carry on, champ!


No, Yanni. I think you are on the wrong thread.

Earlier attempts to obtain a cleaner clean failed:

It took Hawkins 16 years to write A General History of the Science and Practice of Music which was published in 1776. Although this publication was somewhat respected, it soon was overshadowed, with the help of the likes such as Dr Callcott who composed a mockery song against Hawkins [2], by Charles Burney's General History of Music (1776-89). However, in years to come Hawkins's music history was considered to be superior to Burney's music history (compare the 1875 edition of Hawkins's work). Particularly, Burney's discourse on Handel and Bach was viewed as being inadequate [3].

:lol:

[Musicology]

In the words of Charles McKay author of - 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'

''In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously
impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. We see one nation suddenly seized, from its highest to its lowest members, with a fierce desire of military glory; another as suddenly becoming crazed upon a religious scruple, and neither of them recovering its senses
until it has shed rivers of blood and sowed a harvest of groans and tears, to be reaped by its posterity. At an early age in the annals of Europe its population lost their wits about the Sepulchre of Jesus, and crowded in frenzied multitudes to the Holy Land: another age went mad for fear of the Devil, and offered up hundreds of thousands of victims to the delusion of witchcraft. At another time, the many became crazed on the subject of the Philosopher's Stone, and committed follies till then unheard of in the pursuit. It was once thought a venial offence in very many countries of Europe to destroy an enemy by slow poison. Persons who would have revolted at the idea of stabbing a man to the heart, drugged his pottage without scruple. Ladies of gentle birth and manners caught the contagion of murder, until poisoning, under their auspices, became quite fashionable. Some delusions, though notorious to all the world, have subsisted for ages, flourishing as widely among civilized and polished nations as among the early barbarians with whom they originated, -- that of duelling, for instance, and the belief in omens and divination of the future, which seem to defy the progress of knowledge to eradicate entirely from the popular mind. Money, again, has often been a cause of the delusion of multitudes. Sober nations have all at once become desperate gamblers, and risked almost their existence upon the turn of a piece of paper.

To trace the history of the most prominent of these delusions is the object of the present pages. Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one''.

The teacher and the student, having only their 'education', their curriculum, and their desire to socially and culturally conform, believe black is white (and vice versa) in respect of a cartoon figure who has been raised to inconic status and inflated to a point of absurdity. Despite point by point refutation of the myth it is not refuted by the evidence. Still dominating the musical and cultural landscape by the sheer scale of its bombast and eulogy. While the facts of the case, shown in plain view, remain beyond their reach and even their interest.

Do not blame Mozart. He governs the ment in matters of musical history. Which is his function within our 'civilization'. His very raison d'etre.

[ERS]

Hello, Yanni,

How many (musical) composing aliases did Cocchi have? I ask this in all sincerity.

ERS

[yanni]

Cocchi who?


Hello, Yanni,

How many (musical) composing aliases did Cocchi have? I ask this in all sincerity.

ERS

[ERS]

Gioachino Cocchi.

[yanni]

Never cared to count really but you may do it yourself reading thru my threads.
The problem is he also had quite a few musicien brothers and that his father was using aliases too. It's not therefore easy to distinguish but guesstimating I'd say Antonio Cocchi used less than ten musical aliases whereas Gioachino and his brothers less than thirty.

[Musicology]

The Mozarts and 1762 - Vienna

‘No-one familiar with the lives of Gluck, Haydn and Beethoven can fail to appreciate the part played by the aristocracy, in the best sense of the term, in the work of these composers. Mozart, too, was to enjoy such beneficence on his very first visit to Vienna’

(Abert - ‘Mozart’ p. 28)

I suppose as good a place as any to sketch the second musical ‘tour’ of Mozart (which took him, his sister and father to Vienna after they had visited Munich, and which began in late 1762) is to note that Counts Herberstein, Schlick and Palffy had already alerted the Viennese court and aristocracy by letter of the imminent arrival of the ''Mozart prodigies'', and it was not long after this that Leopold was invited to present himself and his two amazing children at the Palace of Schonbrunn on 13th October of that year. Their appearance being only the first of a series of brilliant successes in which ( Abert notes) ‘ their audience’s love of sensation played at least as important a part as any musical interest’’ - (This being one of the great understatements of western musical history, in fact !).

But the two Mozart children, no doubt ''starry eyed'' at their dazzling (even overwhelming) reception in the Austrian capital (and keen to have more of the same) were about to be feted even more by a string of other members of high Viennese aristocracy including Prince Hildburghausen, also Imperial Vice Chancellor Count Colloredo, and Bishop Esterhazy - all of whom invited them to visit their homes, with them invariably fetched by carriage and handsomely rewarded. Needless to say, the best young women of the city soon fell in love with the miraculous young Wolfgang, news of whose arrival appears to have travelled fast, (within the right circles, of course !). These miraculous events followed by their invitation to visit Pressburg from a family of Hungarian aristocrats. On return from where they were invited to attend a dinner given in honour of Field Marshal Daun by Countess Kinsky. And this before the Mozarts, (by this time acclimatised to their prodigious status) returned with adoration still ringing in their ears to their home town of Salzburg in early January 1763. With a string of invitations to attend other operas and dinners.

But that’s not all. Nor would I wish to diminish the scale of the 'Mozart Effect' on the Viennese of late 1762. Abert is only one biographer who is strangely silent about numerous other dignitaries met by the Mozarts in those same wonderful, champagne weeks. Including none other than the Emperor of Austria himself, also Chancellor Kaunitz and of course the newly arrived Ambassador of Russia (himself by coincidence to become a major patron of Mozart over the next 20 years) he being already a close friend of yet another future Mozart patron, the Paris based Baron Melchior Grimm. The Emperor of Japan was not present at these amazing festivities though eventually, he and his ancestors will have no doubt learned of the event. As for the young composer of the F Major minuet (KV2) it would be churlish to remind ourselves it was composed by Leopold Mozart. Or that, at this time (late 1762) the family did not own a keyboard. And, should we wish to criticise Nannerl and Wolfgang for not yet having attended school nor having studied composition or keyboard, these things are of course only incidental - lost in the fog of eulogy, hyperbole and officially downgraded by popular consent to irrelevant status.

But all of this had begun weeks before. From various letters and diary entries etc. we see the Mozarts travelled from Salzburg via Passau after leaving Salzburg, arriving there on 26th September. Where a concert (of some kind) is said to have been given at the home of Bishop Joseph Maria Count von Hohenstein. From where they travelled to Linz by river where they stayed at an inn. At which they are also said to have given a public concert 4 days later. Their first. Not advertised at the time (of course) but made more successful by the fortuitous assistance of none other than the family of the Governor of Upper Austria (Count Leopold Schlick).

Bringing to mind that famous saying of Oscar Wilde that -

‘ I have nothing to declare but my genius’.

[yanni]

Instead of shouting while beating Mozart's horse, Robert, why don't you try giving us details of some great unknowns of the Mozart family entourage, all related to England , like Cowper, Burney and their 1770 detailed whereabouts, for instance, as repeatedly asked?

Alternatively you could as well focus on the two Durazzo brothers whose Genoa history is still somewhat cloudy, with Count Giacomo Durazzo (or Johann Jacob or Giacomo Pier Francesco according to other sources), diplomat and man of theatre who allegedly was the brother of a famous-but with no wikibiography-doge of the republic of Genoa, Marcello Durazzo, from 1767 to 1769.

The doge’s son Giacomo Filippo Durazzo III (1719–1812) was the head of the wealthiest 18th century family in Genoa, Italy, and a notable naturalist and bibliophile etc etc but his mother Clelia Durazzo (1709–1782) was only ten when she gave birth to him. Giacomo Filippo was allegedly married to a Maddalena Pallavicini, hence the later alleged "Durazzo-Pallavicini" link.

Again, you could also try to establish links between 'Pierre-Michel Hennin', appointed in the foreign service of France on le 18 novembre1749 de M. de Puisieulx, ministre des Affaires étrangères, 'Durazzo Marchese (detto Conte) Giacomo Pier Francesco', Ministro Residente della Repubblica di Genova a Vienna dal 21-IX-1749 (data di presentazione delle Credenziali) al maggio del 1752 and 'Gian Luca Pallavicini' who (1749) organizza sulla spianata del Castello grandi concerti sinfonici all'aperto per grande orchestra con musiche di Sammartini , appointed governor of Milano, as from 26th September 1750.

Not to mention 'Carlo Giuseppe de Firmian' and his appointment with full authority by Francis I and Maria Teresa to Naples in 1752 OR 1753 and his eventual links to Ferdinando Galiani, Baron von Gleichen, Gluck etc

"They" all relate so much to Mozart, 1770 or 1762, 1763 etc etc to 1826 or so (Nissen's death), and more so to your own British Foreign Service department who surely have tons of documents on all these 'luminaries' of yours.

And, if 1762 is to be the next topic, you should at least include Gioachino Cocchi, Bricaire de La Dixmerie, Baron Stroganov, comte de Saint Germain, Rousseau, Gluck, Baron Dimsdale, Melchior Grimm, Nikolaus von Jacquin, Joseph Haydn, Frederic de Nicolay, Ludwig Heinrich Nicolay, Heinrich Gottfried Koch, Carl Ludwig Cocceji, Johann Friedrich Cocceji, Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Johann Adolf Hasse, Bernardo Tanucci, baron de Van Swieten; le président de Salaberry, Dupin de Francueil (26 April 1763 Paris) as well as all the above, in your detailed timeline as well.

Without it (detailed timeline) you are just producing gas.

Oh, include Florian Leopold Gassmann too, Burney's and Vanhal's 'friend'!

Ta-ta!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Since this thread is on W.A. Mozart, it may surprise you it focuses on W.A. Mozart and rarely refers to others. This is consistent with examining the actual subject of W.A. Mozart. I resist the temptation to be diverted from examining the facts surrounding his early public career by discussing the dozens of men (and their aliases) to whom you obviously wish to refer. And this remains true unless/until we have established the basic facts of W.A. Mozart and his real or supposed musical achievements.

I can produce a list of names 10 times longer than the one you have just posted. Which achieves nothing. So can anyone else. As for you and and those who may be dazzled by your ‘timelines’ (real or imagined) you always have the choice of starting separate threads on any subject.

As for who is ‘producing gas’, may I suggest you take some good advice and produce large volumes of this combustible form of energy on another thread. The alternative being to witness the facts and fictions of Mozart’s musical career. Starting with facts on these early public years. Only a small fraction of which you have read. Only then can we all agree there is a subject worthy of examining and can offer explanations for how it occurred. Expanding it to include the men to whom you have refered and others. There is no other way. Since there are two parts of examining a subject.

1. Proving that the subject is worthy of study. By detailed evidence.

2. Offering an explanation for it.

And the first stage is right here.

If you are unable to start a thread of your own please let me know and I will be very happy to help.

[Emil Miller]

Mozart auf Deutsch.

Es ist höchste Zeit, dass dieser Faden geschlossen wurde !

[Musicology]

Hi there Peter,

(Mozart was not born in Germany. Nor was he born in Austria. But in the principality of Salzburg. We speak English. You already knew that didn't you ?

It is always pleasant to advertise that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791), several times in his career, in fact, claimed to be an arch-Englishman. Or, if you prefer, “ich bin ein ErzEngelländer.”

But all of this justifies the thread remaining (as it must) in the English language. And not in German, nor Italian or any other language. And, (for those who may doubt it) here is a well researched article on Mozart confirming the above -

Peter Branscombe: ''Mozart the Arch-Englishman''

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Branscombe%20Moz.%20arch-Englishman%20corrected.pdf

Besides, we would not wish to upset rules already well learned by myself and yourself, would we ? Thus English remains. As does daylight. And goodwill to all honest men etc. (Which counts more than anything else. Believe it or not). Change channels if you must.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFej5pnVXI

RN

[Emil Miller]

Noch ein weiterer Versuch zu verewigen dieser lächerlichen Unsinn.
Ich verstehe nicht, warum die Steuerung dieser Faden ermöglicht
solche Dummheit, um fortzufahren.

[yanni]

Mozart was just a small part of the story, was created by the "others" you are so desperate to avoid, and was then, post 1823, inflated beyond all reason and proportion to conceal "them", just as you still do, stuck to the "first stage" -his 'diapers'-eversince you joined this forum.

"Hawkins, Cowper* and Burney", the first 'british musicologists', inventors of the famous Bach/Handel soup, would be proud and thankfull of your efforts to keep their secret recipee intact.

Want return to Mozart and their shadow, C.Burney, 1770?

Ta-ta!

*Whom the Mozarts never met, 1770: "Mylord Cowper had contracted catarrh during the journey and had to be excused" :lol:.
But they did meet 'lo scompigliato Burney', (who earlier visited Voltaire and composer 'Gaspard Fritz' in Ferney, Geneva. Wednesday Morning 4th July. The weather is fine and I am in love with this place) later on in Venice (their intention to visit there confirmed by Leopold's letter, Bologna 4 August to his wife and Burney's own notes on Venice, August 5th and 10th) who then writes on the Mozarts , August 30, 1770, “There is no musical excellence I do not expect from the extraordinary quickness and talents, under the guidance of so able a musician and intelligent a man as his father.” In the meantime of course. August 8th and 9th, he felt the need to create 'abate Cirillo Martini'.
As such:
Further to my previous 'tentative 1770 aliases list' please include Leopold's 'Signor Bortolo Tiboni', as well as 'Vittorio Cigna-Santi', 'Quirono Gasparini' and 'Ferdinando Bertoni' (the latter, Martini's pupil and at the time-1770- choirmaster at the Ospedale dei Mendicanti, was allegedly in London 1778–1783, where he composed operas for the King's Theatre. Burney did not meet him however :lol: :lol: :lol:).





Yanni,

Since this thread is on W.A. Mozart, it may surprise you it focuses on W.A. Mozart and rarely refers to others. This is consistent with examining the actual subject of W.A. Mozart. I resist the temptation to be diverted from examining the facts surrounding his early public career by discussing the dozens of men (and their aliases) to whom you obviously wish to refer. And this remains true unless/until we have established the basic facts of W.A. Mozart and his real or supposed musical achievements.

I can produce a list of names 10 times longer than the one you have just posted. Which achieves nothing. So can anyone else. As for you and and those who may be dazzled by your ‘timelines’ (real or imagined) you always have the choice of starting separate threads on any subject.

As for who is ‘producing gas’, may I suggest you take some good advice and produce large volumes of this combustible form of energy on another thread. The alternative being to witness the facts and fictions of Mozart’s musical career. Starting with facts on these early public years. Only a small fraction of which you have read. Only then can we all agree there is a subject worthy of examining and can offer explanations for how it occurred. Expanding it to include the men to whom you have refered and others. There is no other way. Since there are two parts of examining a subject.

1. Proving that the subject is worthy of study. By detailed evidence.

2. Offering an explanation for it.

And the first stage is right here.

If you are unable to start a thread of your own please let me know and I will be very happy to help.

[Musicology]

Peter,

Please do not post here in German language. This thread is in English. It is a thread on the real life and grossly fabricated achievements of the iconic 'genius' composer W.A. Mozart (1756-1791). From researchers who have spent many years examining the actual evidence. The fruits of modern study.

A rare expose of fiction, exaggeration and invention, in fact. If you have evidence to counter what has already been posted you are free to produce it. So can anyone else. That's a good deal. Although there are numerous other articles to come on the same subject. Including one on the legendary story of Mozart writing down from memory the first hearing of a mass by Allegri at the Sistine Chapel in Rome. And on the famous story of the award he received of the Order of the Golden Spur. In 1770. And still another on his famous public concert in Mantua. Leading to the events of 1771.

A gentle introduction to the real world of Mozart, in fact. In 626 volumes.

Always remember -

'Everything you have heard is true'

(And that's official)

J.S. Bach
Concerto
BWV 1062/3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmS-irp5d4I&feature=related

Yanni,

This thread will examine the life and career of W.A. Mozart in the light of the actual evidence before it offers explanation of how it was achieved. This is the correct way to examine anything.

Anton Dvorak
Trio Op.65/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y76fsFkXYHg&feature=related

[yanni]

The correct way to examine 'product Mozart' is to find who and why manufactured him (and others like him).
Put Cocchi/Burney's writings on the web and then we'll see!

:coolgleamA:


Yanni,

This thread will examine the life and career of W.A. Mozart in the light of the actual evidence before it offers explanation of how it was achieved. This is the correct way to examine anything.

[Musicology]

There is no point discussing the manufacture of Mozart unless/until evidence has first been clearly presented 'his' music and 'his' legendary talents were invented and grossly falsified in the first place. This is a story which has almost never been told and which, as we see, tends to drift off in to diversionary subjects that are never resolved. Let us see if those who teach and believe the fairy story can answer from the evidence of what is being presented.

So this is a story in 2 parts.

1. Evidence that Mozart's career was falsified from the start.

Followed by -

2. A description of how and why that was achieved.

[yanni]

Well, if you are set to avoid 'sensitive' subjects, they'll never be resolved!

'Burney' -son of a 'McBurney'* no less:biggrin5: -was the same man as 'Rousseau' and 'Pierre Michel Hennin' (leaving his other aliases be for the moment). Burney's 1770 itinerary shows this and documents furthermore he was still 'fabriicating' stories and aliases at the time.

-Rousseau's and Burney's common musical publications (and later 'exchange of relevant correspondence allowed to be made public'),
-Rousseau's choice to 'die', without a trace, in Paris, 1778 and have London executors for his will (where he kept his-Burney's-50000 volumes music library) and
-the fabrication of a convenient 'Charles Rousseau Burney (1747–1819)', father of Frances, portrayed by Thomas Gainsborough http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/european_paintings/charles_rousseau_burney_1747_1819_thomas_gainsboro ugh/objectview.aspx?collID=11&OID=110000872
provide, if needed, further evidence that 'the problem' never was merely Mozart's manufacture.

Carry on portefaix, you are on your own from now on!

*http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/mcburney/:'For a period, Charles Burney and his family lived in Isaac Newton's:seeya: former house at 35 St Martin's Street:seeya:, Leicester Square, London.'

Ta ta!




This is a story which has almost never been told and which, as we see, tends to drift off in to diversionary subjects that are never resolved. Let us see if those who teach and believe the fairy story can answer from the evidence of what is being presented.

[Musicology]

Yanni can make a thread on any 'delicate subject' he chooses. (He chooses not to). This thread is on the life and career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791).

[yanni]

How could I possibly miss this opera buffa* of yours?


Yanni can make a thread on any 'delicate subject' he chooses. (He chooses not to). This thread is on the life and career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791).

*Compliments to Brian Bean!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Thanks for your amusing comments on opera buffa. We must all see the funny side of Mozart, for sure !

You and Brian will agree this is not opera seria but opera buffa. And here we all agree. Here, for you and Brian especially, is a simple guide to the background to the premiere of 'Mozart's' first major opera 'Idomeneo' (1781). Staged in Munich. Which is generally known as an opera seria. But whose story we will see was no such thing.

THE REHEARSALS FOR MOZART’S OPERA ‘IDOMENEO’

A vast correspondence exists from/to W.A. Mozart on preparations he made in Munich for the premiere of ‘his’ opera ‘Idomeneo’. And we, always keen to avoid ''flogging a dead horse'' with Mozart criticism, will not refer to his convenient use of earlier music in it by G.F. Handel, J.M.Kraus or any other composer. (Since doing so may offend the punters).

The first rehearsals of Mozart's ‘Idomeneo’ began in Munich, Bavaria on 1st December 1780 with the 24 year old Mozart in attendance, its commissioned composer, he having just arrived breathless from Salzburg (to the amazement of all concerned) with virtually nothing composed of its music at the time despite many months having passed since he was commissioned to do so. (Which, as we all know, merely gave the genius another chance to demonstrate his amazing talents. Which he proceeded to do. As we will see).

The first rehearsal of that opera was scheduled for orchestra only. Which is, you may agree, unusual. Whose individual instrumental parts were soon found to be highly problematic, however. So great were these problems in the instrumentation that it was 16 days later before there was a second rehearsal. Of the orchestral parts - to most of the opera. And then a third, on 23rd December. By which time our resident genius, W.A. Mozart, suddenly under great pressure to get the opera ready for performance after months of having done nothing and who had originally been scheduled to return to Salzburg on 16th December, began to realise he was out of his depth. So he starts to blame the librettist and anyone else associated with it. But the third rehearsal was at least attended by several friendly patrons, the Elector of Bavaria and by Max Franz, younger brother of the Emperor Joseph 2nd. Though Mozart’s return to Salzburg (where he was employed) was still not possible due to these continuing and huge problems in the staging of his opera. Weeks more were to pass in what was to become a marathon preparation for its premiere. With the said Mozart literally turning an opera seria into a farce in 3 Acts. (Or, as you may prefer to call it, an 'opera buffa'). When, finally, on 8th January 1781, guests from Mozart's home town of Salzburg, keen to provide moral support for the genius, started to arrive in numbers (including a helpful and most friendly composer named Josef Fiala, who, by one of those wonderful coincidences was later to take up residence for several years in the Mozart household itself in Salzburg (complete with his wife), but on whom there is no reason to go here in to the details.). Fiala (after some small help with the problems) taking his place in the audience for its eventual production. Though, in fact, Act 3 was still not ready. So 5 days later, on 13th January 1781 rehearsals were finally made of Act 3 of this extraordinary opera. And on 18th January 1780 more rehearsals for Mozart’s opera ‘Idomeneo’ continued on that day - but only of its recitatives ! And on 20th January other guests, hearing of the unfolding fiasco and keen to make their contribution, were persuaded to arrive in Munich in numbers from Salzburg themselves, all eager to belong to the adoring audience at its eventual production. These joined, six days later, on 26th January 1781by the arrival of none other than Leopold Mozart and his wife. On the 27th finally came the dress rehearsal of the whole opera. (This nearly 2 months after rehearsals had first started). With the date of the premiere had already been rescheduled twice and running many weeks late. Tempers were getting frayed. The opera finally premiered on 29th January 1781 and was repeated on 3rd February and 3rd March. (Mozart by these dates already due in Vienna had left the city). Planned further performances of 'Idomeneo' for 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th February were abandoned, with no records of any payment being made to its composer. Which is itself a remarkable fact.

A single, scathing report of the music performed at the premiere of ''Idomeneo'' survives in a Munich newspaper of the time. Whose editor dismisses it as being largely composed of recitatives and having been poorly received by its audience - except for Mozart's usual admirers. Who included, of course, ’rent a crowd’ from Salzburg. Plus, of course, the usual patrons.

And so it came about that opera seria became comic opera. Thanks to the single handed genius of W.A. Mozart. As Yanni and Brian have suggested.

[yanni]

You are jumping to premature conclusions: The possibility that Leopold and/or Wolfgang-later as Nissen-are covering up the traces of 'Josef Fiala' aka 'Myslivecek' (see 'both' meeting and inspiring junior Mozart in October 1777) and possibly 'Rosetti' has to be taken into account instead of trusting ridiculous "source" references such as:

Josepf Fiala: In 1777 he moved to Munich to serve in the court orchestra of Elector Maximilian Joseph. That year in Munich, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was greatly impressed by the wind band trained by Fiala, and helped Fiala secure a position in 1778 after the death of the Elector. In 1785 Fiala moved to Vienna, and in 1786 to Saint Petersburg where he worked in the court of Catherine the Great

I'll prepare a relevant 1777-8 timeline in an attempt to clear things up.

In the meantime either find out Burney's 1777-1781 detailed whereabouts or learn something on chess or minerals (Comte Alexandre Collini or Colini was director of the Natural History Cabinet of Mannheim, where he wrote 'Solution du problème du cavalier au jeu des échecs' and several more amongst which a book on Agates,1776/77)

[Musicology]

The focus on 'Idomeneo' and Munich was a temporary reward to Yanni and Brian. Since Yanni specifically mentioned 'opera buffa' and 'opera seria'.

We return now to Mozart, still on his legendary first tour of Italy in 1770, since there are a number of other articles to come on events of that year.

(We hope Yanni does not fail to see the wood for the trees).

[yanni]

Your "wood" is "Burney-ing" and you- can but-focus on Mozart's 'bush'.

I suggest you should contact Wikipedia and edit their Charles Burney article claiming that Frances was Charles Burney's daughter (bypassing her alleged 'father', ie your fictitious 'Charles Rousseau Burney'):

Quote:

His eldest son, James Burney, was a distinguished officer in the royal navy, who died a rear-admiral in 1821; his second son was the Rev. Charles Burney; and his second daughter was Frances or Fanny,

While you do that, DO PROVIDE them (and us here) also with Burney's detailed 1770 to 1815 whereabouts and, AFTER you do all that, THEN extinguish the fire from your pants, Pyr-as*!

:hurray:






The focus on 'Idomeneo' and Munich was a temporary reward to Yanni and Brian. Since Yanni specifically mentioned 'opera buffa' and 'opera seria'.

We return now to Mozart, still on his legendary first tour of Italy in 1770, since there are a number of other articles to come on events of that year.

(We hope Yanni does not fail to see the wood for the trees).

[Musicology]

I hope to post here in the next 24 hours a very remarkable article by L. Bianchini on the famous episode of young W.A. Mozart copying down from memory in Rome the 'Miserere' of Gregorio Allegri (1582-1650) during his first visit there in 1770. An incident so famous, so much part of musical folklore and even enshrined within Mozart 'biography' that its details deserve to be examined here.

Jan Dismas Zelenka (1679-1745)
Confitebor tibi Domine in C-minor
ZWV.71

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWbScaRh-G0&feature=related

[yanni]

Another field of research for brave 'new age' brit musicologists is, imo, C.Burney's links (and re biographic contributions) to 'Gluck', whose best current online career- http://law-guy.com/classics/blog/?page_id=530: - is practicaly based on 'C.Burney's' thirty or so 'source' :hand: references (Gluck's Vienna period 1752-56 is understandably somewhat wanting in detail).

Here is an interesting abstract hinting at 'Charles Rousseau Burney's' double life as 'Gioachino Cocchi/Gluck/Rousseau'/Hennin etc' (ie 'Handel/Bach/Antonio Cocchi's' son):

Burney, writing with benefit of hindsight (BurneyH, ii, 844), remarked on one of the more striking numbers in Gluck’s first London opera, La caduta de’ giganti:

The following air [‘Sì, ben mio, sarò, se il vuoi’], for [Angelo Maria] Monticelli, is very original in symphony and accompaniments, which a little disturbed the voice-part in performance, I well remember, and Monticelli called it aria tedesca. His [Gluck's] contemporaries in Italy, at this time, seemed too much filed down; and he wanted the file, which when used afterwards in that country, made him one of the greatest composers of his time.

The passage is telling on several counts. Though said to be ‘original in symphony’, the piece was in fact a parody of an aria in the earlier opera Tigrane; the combination in Gluck of fervid imagination and frequent reliance on borrowing and parody (nearly always for an audience different from the original one) constitutes one of the most intriguing paradoxes of his career. The labelling of accompanimental complexities as ‘German’ was a commonplace in the later 18th century, being applied notably also to Jommelli during and after his Stuttgart years. Interestingly, Burney claims that it was in Italy that Gluck’s style was subject to ‘the file’, by which he presumably means experience in writing for the finest singers and the most discriminating opera seria audiences. It is clear that Gluck profited greatly from his contacts with numerous celebrated singers during his early career, in ways that will probably become better understood as modern interpreters recover the vocal and acting techniques of that era and study the careers of the artists in question. His debt to his teacher Sammartini is obvious not only from actual borrowings, but also from many similarities of manner, such as the exchange of motifs between the violin parts (e.g. in the sinfonia to Don Juan of 1761).

The most applauded number from Gluck’s London sojourn was the aria ‘Rasserena il mesto ciglio’ in Artamene, about which however Burney complained that its ‘motivo’, though grateful, was ‘too often repeated, being introduced seven times, which, there being a Da Capo, is multiplied to fourteen’ (BurneyH, ii, 845). (The criticism could be applied to any of a number of Gluck’s sentimental arias, such as the above-mentioned ‘Se il mio duol’ in Ipermestra.) More than a quarter of a century later, when Burney reminded Gluck of the fame of the aria, the composer responded with remarks which were meant to be flattering to the Englishman, but which also probably contained more than a grain of truth (see BurneyGN, i, 267–8):

He told me that he owed entirely to England the study of nature in his dramatic compositions … He … studied the English taste, and finding that plainness and simplicity had the greatest effect upon them, he has, ever since that time, endeavoured to write for the voice, more in the natural tones of the human affections and passions, than to flatter the lovers of deep science or difficult execution; and it may be remarked, that most of his airs in Orfeo are as plain and simple as English ballads …

The resemblances between Handel’s and Gluck’s styles are many, particularly in tender or pathetic airs, where one finds similar galant configurations of part-writing, and it has been demonstrated (Roberts, H1995) that Gluck’s acquaintance with the elder composer’s music (and even his borrowing from it) predated his stay in England. But the stylistic differences are rather more numerous (Gluck’s slower harmonic rhythm and greater reliance on accompaniments with drum basses, for example, and his more independent wind writing), owing to the simple fact that the composers were of different generations.

Burney did find it important to promote, after 1771, Gluck's early diagnosed 1745 London 'madness' via an alleged* letter from Metastasio to Farinelli he quotes:

The ‘Gluckian’ reform of opera owed much to the force of the composer’s personality, musical and otherwise – to his ‘fuoco meraviglioso, ma pazzo’, in Metastasio’s words (letter of 6 November 1751). :smilielol5:

*Metastasio's letters have evidently been 'censored' -like everything else concerning this 'story'!

[Musicology]

In 1770 Rome experienced two visits from the Mozart family. The legends of that time including the 14 year old Wolfgang transcribing from memory a sacred mass of G. Allegri and his award later with papal approval of the Order of the Golden Spur. (Through papal Secretary Pallavicni). Here is the PDF on this issue representing the findings of modern musical and historical research on this story. With a further part to come on the Order of the Golden Spur, its status at the time and other material related to that award.

http://www.mediafire.com/?b82le76jzn2rih


'Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good'

Further chapters of the Mozart visit to Italy of 1770 follow soon.

JS Bach
Magnificat
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYtSGhlqdFQ&feature=fvwrel

[yanni]

Would this Duke of Egmont be John Perceval?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perceval,_2nd_Earl_of_Egmont
Propably Roman Catholic (Irish), why on earth would he have been excommunicated, especially in 1734?
He was, however, a 'Handel's opera fan' (Handel's operas, 1726-1741 by Winton Dean) and his Perceval title does connect him to the french "Caussin de Percevals" of my story!:lol:

The exact date and further details are needed on the 1734 Miserere concert in the Crown Tavern to see who (Galuppi or 'Handel' or perhaps 'Hasse')directed it and on what occasion! (August III, crowned King of Poland in May 1734. On 30 June 1734, a Russian army of 20,000 under Peter Lacy*, after proclaiming August III the Saxon at Warsaw, proceeded to besiege Stanisław at Danzig, where he was entrenched with his partisans (including the Primate and the French and Swedish ministers) to await the relief that had been promised by France. However, this royal Saxon conversion to Roman Catholicism explains why Bach the Lutheran, later appointed court composer to August III, wrote masses.)

Same for 1743 if you please!

Conclusion: 'Burney' is covering up his father's ('Handel') Miserere copy via 'Nissen's' manufactured "Mozart letters" (just as 'Hennin' manufactured his correspondence with Voltaire, 'Collini' his 'Sejourn' etc etc.)

Ta ta

*Irish general of the Russian army!






Stories of that kind had in fact already circulated in London as early as 1734. When in that year the Royal Society organized "a choral concert of the famous Miserere by Allegri in the Crown Tavern." To advertise it, they insisted, (but without providing proofs), it was a sacred composition "whose copy is prohibited under pain of excommunication, and it has been procured for the society of concerts by the Duke of Egmont." As the Duke of Egmont was not excommunicated for staging this London concert, this surely speaks for itself. And when in April 1743 (9 years later), the same work was performed again in London no one even referred to any story of excommunication. The fact is Allegri's Miserere was popular everywhere across Europe and it was (and always was) nonsense to speak of prohibiting it from being copied under threat of excommunication. If anything what was complained about tended to be the quality of its performances. "The Miserere" they said, "was the first work ever to be performed here by three very good voices, but fourteen who were really bad." Furthermore the Mozarts in 1770 already had access to these British musical sources during their stay in London in 1765 (see the chapter on Symphony K.16). They could also see its music if they wished to see a copy that had been made by and was still being held by Padre Martini in Bologna. (The very Franciscan who had let Burney copy it). Contrary to popular belief there were many copies of Allegri's Miserere already available in numerous music archives in Vienna, Germany and Portugal. Burney obtained access to it without difficulty and he did so in Rome also ! He even asked a papal singer for the score of a Miserere, who gave it to him. He was able to compare this work with other copies, which were asked from many different people. 14

[Musicology]

Yanni,

For the benefit of readers here I will post again the link to the PDF just completed. I hope you agree that it represents a detailed criticism of convention on this issue. A modern reply to the fairy story of Mozart in Italy 1770.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ti1hxeknllp8exv

And I will focus on that subject. So we can examine each aspect in the detail it deserves before we attempt to explain the means by which those things were done. So that we will not be diverted from the subject under examination. The life, career and actual achievements of W.A. Mozart.

Thank you for your understanding.

[yanni]

Examining Mozart's links to his manufacturer IS the only way to understand "the life, career and actual etc" of Mozart but it's apparently off limits for Mr Bianchini and his "translator-promoter-editor", both focusing exclusively on Mozart's diapers.

Thus, you waste an awfull amount of words and translator efforts to prove the obvious, that the whole 'Mozart story' is 'made up', and to focus next on Mozart's fake 'Allegri story', exhausting it 'scientifically' and 'musiclogicaly' but ommiting the fact there never was a '1770 Cardinal Pallavicini' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazaro_Opizio_Pallavicino whose bypassed 'absence' would have made your own 'study' so much simpler!


'Firmian' and 'Count Pallavicini-Centurioni', cardinal Lazaro's distant nephew, are both aliases of your very own 'Charles-Rousseau-Burney', manufacturer of 'Casanova' (whom you quote as source, hah-hah) and 'Joseph Haydn' among others.

Same for 'Myslivecek' whose 'La Ninetti' was first performed at the Teatro Nuovo Pubblico in Bologna on 29 April 1770, a month after Mysliveček first made the acquaintance of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his father Leopold the previous month in the same city.[1], one of the many reasons of Leopold's 'Italian tour'. And indeed 'Rome' still follows in step -and silence- which I find truly amazing!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Lazaro_Opizio_Pallavicino :lol:



Yanni,

.....And I will focus on that subject. So we can examine each aspect in the detail it deserves before we attempt to explain the means by which those things were done. So that we will not be diverted from the subject under examination. The life, career and actual achievements of W.A. Mozart.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Musicology]

Cardinal PALLAVICINO, Lazzaro Opizio (1719-1785)

Birth. October 30, 1719, Genoa.

Education. La Sapienza University, Rome (doctorate in utroque iure, both canon and civil law).

Early life. Referendary of the Supreme Tribunals of the Apostolic Signature of Justice and of Grace. Provincial governor of Marche Anconitana, November 8, 1751. Received the minor orders, February 17, 1754; subdiaconate, February 24, 1751; diaconate, March 10, 1754.

Priesthood. Ordained, March 19, 1754.

Episcopate. Elected titular archbishop of Lepanto, April 1, 1754. Consecrated, April 7, 1754, Rome, by Cardinal Federico Marcello Lante. Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, April 16, 1754. Nuncio in Naples, May 21, 1754. Nuncio in Spain, February 9, 1760.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal priest in the consistory of September 26, 1766. Legate in Bologna, December 1, 1766. Received the red hat and the title of Ss. Nereo ed Achilleo, June 20, 1768. Participated in the conclave of 1769, which elected Pope Clement XIII. Secretary of State, May 19, 1769 until his death. Participated in the conclave of 1774-1775, which elected Pope Pius VI. Camerlengo of the Sacred College of Cardinals, January 29, 1776 until February 17, 1777. Opted for the title of S. Pietro in Vincoli, December 14, 1778. Ambassador plenipotentiary to conclude the treaty with Venice, October 3, 1783.

Death. February 23, 1785, Rome. Exposed in the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome, where the funeral took place, and buried in the church of the hermit monks of S. Giovanni Battista, Rome, according to his will.

Bibliography. Del Re, Niccolò. La Curia romana : lineamenti storico giuridici. 4th ed. aggiornata ed accresciuta. Città del Vaticano : Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998, p. 89.

///

(Pallavacino was Secretary of State to the Papacy in 1770. As you see above. The surname can be spelled in different ways. This is not unusual at the time. I know one composer whose surname has more than 6 spellings).

Count Gian Luca Pallivacini was the host of the Mozarts during the time of their visit to Padre Martini in Bologna and his relative was the above Cardinal Count Lazzaro Opizio Pallavacini in Rome.

We will continue to focus on the actual life and the actual career of W.A. Mozart. Yanni can post what he likes. Preferably on Mozart because this thread is on Mozart. It is the 5th time he has been told about this.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ti1hxeknllp8exv

//

[yanni]

There was only one 'Cardinal Lazaro Pallavicini' who died 1680 and had a brother Stefano who died sometime later. No male descendants, their Rome palazzo then passed to their niece 'Rospigliosi' according to:

http://www.casinoaurorapallavicini.it/FamigliaPallavicini.htm Il cardinale Lazzaro, assicuratasi, così, la discendenza, ormai cagionevole di salute, ma carico di anni (78) e di benemerenze, chiudeva serenamente la sua vita terrena in Roma, nel 1680. Suo fratello Stefano lo doveva seguire nella tomba pochi anni dopo. La nipote Maria Camilla Rospigliosi, che negli ultimi anni della sua vita si dedicò più intensamente ad opere di beneficenza, stabilì per testamento che il rispettivo padre e zio fossero tumulati nella cappella gentilizia di San Francesco a Ripa in un unico sontuoso monumento funerario da erigersi a proprie spese. Maria Camilla spirò il 6 settembre 1710, e il duca di Zagarolo, Giovan Battista Rospigliosi, rispettoso della volontà della pia consorte, incaricò l'architetto Nicolò Michetti e lo scultore Giuseppe Mazzuoli di costruire sulla parete sinistra della cappella un monumento abbinato per il suocero Stefano Pallavicini e per il di lui fratello cardinale Lazzaro e di costruire sulla parete destra, un altro monumento analogo per la moglie Maria Camilla e per se stesso. Giovan Battista morì, ultimo dei quattro, il 13 luglio 1722.

Palazzo Pallavicini-Rospigliosi however never belonged to this cardinal* (who allegedly only built a galleria for his art collection (!) -propably originating from Florence-there at 'some uknown time'(!)) but was under french influence, belonging first to cardinal Mazarino passing then to the Mancini family, his heirs.

So the Vatican story looks fishy (the second cardinal Lazaro coming from Genoa and 'in the picture' as Referendary of the Supreme Tribunals of the Apostolic Signature of Justice and of Grace. Provincial governor of Marche Anconitana, November 8, 1751-see my 'Pierre Michel Hennin' fully empowered then by both France and Austria to act all over 'Italy') the more so when paralleled to Palais Pallavicini, Vienna, constructed 1784 (terrible year for anyone constructing his 'palais') by an unknown (architect?, owner?) 'Johann Friedrich Hetzendorf von Hohenberg'.

And Wikipedia's 'famiglia Pallavicini' has no real 'Genoa branch' among the seven or eight other branches described.

And there is this 'mix up' in Monsignor Del Re's "Pallavicini" marbles as per http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/consistories-xviii.htm:

Note 1. Niccolò del Re, in his book Monsignor governatore di Roma (1972), indicates that Filippo Buondelmonte, governor of Rome and vice-camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, died on June 19, 1741, alla vigilia of his promotion to the cardinalate.

Note 2. According to Suite de la Clef, ou Journal historique sur les matières du tems. Contenant quelques nouvelles de littérature, & autres remarques curieuses. LIV (Juillet 1743), 360, Pope Benedict XIV intended to promote Francesco Maria Pallavicini, titular archbishop of Naupactus (ie Lepanto) , to the cardinalate, but he declined and instead was named titular patriarch of Antioch. The source erroneously indicates that he was titular archbishop of Teba and nuncio in Florence, confusing him, as far as this posts, with Archbishop Lazzaro Pallavicini. The same information is provided by L'ami de la religion et du roi : journal ecclésiastique, politique et littéraire, C (1743), 20-21, in an article about cardinals dimissionary.
:smilielol5:

Julliet 1743, still marks the month and year of Rousseau's appointment as secretary to the French Embassy in Rome!!]:smilielol5:

Add to all that "Cardinal Lazaro II's" correspondence with 'Firmian/Pallavicini-Centurioni'....

.....the conclusion is:

He was as 'fake' as they all (his aliases) were...but did control Rome too!

And what you do is you business, junior, until it becomes 'indecent exposure' one too many.

:cool:

*The palace served as the French embassy in Rome prior before it moved to its more spacious current accommodation at the Palazzo Farnese(note by me: they moved there after 1911, see http://www.romanguide.com/renaissancerome/palazzo-farnese.html). In 1704, the palace became a property of the Rospigliosi-Pallavicini (!)family, who still own it and who enriched its decoration and completed its present art gallery.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_Pallavicini-Rospigliosi


Cardinal PALLAVICINO, Lazzaro Opizio (1719-1785)

Birth. October 30, 1719, Genoa.

Education. La Sapienza University, Rome (doctorate in utroque iure, both canon and civil law).

Early life. Referendary of the Supreme Tribunals of the Apostolic Signature of Justice and of Grace. Provincial governor of Marche Anconitana, November 8, 1751. Received the minor orders, February 17, 1754; subdiaconate, February 24, 1751; diaconate, March 10, 1754.

Priesthood. Ordained, March 19, 1754.

Episcopate. Elected titular archbishop of Lepanto, April 1, 1754. Consecrated, April 7, 1754, Rome, by Cardinal Federico Marcello Lante. Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, April 16, 1754. Nuncio in Naples, May 21, 1754. Nuncio in Spain, February 9, 1760.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal priest in the consistory of September 26, 1766. Legate in Bologna, December 1, 1766. Received the red hat and the title of Ss. Nereo ed Achilleo, June 20, 1768. Participated in the conclave of 1769, which elected Pope Clement XIII. Secretary of State, May 19, 1769 until his death. Participated in the conclave of 1774-1775, which elected Pope Pius VI. Camerlengo of the Sacred College of Cardinals, January 29, 1776 until February 17, 1777. Opted for the title of S. Pietro in Vincoli, December 14, 1778. Ambassador plenipotentiary to conclude the treaty with Venice, October 3, 1783.

Death. February 23, 1785, Rome. Exposed in the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome, where the funeral took place, and buried in the church of the hermit monks of S. Giovanni Battista, Rome, according to his will.

Bibliography. Del Re, Niccolò. La Curia romana : lineamenti storico giuridici. 4th ed. aggiornata ed accresciuta. Città del Vaticano : Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998, p. 89.

///

(Pallavacino was Secretary of State to the Papacy in 1770. As you see above. The surname can be spelled in different ways. This is not unusual at the time. I know one composer whose surname has more than 6 spellings).

Count Gian Luca Pallivacini was the host of the Mozarts during the time of their visit to Padre Martini in Bologna and his relative was the above Cardinal Count Lazzaro Opizio Pallavacini in Rome.

We will continue to focus on the actual life and the actual career of W.A. Mozart. Yanni can post what he likes. Preferably on Mozart because this thread is on Mozart. It is the 5th time he has been told about this.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ti1hxeknllp8exv

//

[Musicology]

Yanni,

So the Papal Secretary in Rome between May 1769 and February 1785 was who, exactly ? History says it was Pallavicini. Who was the Cardinal who was Ambassador Plenipotentiary for the Papacy at the Treaty of Venice in 1785 ? It was the same man. Who was the Cardinal who attended the papal conclaves of 1769 and 1774-5 in the name of Cardinal Pallavicini if it was not the same Cardinal Pallavicini ? But you, Yanni, are going to show us contrary evidence, aren't you ? Because everyone is tired of your allegations without presenting any real evidence. You are on a Mozart thread. Multiple personalities are not unheard of. But you must now present clear evidence. And I will continue to focus on the life and career of W.A. Mozart (1756-91).

Read this - one of hundreds of references.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HiIgzSazS48C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=papal+secretary+pallavicini&source=bl&ots=Yc1yvWhhtC&sig=OmPyhDu3t_8jZEYwZ1twtX6keTg&hl=en&ei=KP1wTfjVDIXLsgbGo4iEDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=papal%20secretary%20pallavicini&f=false

And here is another with many references -

http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofpopesfr39past#page/90/mode/2up

Here is your chance to tell us.

[yanni]

Stick to your sticky sources, Junior!


Yanni,

So the Papal Secretary in Rome between May 1769 and February 1785 was who, exactly ? History says it was Pallavicini. Who was the Cardinal who was Ambassador Plenipotentiary for the Papacy at the Treaty of Venice in 1785 ? It was the same man. Who was the Cardinal who attended the papal conclaves of 1769 and 1774-5 in the name of Cardinal Pallavicini if it was not the same Cardinal Pallavicini ? But you, Yanni, are going to show us contrary evidence, aren't you ? Because everyone is tired of your allegations without presenting any real evidence. You are on a Mozart thread. Multiple personalities are not unheard of. But you must now present clear evidence. And I will continue to focus on the life and career of W.A. Mozart (1756-91).

Read this - one of hundreds of references.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HiIgzSazS48C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=papal+secretary+pallavicini&source=bl&ots=Yc1yvWhhtC&sig=OmPyhDu3t_8jZEYwZ1twtX6keTg&hl=en&ei=KP1wTfjVDIXLsgbGo4iEDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=papal%20secretary%20pallavicini&f=false

And here is another with many references -

http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofpopesfr39past#page/90/mode/2up

Here is your chance to tell us.

[lellyvigni]

I think the pdf on the Miserere is amazing - there are many things I simply did not know. Mozart probably not even hearing it is one example ! Thanks for the link, Musicology. Why don't you sort all links on one page, maybe on the first message of the thread ? How did you start working with Luca Bianchini ?

Ligniville


Yanni,

For the benefit of readers here I will post again the link to the PDF just completed. I hope you agree that it represents a detailed criticism of convention on this issue. A modern reply to the fairy story of Mozart in Italy 1770.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ti1hxeknllp8exv

And I will focus on that subject. So we can examine each aspect in the detail it deserves before we attempt to explain the means by which those things were done. So that we will not be diverted from the subject under examination. The life, career and actual achievements of W.A. Mozart.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Musicology]

Letter signed by Cardinal Lazzaro Opizio Pallavicini (1719-1785), as Papal Secretary 20th June 1778 announcing the death of Voltaire. Mozart was in Paris at this time and also refers to it in his letter of 3rd July 1778.

Item 204 below -

http://www.bibliorare.com/pdf/cat-vent_berge22-12-09-cat.pdf

[Musicology]

QUOTE OF THIS MOZART THREAD

''The career of '''Mozart" is of minor concern to me''

(Source - Yanni - Post No. 41)

Antidote - Try Something Else !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ9qWpa2rIg&feature=related

[yanni]

When you* find serious sources on "Jean Jacques Rousseau's" appointment as secretary to the French ambassy in Venice, 1743 OR indeed on his alleged boss, the ambasssador 'Pierre Francois de Montaigu', 1743, call again.

They http://www.montaguemillennium.com/familyresearch/h_1777_pierre.htm don't know him but we do (know Handel'Amyand/Desaguliers''s relations to the Montagues) don't we?

:yawnb:

*or Leo Damrosh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Damrosch.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

When you are prepared to talk about the life and career of W.A. Mozart, call again. Otherwise you are once again on the wrong thread.



When you* find serious sources on "Jean Jacques Rousseau's" appointment as secretary to the French ambassy in Venise, 1743 OR indeed on his alleged boss, the ambasssador 'Pierre Francois de Montaigu', 1743, call again.

They http://www.montaguemillennium.com/familyresearch/h_1777_pierre.htm don't know him but we do (know Handel'Amyand/Desaguliers''s relations to the Montagues) don't we?

:yawnb:

*or Leo Damrosh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Damrosch.

[Themis]

So the Vatican story looks fishy (the second cardinal Lazaro coming from Genoa and 'in the picture' as Referendary of the Supreme Tribunals of the Apostolic Signature of Justice and of Grace. Provincial governor of Marche Anconitana, November 8, 1751-see my 'Pierre Michel Hennin' fully empowered then by both France and Austria to act all over 'Italy') the more so when paralleled to Palais Pallavicini, Vienna, constructed 1784 (terrible year for anyone constructing his 'palais') by an unknown (architect?, owner?) 'Johann Friedrich Hetzendorf von Hohenberg'.


Just a quick (off topic) note: Johann Ferdinand Hetzendorf von Hohenberg was an architect and by no means was he "unknown".

[yanni]

Still "unknown": A theater artist basically, his links to my hero's "austrian'' aliases "Waldstein,Durazzo, Gluck, Casanova, Pallavicin etci" are certain but remain in the dark just as the date and reason of ownership-change of "Palais Pallavicini" to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Reichsgraf_von_Fries.

You are wellcome to enlighten us!


Just a quick (off topic) note: Johann Ferdinand Hetzendorf von Hohenberg was an architect and by no means was he "unknown".

[yanni]

Oh, but I am talking of the "'dark side" or 'raison d'etre' of your hero Mozart all along, haven't you 'noticed'?

Such as:

"July 1743' refers not just to Niccolo del Re's mix up of the "two" cardinal Pallavicinis (Francesco Maria Pallavicini, titular archbishop of Naupactus ie Lepanto and Lazzaro Otavio Pallavicini who somehow got the same 'Lepanto' post, as if by hereditary right, sooon after!!) BUT also to "Rousseau/Burney/Pallavicini/Gioac.Cocchi' etc" same month&year appointment to the french embasssy in Venice under "Montagu" just as his father, "Handel/Bach/Desaguliers/Amyand/Ant.Cocchi", did, around 1710 (followed banker-conspirator Charles Montagu, the leader of the Venetian party, to England, hence 'Rinaldo, 1711') .

SAME for your "Lazzaro Ottavio Pallavicini"'s 1778 letter on Voltaire's death: You forgot mentioning that a month after Voltaire, "Rousseau/Burney/De Nicolay/Kant" staged his own "death"' , that he still had many "things to settle" in Austria/Italy and had therefore every reason to keep his 'Lazzaro Ottavio' profile intact (Hence Mozart's change of opinion on his host, "Grimm/Gluck ", at the time).

EVERYTHING concerning your little Mozart has been CREATED, carefully and very professionaly, TO HIDE the major 18th century conspiracy and their topmen BEHIND Mozart, who played along as NISSEN REWRITING his father's and his own correspondence, UNDER the supervision of "Frederick &Ludwig Heinrich von Nicolai/Kant etc", living nearby. HENCE later Mozart's idolisation, still running strong!

BTW, Leo Damrosch, drawing from Rousseau's 'Confessions' :biggrin5:, speaks of an "Abbe de Binis" who assisted Rousseau in the french embassy of Venice, the same man obviously who "1751 de Bernis was appointed to the French embassy at Venice, where he acted, to the satisfaction of both parties, as mediator between the republic and Pope Benedict XIV. During his stay in Venice he received subdeacon's orders, and on his return to France in 1755 was made a papal councillor of state." (But was never consecrated as far as the eye can see!)

WHO WAS then DE BINIS/BERNIS and what was his role in Rome during Mozart's 1770 visit?

Was he residing at "Pallazo Pallavicini" or "Pallazo Mancini" in Rome or in "Pallazo Cocchini" in Venice earlier?

Who cares really: He was the one who performed the last rights on LUIS XVI, was he not, with 'Mirabeau' second fiddle?

"Rome" fell to 'their' charms long before 1767 (demolition of Rome's "army", the Jesuits)!

CAN WE TRUST official historiographer of France (1771) "Marmontel's" relative " DE Binis/Bernis" fable OR ANY OTHER?

Considering his "close relations" to all our theatrical heroes* and his membership at Les Neuf Soeurs, the answer is NO, it's ALL C.R.A.P.!

But, as you refuse to touch your Foreign Service archives, why don't you try finding "John Ruskin's" brit descendants to ask them why he thought of "Marmontel"** as "one of the three people in history who were the most influential for him."

Amazing how many new ruskie cozens (JR's mother named Margaret **** or Cox) have now surfaced!

:lol:

*Marmontel in 1745, acting on the advice of Voltaire, he set out for Paris to try for literary success. From 1748 to 1753 he wrote a succession of tragedies (Denys le Tyran (1748); Aristomene (1749); Cleopâtre (1750); Heraclides (1752); Egyptus (1753)), which, though only moderately successful on the stage, secured Marmontel's introduction into literary and fashionable circles.

** short 1765 Timeline
May 17, 1765 Zophilette, a pasticcio including music of Baldassare Galuppi (58), Christoph Willibald Gluck (50), Nicolò Jommelli (50), Tommaso Traetta (38), Niccolò Piccinni (37) and Johann Christian Bach (29) to words of Marmontel, is performed for the first time, in Paris.
May 19, 1765 Christoph Willibald Gluck’s (50) ballo pantomimo Iphigenia in Aulide, to a choreography by Angiolini is performed for the first time, at the Laxenburg, Vienna.
June 27, 1765 François-Joseph Gossec’s (31) opéra comique Le faux lord, to words of Parmentier, is performed for the first time, at the Comédie-Italienne, Paris.
July 8, 1765 An advertisement appears informing the English public http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=2204 that the Mozart family will be giving public concerts every day from 12-3:00 p.m. in the Swan and Harp Tavern, Cornhill. They have had to take a room there.
(and Handel/Bach -with countless "Koch" or "Cox" or "****" sons- was alive at the time, 1765!)



Yanni,

When you are prepared to talk about the life and career of W.A. Mozart, call again. Otherwise you are once again on the wrong thread.

[Pyras]

You write "Mozart has been created". That's could be an idea, but just an idea. I do not completely agree. Which Mozart was created? There are lot of Mozart available. The one in 1762, another in 1773, another in 1781 and another one in the Requiem ....... and so on. He changed his style lot of times. Wich Mozart are you talking about?

Mozart in fact is complex.
"Mozart has been created"? You could be right in a way, but wrong in another.

Musicology, and Bianchini solution could be perhaps not the best one, but at least it is practical. Just to analyze, study a piece at a time in 1770, it's ok. The research is open. There is not just a solution. There are just documents to look at. To collect and to take into account.

I suppose they choosed that year 1770 because it is very important in Mozart's career.
In school books, authors use the facts happened in 1770 to tell us lot of stories about Mozart. Expecially that about Miserere and, in my opinion, it was just fiction. The pdf is very interesting.

In Italy Mozart is supposed to have studied with Martini and Ligniville.
I see that Martini teaching cannot be proven. I also agree. It's probably fiction. Ligniville I don't know. Let's see.



EVERYTHING concerning your little Mozart has been CREATED, carefully and very professionaly etc. etc.

[yanni]

Mozart has never been of concern to me, ask Musicology: He'll confirm that, from his early joining this forum, and long before, my focus has always been on The Manufacturers.

Have fun with your extinguisher!

:coolgleamA:


You write "Mozart has been created". That's could be an idea, but just an idea. I do not completely agree. Which Mozart was created? There are lot of Mozart available. The one in 1762, another in 1773, another in 1781 and another one in the Requiem ....... and so on. He changed his style lot of times. Wich Mozart are you talking about?

Mozart in fact is complex.
"Mozart has been created"? You could be right in a way, but wrong in another.

Musicology, and Bianchini solution could be perhaps not the best one, but at least it is practical. Just to analyze, study a piece at a time in 1770, it's ok. The research is open. There is not just a solution. There are just documents to look at. To collect and to take into account.

I suppose they choosed that year 1770 because it is very important in Mozart's career.
In school books, authors use the facts happened in 1770 to tell us lot of stories about Mozart. Expecially that about Miserere and, in my opinion, it was just fiction. The pdf is very interesting.

In Italy Mozart is supposed to have studied with Martini and Ligniville.
I see that Martini teaching cannot be proven. I also agree. It's probably fiction. Ligniville I don't know. Let's see.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I think your graffiti (which consists only of names and dates in no obvious connection to anything but which you alone believe are of obvious but unexplained significance) will be of some amusement to certain readers (including yourself) although the whole thing is tedious beyond belief to me. An explanation of the supposed relevance of your posts is no longer expected in detail by me. Since we have already seen countless examples of this strange behaviour from you which has led nowhere even on this thread. And, frankly, I am past caring. You are obviously doing what you do best.

We do not need an extinguisher in your case. We need only for you to join up the dots of your sprawling and incoherent posts. Which would make them worthy of reading. It may be a good idea for you to learn to compose a thread on one specific subject, or to write something on the subject of this thread whom you admit you have little interest in - W.A. Mozart.

Till then, I will spend my time on better things than answering your posts.

[Musicology]

Yes Pyras,

Yanni appears unable to examine a subject with any method. The subject of this thread is W.A. Mozart - on which he admits he is hardly interested ! And it goes from bad to worse. He is not presenting evidence on which he wishes to offer an explanation. Nor do his posts survive cross-examination. He is trying to convince himself (and nobody else, it seems) nobody understands what he (and only he) understands. And the last person to ask about this strange behaviour is himself. Since his mystification includes himself.

(In the history of the world it is clear that men and women have had the opportunity (and have often taken it) to move from mystery cults to that which is revealed in broad daylight. And who now take advantage of this happy fact).

Yanni's first post of W.A. Mozart is still eagerly expected. He should stay with us and learn more. :nod:

And here is a short interlude -

JS Bach
Et Resurrexit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfJLAWDF3Qg&feature=related


You write "Mozart has been created". That's could be an idea, but just an idea. I do not completely agree. Which Mozart was created? There are lot of Mozart available. The one in 1762, another in 1773, another in 1781 and another one in the Requiem ....... and so on. He changed his style lot of times. Wich Mozart are you talking about?

Mozart in fact is complex.
"Mozart has been created"? You could be right in a way, but wrong in another.

Musicology, and Bianchini solution could be perhaps not the best one, but at least it is practical. Just to analyze, study a piece at a time in 1770, it's ok. The research is open. There is not just a solution. There are just documents to look at. To collect and to take into account.

I suppose they choosed that year 1770 because it is very important in Mozart's career.
In school books, authors use the facts happened in 1770 to tell us lot of stories about Mozart. Expecially that about Miserere and, in my opinion, it was just fiction. The pdf is very interesting.

In Italy Mozart is supposed to have studied with Martini and Ligniville.
I see that Martini teaching cannot be proven. I also agree. It's probably fiction. Ligniville I don't know. Let's see.

[Musicology]

MOZART - THE GRAND TOUR (June 1763-September 1766)

When Leopold Mozart, his daughter Nannerl and son Wolfgang left Salzburg together by coach on 6th of June 1763 they were starting a vast journey across a continent only gradually emerging from years of war. Their father determined to introduce his newly celebrated children to leaders of numerous European courts. Continuing a series of extraordinary contacts they had made less than a year before in Vienna. This journey taking them first to the Bavarian capital of Munich where they had also stayed for several weeks during the previous year ( the facts of which were suppressed by Leopold for reasons which have been discussed elsewhere) and travelling on to Leopold’s home town of Augsburg, then to Ulm, Mannheim and Frankfurt, (at which location the fourteen-year-old Wolfgang Goethe was among those who heard them). They continued on through Cologne, Aachen, and Brussels and then on to Paris, where the family at last settled down for around five months. Mozart publishing his first works in the French capital and six weeks later, he, his father and sister were invited to appear at the court of King Ludwig XV and are said to have performed for the King's mistress, the Marquise de Pompadour.

In April 1764 this journey reached epic scale by a long stay in England - during which Wolfgang is credited with having composed his first symphonies after making the acquaintance of Johann Christian Bach and other musicians based there at the time. Starting a return leg that was to include lengthy stays in Holland, Belgium and another in Paris. After which they travelled through various parts of Switzerland, again visiting Munich and finally returning home to Salzburg on 29th November 1766. Ending a tour that had lasted close to 3 ½ years.

A series on this subject will be started here within the next few weeks.

//

[yanni]

Musicology, Pyras and Lellyvigni are 'kindly requested' to define the specific parts* of my last few posts (or any earlier ones) on Mozart they find hard to understand/digest!

Until then :sleep:

*Beside the reference to their extinguisher!

[Musicology]

I find it hard to understand/digest how Yanni can post here on this thread when he has already stated he is not interested in Mozart. This IS a Mozart thread. But it's true he has only been told this 9 times !!! Perhaps he needs a bit more time than most who read this thread ?



Musicology, Pyras and Lellyvigni are 'kindly requested' to define the specific parts* of my last few posts (or any earlier ones) on Mozart they find hard to understand/digest!

Until then :sleep:

*Beside the reference to their extinguisher!

[yanni]

A detailed answer to your question is to be found in my post 122 above (quote: '... I am talking of the "'dark side" or 'raison d'etre' of your hero Mozart all along, haven't you 'noticed'?').

Try, if you can, focusing there to then inform the forum what part of it you don't understand and/or find irrelevant ('with no obvious connection') to product Mozart.

:sleep:


I find it hard to understand/digest how Yanni can post here on this thread when he has already stated he is not interested in Mozart. This IS a Mozart thread. But it's true he has only been told this 9 times !!! Perhaps he needs a bit more time than most who read this thread ?

[Musicology]

We are not interested in what might have happened but are showing what DID happen. And this thread (for the 10th time) is focused on W.A. Mozart.

Thank You

[yanni]

Caring for your proper education, I'll bypass your rudeness, obviously due to indigestion, to ask you once again to focus on my post 122 and advise the forum "what part of its contents etc etc?":

How on earth will you show 'what did happen' if you ignore the very same people who promoted the Mozarts during their trip to Italy, 1770?

If unable to focus due to the gravity of your situation, I have the remedy for that as well! In a word, try the Kochs!

Not any Kochs however, you will really find comfort only from:

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/ADB:Koch,_Ignaz_Freiherr_von (Version vom 7. März 2011, 16:20 Uhr UTC)*

The austrian Koch branch who, like their french, prussian and english cousins, played an essential part in the manufacture of all "other" music masters we discussed so far (including Leopold and Amadeus).

Maria Theresia was so enchanted by one of them Kochs, she made a promise in writing, sometime in 1751, to be eternally gratefull to him and all his family. That was during the time 'Gerard van Swieten' assisted her in a particular manner as discussed in another thread already.

The am article confirms what "we" knew already: The austrian Kochs did use aliases (but the article does not diclose them nor their number).

Ignore them (Kochs with aliases) and risk constipation for life.

Ta-ta!

*My thanks to http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Kategorie:ADB:Autor:Anton_Victor_Felgel! :"Wenzel Kaunitz", with "Rousseau" as secretary "sometime" 1750-53, looks like a very promising "Saint Germain" candidate.


We are not interested in what might have happened but are showing what DID happen. And this thread (for the 10th time) is focused on W.A. Mozart.

Thank You

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I think you have been given a fair hearing. You are free to make your own threads. I will not reply to anything you post here. This thread is on the life and career of W.A. Mozart.

[yanni]

Never complained this forum has not been "fair" to any of my threads.

Your repeated refusal to reply to my questions on Mozart's entourage will be relatively evaluated and be given it's fair due by the ulimate judge, the reader!

As far as I am concerned: Anyone sterilising Mozart from the dramatic social changes that defined him and the people- and their reasons-who promoted him life long, is highly suspect of continuing the practice of intentionaly misleading the public.

I will therefore continue posting in this thread (or any other by you on Mozart and his obscuring "diapers") whatever course you decide to take next.

I also advise you and all concerned that major revelations are in the works.

Ta-ta!





Yanni,

I think you have been given a fair hearing. You are free to make your own threads. I will not reply to anything you post here. This thread is on the life and career of W.A. Mozart.

[Pyras]

I see that there are very big problems also about the music Mozart was performing during Mozarts' trip in Munich. What music Wolfgang was supposed to have performed? If we take a look in his first exercices, this idea of performing a concert, improvising music, it's completely unbelivable, in 1762. Is it true they didn't have any keyboard at home?


Yanni,

I think you have been given a fair hearing. You are free to make your own threads. I will not reply to anything you post here. This thread is on the life and career of W.A. Mozart.

[Musicology]

Hi there Pyras,

The first keyboard in the Mozart family was a small portable bought by Leopold Mozart on a visit to Augsburg made there between June 22nd and July 6th in 1763 at the start of their grand tour of Europe. From the maker Stein. Which Leopold said in a letter would be useful for practice during their travels !!!! :rolleyes5:

The first real keyboard owned by the Mozarts was obtained in Salzburg only in 1776 - when Mozart was already 20 years old. Not long before he left for an extended stay in Paris. And the celebrity of Wolfgang in Vienna (late 1762) for several months came at a time when he had composed nothing and studied nothing. In fact (rather than fiction) neither Leopold nor Nannerl studied music theory or harmony at any time in their entire life. I have seen no evidence which contradicts these facts. There is none.


Regards



I see that there are very big problems also about the music Mozart was performing during Mozarts' trip in Munich. What music Wolfgang was supposed to have performed? If we take a look in his first exercices, this idea of performing a concert, improvising music, it's completely unbelivable, in 1762. Is it true they didn't have any keyboard at home?


MOZART - THE ‘GRAND TOUR’
(June 1763-September 1766)


1/7

PREFACE

The appeal to our naivety is the means by which the cultural and academic myth of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91), (‘genius composer and performer’) has always succeeded. And why elements of his myth have always tended to transcend historical and musical criticism within the academic world, even on those rare occasions where its exponents have been forced to face its own inherent contradictions and absurdities. Naivety and its exploitation were certainly a major factor with young Wolfgang himself. This also explains why we are indifferent to claims that W.A. Mozart was an exploited child. And this modern naivety of ours (plus refusal to fairly examine evidence from history and from documents of the time) have always been factors in determining the contents of much loved biographies of Mozart’s supposed childhood and public career.

The same is true of accounts of their giant musical tour taken across Europe between June of 1763and September 1766. At the time of which Wolfgang, the alleged composer of only a single clumsy minuet in B Flat Major (and virtually nothing else) had not studied music composition nor attended a single day in school. (Nor did he to do so over the years which followed). Nor were Wolfgang's family owners of a keyboard. But the Wolfgang of popular belief does not depend upon facts such as these which tend to undermine his myth. And we must remember he and his family had already tasted instant celebrity amongst rulers and the nobility of high society in Vienna over several months before being persuaded to set out again from Salzburg in that year of 1763. Accompanied by a new servant, Sebastian Winter (he having been seconded to serve them only weeks earlier to prove their rapid rise in status ). This farce being matched by the sudden and unexpected promotion of Leopold Mozart from his lowly employment as 2nd violinist at the Hofkapelle to that of Deputy Kapellmeister at Salzburg. (An amazing thing in itself, you may agree). Nor do we need to point out Leopold, now about to be absent from his very place of employment in Salzburg for close to 3 ½ years, taught nobody, even on his eventual return ! These too are widely considered to be inconvenient facts. Since what followed these earlier adventures of 1762 in Munich and Vienna proved to be a far more audacious, sustained and stage-managed affair which took the starry eyed Mozarts across most of western Europe over the next years. During which they would be protected by a network of fraternal patrons then in high office, applauded wildly by the credulous as prodigies and ‘wonders of nature‘, and supported throughout the whole of this extraordinary performance by a string of other allied myth makers and promoters. As usual. An outline of which will be offered in the coming weeks over the 7 parts of this series.

(I would however advise young children and those of nervous disposition to read other kinds of Mozart literature)!

Thank You

R. Newman

[yanni]

http://www.freemusicinformationdownloads.com/musichistory/MOZART.html

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Thanks for reminding us of the fairy story. Musica babylonia. Why are these aristocrats always witnesses to these 'miracles' ? There were of course thousands of children who could play minuets at the time. And many of them. It is clear from the very start we are with this story, (embedded within textbooks and taught ad nauseum) either privileged witnesses to a prodigy of nature, a 'genius', or to one of the longest, most contrived acts of musical deception in all of musical history.

And guess what ? It's the second of these. So says the evidence.

Edward Grieg (1843-1907)
Solveig's Song
Peer Gynt Suite
Lucia Popp - Soloist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU0WNE14RAY&feature=related

J.S. Bach
Chorus
Cantata 70a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eawhwmykzl4





http://www.freemusicinformationdownloads.com/musichistory/MOZART.html

[yanni]

Yanni,

Thanks for reminding us of the fairy story. Musica babylonia. Why are these aristocrats always witnesses to these 'miracles' ? There were of course thousands of children who could play minuets at the time. And many of them. It is clear from the very start we are with this story, (embedded within textbooks and taught ad nauseum) either privileged witnesses to a prodigy of nature, a 'genius', or to one of the longest, most contrived acts of musical deception in all of musical history.



There is no other fairy story closer to 'obscurantism ad nausem' than yours.

The Mozart site I quoted does, at least, name "Grimm' as his promoter-host in Paris (with the Mozarts leaving for London only five days before Mme Pompadour' s passing with 'Buffon' allegedly at her side). How could they (the Mozart site) know that this Grimm was a brit secret agent who, foolishly, used the same name 'colonel Graeme' three years before (17th July 1761) when he acted as a marriage councellor to the Prince of Wales escorting even the bride (Princess of Mecklenburg-Sterlitz) to London. Or was he using his 'Frederic de Nicolay' other alias?
Terrible mix up of later brit music myth writers, don't you agree? (post 198 of http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54106&page=14).

But then you can't really afford rewriting the truth, can you?

Not with the brit inspired 'Musica Babylonia' of first brit musicologists on record "John Hawkins" and "Charles Burney", inventors of their "Bach- noBach" thru their very own 'JH from Vienna'!

Thus 'Joseph Haydn' hiding for 30 years in (truly his) Bohemia somewhere!

Blunders upon blunders by him and other later lying idiots!

And, no, other than those within the limits of your phantasy, there were no 'thousands' of young children able to play minuets at the time, .

Get lost.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

For your information, (and this is a priority for me to teach you), the number of children who played (and learned) keyboard during the middle to late 18th century was actually several thousand in Europe. It was a rapidly expanding thing. It was a common thing, in fact, for families of the middle and upper classes to learn music as a matter of routine. With keyboard common. And there were many teachers and virtuosos. Keyboard (including organ) playing was so common in those days before TV and computers that hundreds of men wrote sonatas for keyboard many decades before W.A. Mozart was even born. Scarlatti wrote several hundred alone. There were literally hundreds of music students in every major city of Italy, France, Germany, and elsewhere in the 1760's. Who were expected to learn keyboard. As a matter of course. But this, of course, you do not know. And why should you ? You have never studied the subject, have you ? You wish to demonstrate your profound ignorance, do you ?

As for the early minuet in B Flat major (which was Mozart's only official composition by 1762) it was not even written by him. But by Leopold Mozart. LOL !

Thanks for at least mentioning Mozart. As for your version of musical history I think it is seriously defective in basic areas. Grimm is central to Mozart, for sure. You are right about that.

I will not be lost. I will remain discussing W.A. Mozart. Which IS the name of this thread. Do yourself a favour. Consider the number of keyboard sonatas in existence before Mozart's first tour of Italy - in 1770. There were many thousands. And do write again when you have something to contribute on the subject of this thread. That would be a real achievement. Post separately on Grimm and I will contribute.

Get found !!

[yanni]

There were no "several thousand children" who played and learned minuets on their keybord because there was practicaly no middle class then-neither that many harpsichords- and dances were held in palaces only (hence the minuets in Mozart's Don Giovanni, their perfection used as an example in minuet literature-Wikipedia).

But if 'Hawkins', 'Burney' and 'Rousseau' first counted them, their number would automaticaly tripple, wouldn't it?

All for the public hapiness coinciding with bankers interests!

Teach us why Burney's first volume of his General History of Music (London 31.1.1776) had to be followed by Hawkins's next five volumes published London July, 1776 and why 'Rousseau' had to disassociate himself....errr...."correspond" on the matter with Burney, before 'dying' 1778, his will executed in London!

But I forget, you are here as the expert in sterilising Mozart from "all that jazz"!

Go on, write your Mozart "Coordinated Research Associates Product'', we all need a good laugh!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Italian composer Domenico Scarlatti (1685-1757) is credited with writing over 500 keyboard sonatas alone. (That is 'five hundred' in ordinary English). There were several thousand (i.e. several groups of ten hundred) keyboard sonatas written even before Mozart was ever heard of. In Paris there were MANY composers of keyboard works who were teachers and virtuoso performers at the time of Mozart's birth. The same is true in Italy, Germany and elsewhere. From which 'Mozart's' earliest concertos were 'borrowed'. (Setting a trend for his entire career).

In 1740 (16 years before Mozart's birth) the Broadwood piano making firm was established. In 1745 Mirabal of Spain become a keyboard manufacturer. (The third in Spain alone). In 1750 Thomas Culliford begins making pianos in England. In Germany Silbermann, Stein and others. By the 1760’s there were over 20 manufacturers of early pianos in London alone. And still dozens of manufacturers of harpsichords and other keyboard instruments. In Italy the piano and the harpsichord were widely in use. The same is true across Europe.

Would it be fair to say you really have no idea what you are talking about ? (The term 'middle class' was used loosely by me to describe those of the 18th century who, although not being members of the aristocracy, were still able to learn and play music. Even this seems too hard for you to appreciate. Whose numbers were rapidly expanding from the early 18th century onwards. Recognised without dispute by every study of 18th century history, except yours). This explains why you cannot talk of Mozart on a Mozart thread, I suppose ?

Domenico Scarlatti (1685-1757)
Sonata L23
Horowitz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaHMdDjNnZ8&feature=related

Domenico Scarlatti
Sonata K9
Glenn Gould

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ilMODfi2vM&feature=related



There were no "several thousand children" who played and learned minuets on their keybord because there was practicaly no middle class then-neither that many harpsichords- and dances were held in palaces only (hence the minuets in Mozart's Don Giovanni, their perfection used as an example in minuet literature-Wikipedia).

But if 'Hawkins', 'Burney' and 'Rousseau' first counted them, their number would automaticaly tripple, wouldn't it?

All for the public hapiness coinciding with bankers interests!

Teach us why Burney's first volume of his General History of Music (London 31.1.1776) had to be followed by Hawkins's next five volumes published London July, 1776 and why 'Rousseau' had to disassociate himself....errr...."correspond" on the matter with Burney, before 'dying' 1778, his will executed in London!

But I forget, you are here as the expert in sterilising Mozart from "all that jazz"!

Go on, write your Mozart "Coordinated Research Associates Product'', we all need a good laugh!

[yanni]

Here is a site to help you count the thousands of minuet playing little, mozart-like, middle class children on their thousands of little pianos* at their thousands littlle but happy households!

http://www.piano-tuners.org/history/history_1.html

*Harpsichords rather, their mere size and cost prohibiting ownership by any other than wealthy nobility and churches.

[Musicology]

Thank you Yanni,

It reminds us. Leopold Mozart, a lowly paid 4th violinist for many years, rising eventually to 2nd violinist, (and then, amazingly, promoted to Deputy Kapellmeister weeks before he left Salzburg for over 3 years with his son and daughter - although he never taught anyone) never owned a keyboard (expensive or otherwise) before his son, the 'miracle of Salzburg', the musical 'Apollo', was adored for literally months in late 1762 by swarms of elites of Vienna, foreign ambassadors, the emperor and a string of aristocrats and flunkies wearing funny uniforms.

I love musical 'history'. And the minuet in B Flat Major is proof the 'genius' was real. Isn't it ? We must never examine the actual evidence.

If we are prepared to overlook the nonsense of 1762 what happens when they start their legendary tour in 1763 ? Leading up to their arrival in Italy in 1770. More of the same.

Remember - 'Everything you've heard is true' ('Amadeus' Trailer)

And now, over to you Baron von Munchausen ! LOL !!

JS Bach
BWV 911/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqp2_LaYoSU&feature=related





Here is a site to help you count the thousands of minuet playing little, mozart-like, middle class children on their thousands of little pianos* at their thousands littlle but happy households!

http://www.piano-tuners.org/history/history_1.html

*Harpsichords rather, their mere size and cost prohibiting ownership by any other than wealthy nobility and churches.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Good morning Robert and Yanni.
Something I happened to notice on Wikipedia's "On this day":

March 12 - 1622 – Ignatius of Loyola and Francis Xavier, founders of the Jesuits, were canonized as saints by Pope Gregory XV.

Thought you might be interested.

Gilliatt

[Musicology]

Good morning to you Gilliat Gurgle,

We as unquestioning consumers/students are not supposed to notice 'the joins in the cardboard' of a Mozartean dominated version of European musical history. (Such things are simply not discussed in polite company, you understand ?). But, since we are speaking of the Jesuit Order, (cough, cough !) we may describe this situation as a concerted attempt to bring about a seamless weld of revived Babylonian occultism within the status quo of 18th century Europe and its offspring, musically, and in other ways, members of whom acted at the time as patrons of this still ongoing nonsense, aided and abetted by a stream of sympathetic 'managers' and by men of high status, fraternal and otherwise in governments, overseen by roving members of the Jesuit Order - that order brought in to being by Venetian overlords to be agents of counter reformation but loyal to a revived Byzantium and Talmudic nonsense who, during a time known as the 'enlightenment', (and invented by them) united together the vested ruling interests of that corrupt continent in to a new and seductive image of a 'secularised' society - though the same vested interests remained, as usual, in positions of power and authority. Out of which union of interests the movement known as the Illuminati eventually arrived after the banning of the Jesuit Order (though temporary, to give it credibility), and with its amazing revival after the supposed end of the Holy Roman Empire came wider control of culture, education and musical history as we know it.

(''Run that past me again, Robert'' !! LOL).

J. S. Bach
Toccata
BWV 912/2
Angela Hewitt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjtw3MwNruo



Good morning Robert and Yanni.
Something I happened to notice on Wikipedia's "On this day":

March 12 - 1622 – Ignatius of Loyola and Francis Xavier, founders of the Jesuits, were canonized as saints by Pope Gregory XV.

Thought you might be interested.

Gilliatt

[yanni]

A safe and sane morning is all I dare wish you today!

To explain 'miracle Mozart', your attention should be drawn on the tremendous influence as from 1741, of 'Van Swieten, Kaunitz, Ignaz von Koch, Durazzo etc', Austria's Reichsfürst as from 1764, on Maria Theresa and her sister, Archduchess Maria-Anna, 1741-1765.

The death of emperor Franz I, August 1765 (Maria Theresa's husband),his son Joseph II becoming coregent with his mother in September, threatened the very existence of 'Kaunitz' who had to flee to England*, as 'Rousseau', to avoid the fate of his close associates all dying 'suddenly' (Haugwitz on 30 August 1765, Dawn on Feb 1766, Dorn in the Netherlands, April 1766 and Giusti for Italian affairs early May)**.

Even so, Maria Theresa's 'confidence' on 'Kaunitz' continued and he was able later to return and keep his status but with strings attached (Joseph apparently did not wish to be near him ever again, so Kaunitz was posted away from Vienna for a while).

"Kaunitz' promoted the Mozarts: Their long 'tours' can only be examined in relation to him, his movements, contacts, world views and vision.

:yawnb:


*Harbouring 'corruption' even if not belonging to your 'corrupt continent', Robert.
**p61,62 'Kaunitz and enlightened absolutism, 1753-1780' by Franz A. J. Szabo.







Thank you Yanni,

It reminds us. Leopold Mozart, a lowly paid 4th violinist for many years, rising eventually to 2nd violinist, (and then, amazingly, promoted to Deputy Kapellmeister weeks before he left Salzburg for over 3 years with his son and daughter - although he never taught anyone) never owned a keyboard (expensive or otherwise) before his son, the 'miracle of Salzburg', the musical 'Apollo', was adored for literally months in late 1762 by swarms of elites of Vienna, foreign ambassadors, the emperor and a string of aristocrats and flunkies wearing funny uniforms.

I love musical 'history'. And the minuet in B Flat Major is proof the 'genius' was real. Isn't it ? We must never examine the actual evidence.

If we are prepared to overlook the nonsense of 1762 what happens when they start their legendary tour in 1763 ? Leading up to their arrival in Italy in 1770. More of the same.

Remember - 'Everything you've heard is true' ('Amadeus' Trailer)

And now, over to you Baron von Munchausen ! LOL !!

JS Bach
BWV 911/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqp2_LaYoSU&feature=related

[Musicology]

Durazzo and Kaunitz were related by marriage and were closely associated from around 1754. They married three daughters of the same family as Prince Esterhazy. Now, there's a coincidence, for sure ! As for timelines (LOL) -

Babylonia
Assyria (westward expansion in to) - 824 to 625 BC
Egypt
Palestine

Further Westward Migrations into

Greece
Founding Rome - Romulus and Remus
Estruscan Alliance in Italy and elswhere
Byzantium City States in Europe
Edicts of Emperor Theodosius
Transfer of Priesthood of Pagan Rome to Papacy
Edicts of Theodosius (381/2 AD)
Collapse of Western Imperial Roman Empire
Odoacer early 5th century (loyal to Byzantium)
Pontifex Maximus
Emergence of the Papacy now in alliance with the Secular early Kingdoms of Europe from early 5th century
Land Fraud of the Donations of Constantine
Charlemagne - 800 AD
Holy Roman Empire - from 800 AD
Viking Invasions and Occupations into Russia and Europe
Influence of Talmudism and Merger with Canon Law
Venice (gateway to Eastern Mystery Cults from Byzantium)
Renaissance of Pagan Old World Philosophy and Religion
Reformation of Christian West
Early Opera on Themes of Pagan World - patronised by the above
Jesuit Order aka 'Counter Reformation' (courtesy of Doges of Venice and men in high places within Rome)
Freemasonry (later exported to British Empire by 1717 from Venice)
Enlightenment Myths
Illuminati
Globalism

aka Elitism, Corporate Musical History, and the usual vested interests

(Free from Genetically Modified Contents and Artificial Colourings ! )

JS Bach
''Grosser Herr, o Starker Konig'' !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxr_stB1uJI&feature=related

JS Bach
''Ehre sei dir, Gott, gesungen"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBT76RViKRw&feature=related

[yanni]

Escaping to selective generalities of the past again?

Focus on:

.....'Kaunitz' who had to flee to England*, as 'Rousseau', to avoid the fate of his close associates all dying 'suddenly' (Haugwitz on 30 August 1765, Dawn on Feb 1766, Dorn in the Netherlands, April 1766 and Giusti for Italian affairs early May)**.

Such little details will help you understand not just Mozart but 'Handel/Bach/G.van Swieten etc' as well!

[Musicology]

The only understanding we need is why Yanni never posts on Mozart when this thread is clearly on W.A. Mozart.



Escaping to selective generalities of the past again?

Focus on:

.....'Kaunitz' who had to flee to England*, as 'Rousseau', to avoid the fate of his close associates all dying 'suddenly' (Haugwitz on 30 August 1765, Dawn on Feb 1766, Dorn in the Netherlands, April 1766 and Giusti for Italian affairs early May)**.

Such little details will help you understand not just Mozart but 'Handel/Bach/G.van Swieten etc' as well!

[yanni]

Imo you shoud add "...'s diapers" to complete your sentence.

BTW Did the empress donate them along with Wolfie's suit in 1762?


The only understanding we need is why Yanni never posts on Mozart when this thread is clearly on W.A. Mozart.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Genies do not wear diapers. They are legendary, disembodied spirits. Ali Baba etc. But, just to make them credible, was invented the idea in Mozart's own time that they were incarnated. One of them being the young Mozart himself, (the alleged composer of Minuet KV2 - diapered or not), who was a 'genius'. And the rest, as they say...........

Remember - 'Everything you've heard is true'. (Trailer to 'Amadeus')




Imo you shoud add "...'s diapers" to complete your sentence.

BTW Did the empress donate them along with Wolfie's suit in 1762?

[yanni]

Amazing shift of focus!


------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, we can't!

[Musicology]

We have dealt with diapers. If Yanni has anything else to contribute on W.A. Mozart that will be really interesting. That will be real shift of focus.

JS Bach
St John Passion
Opening
Masaaki Suzuki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0Vgb99tsQ&feature=related

High on the summit of Musicology but shrouded by thick clouds is a body of academic studies so erudite, so well established, so well patronised and admired, so widely taught and believed but so conservative in its publications and pronouncements over the last 200 years that the Chinese philosopher Confucius (559-471 BC) would have turned green with envy.

I refer, of course, to ‘Mozart Studies’.

J.S. Bach
Concerto BWV 1055/1
Allegro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qinD192l0c&feature=related


MOZART - ‘THE GRAND TOUR’
July 1763-November 1766

Or

A PORTRAIT OF ‘GENIUS’

1a/7

High on the summit of what is sold as ‘musical history’ but protected from fair scrutiny and criticism by dark clouds are those who, academically and culturally, preside over institutionalised eulogy and exaggeration. So successfully they, these teachers of myth would be envied by Chinese philosopher Confucius (559-471 BC). Since the myths of the state in respect of musical history have amongst their most successful examples those that are called ‘Mozart Studies’.

By offering this first of a series of articles on the ‘Grand Tour’ taken by W.A. Mozart and his family between July of 1763 and November of 1766 my aim is to continue a critical examination of the legendary musical life, career and status of that iconic composer. Young readers, captains of Austrian tourism and those of more gentle disposition can choose to ignore these ramblings and should return to the warm safety of Mozartean mythology. Since we will focus on the absence from Salzburg of young Wolfgang Mozart, also of his father Leopold and elder sister Nannerl for close to 3 ½ years, starting from the middle of 1763. During which time they toured much of Western Europe by coach with, so we are told, phenomenal success. Although in fact the ‘Grand Tour’ is a subject on which more nonsense and unfounded eulogy has been written over the past 200 years and been absorbed more completely by students and the public than virtually any other subject in the entire span of musical history.

Let’s first remind ourselves of the two earlier ‘tours’ made by the Mozarts during the year before, 1762, to Munich and Vienna - in the first of which the trio stayed for several weeks in the Bavarian capital. Although it’s details have been strangely suppressed from the otherwise meticulous travel diaries of Mozart’s father. A fact with which to begin here since this, we believe, was the beginning of Mozart’s public musical career. Leopold’s strange silence begging an explanation. The start of Mozart’s musical career in fact. But the court at Munich during early January 1762 provided young Wolfgang with a series of musical contacts (mostly of an operatic kind) that are obvious importance for any meaningful study of Mozart’s later career. Thus they are strangely suppressed. The silence imposed on that subject by Leopold, (during what is eulogistically known as his son’s ‘first musical tour’) is just as strangely in direct contrast to the amazing events said to have occurred later that same year when these two children, being celebrated as ‘prodigies of nature‘ (though they were unschooled and lacked musical performance experience or compositional achievements, never attending school in Salzburg nor learning the elements of musical composition) were treated royally there in the Austrian capital of Vienna, this for several months, and they even attracted swarms of enthusiastic rulers, aristocrats, senior officers of state, military leaders and other admirers (plus a whole series of adoring ecclesiastical rulers and envoys) .These events of Vienna late 1762 were the cause of hyperbole and euphoria amongst the nobility of that time. So that Mozart in Vienna 1762 may even be described as one of the more bizarre demonstrations of aristocratic buffoonery and credulity in all of 18th century music. Although those champagne days of their second tour are routinely accommodated within what we call musical history and without serious examination. Besides, the Mozart myth moves on to provide the gullible with even more strange and popularised tales for their consumption. Wolfgang’s musical achievements at the time consisting only of the dubious attribution to him of a keyboard minuet in B Flat Major (KV2). Whose musical qualities were somehow seen as being so wonderful they probably account for all the adulation and hysteria. From a critical viewpoint, that first year of Wolfgang’s musical career (his ‘first two musical tours’ that is) have always been founded, if we are to be honest, on a series of facts, suppressions, improbables, exaggerations, paradoxes and officially sanctioned absurdities which we and its managers choose to overlook, whose musical and biographical implications are ignored, glossed over, diluted or marginalised. Soon to be transcended by others of a still greater and even more wonderful kind during that long and legendary third tour of 1763-6 which we will now start to examine. Such is the stuff of Mozartean musicology. And of Mozart ‘biography’. It always has been.

But it’s only fair that other basic facts are brought to our attention on Mozart that are of a far less well known kind. His father Leopold had by mid 1763 only recently been promoted from the lowly post of 2nd violinist in Salzburg to that of Deputy Kapellmeister - (during June of 1763). Greatly promoted, in fact, prior to him and his children leaving Salzburg for 3 ½ years. Creating a situation, you may agree, that was not ideal for the musical establishment of Salzburg itself and certainly not for the formative years, education and innocence of his two children. Leopold’s new status being the equivalent, perhaps, of a baggage handler at an airport finding himself promoted to deputy pilot and being transferred a few weeks later to working for years in a coal mine. Since Leopold never taught music, never served the Hofkapelle as a teacher nor wrote music for it from that time onwards. Which tends to be ignored also. We wish to believe the Mozart story. Convention decrees that we do so. And what, exactly, do we know of late 18th century musical achievement outside of the Mozart story ? Outside of the Mozart myth ?

If you are not yet persuaded Mozart and his road shows are musical and cultural ‘stage management’ on a wholesale scale and if you tend to suffer from amnesia when asked to consider their tours of 1762 in Munich and Vienna you may add this remarkable ‘promotion’ of Leopold by Salzburg Prince Archbishop Sigismund von Schrattenbach (1698-1771) since it provides still more evidence of being a token gesture of the same kind. Stage management is also consistent with writing numerous letters of introduction that were carried by Leopold from Salzburg court that were presented to his hosts across western Europe as he and his children left Salzburg only a few weeks later. (Which occurred during Wolfgang’s 3 long tours to Italy from 1770 onwards also). We even know Leopold considered himself to be on missions that would increase the musical status of the Salzburg Hofkapelle during those travels since he says so in his letters). None of which prevented him describing himself as the Salzburg ‘Kapellmeister’ during the ‘Grand Tour’ and all others. (A habit often repeated by Wolfgang himself in his Vienna years (1781-1791). A nonsense which, in the case of Domenico Fischietta (1725-1810) no doubt brought a smile to that Italian’s face and to others of the musical establishment in Salzburg. Bringing to mind that famous proverb, ‘Like father, like son‘). Since, in both cases was a bending of truth that has been routinely downplayed and marginalised by Mozart biographers. Such is truly the stuff of Mozartean musicology.

It is my plan to balance criticisms of Mozartean convention by offering generous helpings of an all too familiar eulogy that has come to be known and believed as ‘Mozart biography‘. (So consumers of convention and those who casually read these pages will not be offended by our modern re-examination of the evidence). My justification for adopting such a ‘middle of the road approach’ includes the contents of a report written in Salzburg when the family finally returned there in late 1766 but which is little known to the public -

‘Today the world famous Leopold Mozart, Vice Kapellmeister here, with his wife and two children, a boy aged ten and his little daughter aged thirteen, have arrived to the solace of the whole town. These past two years nothing has been more frequently discussed in the newspapers than the wonderful art of the Mozart children; the two children; the boy as well as the girl both play the harpsichord, or the clavier, the girl, it is true, with more art and fluency than her little brother, but the boy with far more refinement, and with more original ideas, and with the most beautiful inspirations, so that even the most excellent organists wondered how it was humanly possible for such a boy, who was already so good an organist at age six, to possess such art as to astonish the whole world’.
//
(Beda Hubner - Librarian of St Peter’s Abbey, Salzburg - Diary Entry November 1766)

Huber was a keen Mozartean. Quoting him will find your approval - though Hubner had heard of Mozart’s achievements only from second hand information- mostly from small articles that had appeared in foreign newspapers - as he admits himself). He speaks of ‘two years’ in which the family were being ‘frequently discussed in the newspapers’. And in glowing terms of their musical abilities. Though both are contradicted by facts. First because the ‘tour’ had lasted not two years but almost three and a half. Which takes us back to November of 1764 when the family were on an extended visit to England. (Not leaving England till August of 1765). Thus, half of the tour seems to have had little newspaper coverage. Again, contrary to Hubner the number of newspaper articles that appeared on the Mozarts by that date (excluding those written for publicity by Leopold) was very small and the subject of the ‘Salzburg prodigies’ was not being ‘frequently discussed’ by the public. (The exception being the continued amazement of a large number of Salzburg residents ). Furthermore, the Mozarts had by late 1764 been touring western Europe for over a year before they arrived in England. Nor is there any record from Salzburg of great musical talent being demonstrated by Wolfgang or his elder sister before they set out in July of 1763 nor any during the two tours of Munich and Vienna of the year before. Nor is there record of the Mozarts giving concerts in Salzburg before taking these early tours. Nor any praise of their alleged musical abilities in Salzburg from those early years. Nor of that brother and sister learning music or composition under any recognised teacher. Nor any of them attending school. Nor did they (the Mozart family) own a keyboard at the time when they set out on that ‘Grand Tour‘. It was not until late 1764 (at the earliest) when a few citizens of Salzburg (including Hubner himself) read of any public/press reputation. He also exaggerates in saying ‘nothing has been more frequently discussed in the newspapers’ since, by 1766, the number of glowing reports were few. That’s a fact able to be confirmed by anyone who consults works such as O.E. Deutsch’s ‘Documentary Biography’ . A few foreign reports from anonymous advertisements had appeared in English and other foreign languages (most of them advertising placed in English newspapers by Leopold himself). Most dealing with the admission charges to different venues (their charge for attendance soon having to be halved in the case of their London stay etc.). The only notable exception being a report written from Leopold’s home town of Augsburg published in Salzburg during 1763 with Leopold’s input. (No doubt intended to answer rumours in Salzburg of where the Mozarts had gone to and whose details we read later. (Prompting smiles, no doubt, from the residents of Salzburg and its musicians).

You will not be surprised the residents of Salzburg had formed their own opinions on these amazing events, and especially in the light of the remarkable visits made by the family to Munich and Vienna the year before. Though their views are only rarely considered. (All must be presented as seamless in the Mozart myth). Here for example is a report written 24 years later, 1787, shortly after Leopold’s death which remained unpublished during Mozart’s life and for many more decades. That too is part of an introduction to our fair examination of the evidence. Written by a member of that family who were landlords of the Mozarts. The family Hagenauer. You will note that it refers to things which could not be denied - one of which was reaction to Leopold and the antics involved on these long tours that had long been the subject of derision and ridicule from the locals of Salzburg. Since we read -

"On Whit Monday the 28th, in the year 1787, early, died our Vice Kapellmeister Leopold Mozart, He was born at Augsburg and spent most of the days of his life in the service of the Court here, but had the misfortune of being always persecuted here and was not as much favoured by a long way as in other, larger places in Europe."

There is the story (invented by the family) that young Wolfgang prepared for that tour of 1763 by perfecting himself on the violin - without tuition ! A legend so absurd it is exceeded only by what his father later wrote on the subject - ‘my son could be the best violinist in Europe if only he put his mind to it’. Such is the stuff of Mozartean musicology !

This steadily accumulating pile of nonsense also reminds us of the opinion of Wolfgang towards residents of Salzburg written from Munich in 1779 -

‘You cannot believe what I suffered during the visit of Madame Robinig here. She personified everything I cannot bear about ‘Salzburg and its inhabitants. To me, their speech and their manners are intolerable’.

(W.A. Mozart, letter from late 1779 on meeting Maria Viktoria von Robinig, resident of Salzburg) -

We who grow up to believe in the indefinable ‘genius of Mozart’ may, on deeper reflection, see it as being nothing more than a transcendental escape from historical and musical reality which we are keen to ignore as inconvenient facts. We would much prefer to examine details of the ’Grand Tour’. So, before we do so, I refer only to a few more preliminary facts. The first being Leopold Mozart’s reputation for being the author of a violin treatise, ‘Violinschule’ (published in 1756) is itself based upon nonsense. Since that work relies heavily on an unpublished treatise of the same kind by Italian virtuoso Giuseppe Tartini (1692-1770). Providing (should we doubt it) indisputable examples of the senior Mozart’s plagiarism. But such is the stuff of Mozartean musicology.

Last, but not least, are details related to a key witness of those early weeks of the ‘Grand Tour. From the hired servant of the family named Sebastian Winter (1743-1815) who, aged 20, accompanied Leopold, Nannerl and Wolfgang from Salzburg as far as Paris, where they arrived (after many adventures and lots more fairy stories) around November of 1763. After which the Winter left their service. But not the life of Mozart.

Musicians in Salzburg, (and we must include 2nd violinists) did not employ male servants in 1763 or at any time in their history. Nor did they require personal hairdressers. They, the Salzburg musicians, were employed servants and liveried employees of the Hofkapelle. So was Mozart when he finally arrived in the Austrian capital in 1781 at the age of 26. (Servants of the Salzburg court were paid wages similar to those of its musicians and of servants themselves). Goodness knows how Sebastian Winter’s arrival in Salzburg was commented on by those residents in the months before the family left town). That too we can ignore. But Winter (not a resident of the city at the time of his arrival) was somehow employed by the Mozart family from around March of that year (months before Leopold was promoted) and months before they all left on a June Saturday evening for three and a half years of obscurity. The strangeness of which should not be seen, of course, as evidence for the manufacture of Mozart’s career, although it is surely consistent with it. Leopold, having arrived in Paris, then dispenses with Winter’s services in March 1764 and writes to Princess Furstenberg-Moskirch at Donaueschingen in the Black Forest. Giving the false impression that Winter has had no previous relation with Donaueschingen -

‘’We, Leopold Mozart, Music Director to his Serene Highness the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg, certify that Bastien Winter, hairdresser, has served us very faithfully for one year. He merits our recommendation because of his good qualities. Madame the Princess of Furstenberg-Moskirch, whom he would be honoured to serve, may rest assured that she is acquiring an excellent subject.

Paris, 2nd March 1764.’’

In reply to which is the fact that Sebastian Winter was a resident of Donaueschingen himself and was born there. What realistic chance is there for a musician to write to a Princess of the Holy Roman Empire offering the services of his servant to her/him ?

We may summarise as follows -

Winter began his service as a ‘servant/hairdresser’ under strange circumstances in faraway Salzburg in March 1763 and, one year later, after the letter of Leopold, he now found himself employed by aristocratic leaders of the court of the Prince and Princess of his home town of Furstenberg. Employed by a major prince of Germany. With Winter’s promotion being of such rapidity and size that it can only be compared with Leopold’s own. Leading us to conclude that Winter already had relations with Prince and Princess of Furstenberg before he came to work in Salzburg for the Mozarts. Servants did not move out of their local areas at this time in 18th century Europe.

But we are not finished yet. This ‘servant’ was to meet the family 3 years later in 1766 (near the end of the Grand Tour) when they stayed at the Furstenberg residence at Donaueschingen for no less than 12 days, (that is, during a visit to Prince Joseph Wenceslaus who ruled there between 1762 and 1783). And were met on their arrival by that same Sebastian Winter. (As letters of the Mozart family say).

And that’s not all. In 1786, (the year of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’) and now aged 30, W.A. Mozart sent by post a written offer to sell performance rights of various keyboard concertos and chamber works which, he claims, he had composed to this same court of Donaueschingen. Remarkable enough except that another even more remarkable now occurs. Mozart’s letter to Donaueschingen is addressed to none other than the Herr Sebastian Winter who, over those 20 years, has miraculously risen to a position of such importance to the court of Donaueschingen he is able to consider Mozart’s postal offer to purchase what was being offered. And did so.

Which completes our preliminaries (since I would not wish to go on listing these simple, even basic discrepancies). The stage management of Mozart’s career is a plain fact that begs only description.

So let’s join the borrowed coach that is holding Leopold, Nannerl, Wolfgang and their servant Sebastian Winter parked outside their home which is about to leave Salzburg. It is the evening of Saturday 9th July 1763. Their first major destination on this tour is to be….. Munich. Again. Via Wasserburg, a town some 40 kms distant.

When the coach left Salzburg late in the afternoon/early evening of that day in 1763 their father Leopold knew and had known for a long time this third tour would abruptly end the childhoods of both his son and his daughter. He knew this perfectly well. So did his wife. So did their landlord Hagenauer. And so did Prince Archbishop Firmian. But it was not known to the general population of Salzburg. Such things would only cause ‘envy’, ‘misunderstanding’ and unwanted gossip. So they would slip away from the town as late as possible. There would be no loose talk in Salzburg of mammoth music tours. For a time. That subject would have been far too delicate. And especially after crazy reports of what occurred late the previous years in Vienna. Leopold would take care of such things.

Conventional biography ignores such things, though they are realities of that time. We hardly consider that at the moment of their departure, their mother, waving them goodbye, knew only too well their artistic and personal limitations, their innocence, their weaknesses, and knew long years would pass before she would see them again.

If you would defend the Mozart of biographical convention you will of course tend to overlook such things. You will be keen to focus on his alleged ‘genius’, his musical ‘abilities’ and to perpetuate, in fact, a 200 year old fairy story which has its own agenda and momentum which papers over the tragedy of those parting moments. From now own you prefer the version of Wolfgang’s life supplied by Leopold who has become your guide since he, you unthinkingly believe, is worthy of trust.

We wish to travel with them. That too would be convention. But let us resist that temptation. For a while. Let us watch instead as their borrowed coach moves away and slowly disappears while a mother waves and weeps for her children. Since the alternative would be to ignore a hundred, even a thousand major discrepancies of a musical and historical kind that belong and have always belonged to those same years.

(Shall we, with integrity, unquestionably consent to the monopoly of western music and culture that the Mozart paradigm (musically and biographically), represents ? It represents to me, as one who has examined the life and career of Mozart for many years and others also (many of whom are specialists in their own areas of research) an absurdity in virtually every way. Of course it does. Since the detailed examination of the Mozart legend shows it to be little more than a pastiche of clever and clumsy falsehoods of a musical and biographical kind, literally riddled with exaggerations, abuses and irrelevancies. One which amazes me (as it does other modern researchers) since grown men and women still subscribe to that Mozart myth wholesale - to the point where it virtually dominates their musical landscape. And if I and other others wrote nothing else critical of Mozart, if we were to examine the contents of no more diaries, maps, letters, musical scores or other evidence (in comparing fictions with facts) we already know that the years of 1762 and 1763 are the loudest, clearest indication that Mozart’s musical career was already in a process of being artificially manufactured. By patrons, friends, managers, and supporters. That it, as a selfish, dogmatic, contrived hoax (one which allows, even today, little criticism) and which was intended to create, within a few decades of Mozart’s death, a pantheon of ‘great’ composers. One of whom was the same Mozart. He, enshrined as a now immortalised member is result of our gullibility. The difference being, of course,that the onus is now on me and other colleagues to prove it was so. To do so beyond fair and reasonable doubt. While your part, dear reader, is to form your own verdict on the subject having considered the available evidence from both points of view. Any other way would be a violation of our integrity.

It remains my view that Mozart and Mozart studies represent and have always represented a counterfeit musicology, a monument to human gullibility, and have been, during the two centuries having dominated our musical and cultural landscape the end of musicology as we know it. By deception. Having deceived and neutralised our own ability to break free of it. At a cost far more than that of spreading our own ignorance. Since a body of studies such as musical history is greater than the myth of Mozart and can only exist, can only have integrity, where cross-examination and fair criticism of convention exist and are seen to exist. Music, certainly, deserves better than the Mozart myth). It is not possible to speak of the exploitation of Mozart and his sister in our modern times. Two unlearned, unschooled children left Salzburg on the most contrived, manipulated ‘musical’ tour of Europe with we, its modern consumers, hardly aware of the rift that it must have caused in that family. With them paraded around Europe for years. A fact admitted by even the most adoring of his biographers, Wolfgang Hildesheimer

‘The Mozart family traversed Europe for three and a half years like a family of acrobats. More respectable, of course, bound to the morality of their task, yet wanderers still, dependent on fortune and favour, on weather and health, on the benevolence of the great, whose privilege it was to determine or at least to influence destinies’.
(W. Hildesheimer, ’Mozart’ p.31)

And what of the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria who, as late as December 1771 (5 years after their return from this third tour) wrote to her son in Milan advising them as follows on the Mozart roadshow -

‘Do not get involved in riffraff like the Mozarts and others like them….They are useless people traversing the world like beggars. Besides, they have a large family’.

Maria Theresa was right. Their family is today global. It supporters are offended when their transcendental myth is questioned. And Maria Theresa knew well of what she was speaking (as we will see when we examine events surrounding Mozarts stay in Vienna during 1768).

But I digress. The Mozart roadshow is as much as we wish to learn of musical history as far as the later 18th century is concerned. Let us see over the next episodes from documentary and other evidence whether the legend survives cross-examination. It does not. It never has. And, as for the report written in Augsburg a few days later this appeared in the 19th July edition of the ‘Europaeische Zeitung’ (published at Salzburg under the heading of ‘Augsburg’) -

‘The day before yesterday, in the morning, the Deputy Kapellmeister to the court of Saltzburg, Herr Leopold Mozart, left here for Stuttgard with his two remarkable children, to continue his journey to France and England by way of the greatest courts in Germany. He afforded the inhabitants of his native city the pleasure of hearing the quite extraordinary gifts that God has bestowed on these two dear little children in such abundant measure, gifts of which the Herr Kapellmeister has, as a true father, taken such indefatigable care he is now able to present a musical girl of 11, and what is incredible, a boy of 7 on the harpsichord, as a marvel of both past and present. All connoisseurs have found that what a friend in Vienna wrote some time ago about these celebrated children and what appeared in the local ‘Intelligenz-Zettl’ is not only true (incredible though this seemed), but even more worthy of admiration’.

We will therefore trace their movements over those next 3 ½ years. Mozart the myth and Mozart the reality.

RN

[yanni]

Add Grimm's (etc) 1763 travel itinerary to your story to make it really interesting.

For instance:


May 26, 1763 François-Joseph Gossec (29) appears before a Parisian magistrate to recover scores by himself and others from the estate of the recently deceased La Pouplinière.
June 6, 1763 Christoph Willibald Gluck (48) and Carl Ditters (23) return to Vienna from Bologna where they produced Gluck’s Il trionfo di Clelia. Ditters immediately asks Count Durazzo for four weeks dispensation from playing a concerto in public. He has written several in Italy and wants to rehearse them.
See, white robed peace, an ode by William Boyce (51) to words of Mallet*, is performed for the first time,at St. James’ Park, London.
July 1, 1763 Johann Christian Bach (27) writes to Padre Giovanni Battista Martini (57) in Milan that although he intended to return to Italy, he will heed the request of the King and Queen that he remain. Bach will shortly be named music master to the queen.

Frédéric à la duchesse de Saxe-Gotha, Potsdam,
49. A LA MÊME.
Potsdam, 22 juillet 1763.
Madame ma cousine,
J'ai de grandes obligations au sieur Grimm, ma chère duchesse, puisqu'il me procure une lettre de votre part, où vous m'assurez de votre précieux souvenir.
Nous avons ici M. d'Alembert, qui vaut mieux encore en société qu'en ses livres

Marpurg... the Royal Prussian Lotteries, whose director he became in 1763, receiving the title of War Councillor. His son, Johann Friedrich Marpurg, who later became a celebrated violinist, was born in 1766.

51. A LA MÊME.
Sans-Souci, 7 août 1763.

Madame ma cousine,
.................................................. ........En vérité, M. Grimm, vous êtes un homme admirable; vous me faites le plus grand plaisir du monde, par vos rapsodies, de me procurer des lettres de ma chère duchesse, et, quoique je me soucie fort peu des finances du Roi Très-Chrétien, ni de toutes les sottises qui passent par la tête du peuple français, je reçois vos gazettes avec une satisfaction singulière. Ne vous en enorgueillissez pas, M. Grimm; c'est pour l'amour de l'enveloppe qui me les fait tenir. Voilà, madame, ce que je n'aurais pas eu le cœur de vous dire, mais ce que cependant je ne puis en aucune façon supprimer, parce que cela est très-vrai. Une demoiselle de Wangenheim, qui est attachée à ma sœur de Schwedt, et qui, avec toutes mes nièces et mes arrière-neveux, a été ici, peut m'en servir de témoin. On a bu, ma chère duchesse, à votre santé avec ce zèle que vous inspirez à vos dévots, et nous avons dit ce que je n'ose répéter par respect pour votre modestie. M. d'Alembert vous a admirée sur notre rapport

October 5, 1763 Augustus III, King of Poland, Friedrich August II Elector of Saxony dies of a stroke in Dresden. He is succeeded as Elector of Saxony by his son Friedrich Christian. The King’s death begins machinations between Prussia, Russia and Austria over control of Poland.
The Mozart family arrives in Brussels from Louvain. They will stay here for six weeks.

Heinrich , the son of Johann Moritz von Brühl, died at Dresden on 28 October 1763, having survived his master only for a few weeks. The new elector, Frederick Christian caused an inquiry to be held into his administration. His large gallery of pictures was bought by Empress Catherine II of Russia in 1768.

November 7, 1763 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (7) gives a concert before Prince Karl Alexander in Brussels.
November 15, 1763 After six weeks, the Mozart family leaves Brussels for Paris.

Jean-Frédéric-Henri baron de Cocceji, lieutenant-colonel et adjudant du Roi, nommé envoyé extraordinaire de Prusse à Stockholm le 17 novembre 1763.

Potsdam Komische Oper: 1.100 Tl. (November 1763).154Bemerkung: Die Zahlung bezieht sich auf das Engagement der Opera buffa-Truppe, bestehend aus Johann August und Armellina Koch, Filippo Sidotti,Francesco Paladini und Marianna Gheri (siehe oben). Bemerkung: Armellina Mattei hatte um 1760** Johann August Koch geheiratet.
Beide Sänger halfen gelegentlich in der großen Oper aus.42

November 18, 1763 The Mozart family reaches Paris where they are welcomed and housed by the Bavarian ambassador, Count van Eyck.
November 22, 1763 A Requiem in C by Johann Adolf Hasse (64) is performed for the first time, for Elector Friedrich August, in Dresden.
November 27, 1763 The wife of Archduke Joseph, Isabella of Parma, dies thus closing all the theaters in Vienna and postponing the premiere of revised version of Les pèlerins de la Mecque by Christoph Willibald Gluck (49).

December 6, 1763 Destateri, o miei fidi, a cantata by Franz Joseph Haydn (31) is performed for the first time, in Eisenstadt Castle for the name-day of his employer, Prince Nicholas Esterházy.
December 15, 1763 King George III grants Johann Christian Bach (28) a royal privilege for the publication of his works in Britain.
December 17, 1763 Friedrich Christian, Elector of Saxony dies of complications from smallpox and is succeded by his son Friedrich August III, age 13, who rules under regency.

Hennin exerçait les fonctions de Résident de France à Varsovie depuis le mois de décembre 1763; Herman Karl von Keyserlingk:Tsarina Catherine the Great of Russia ordered him to Poland in 1762/3 to arrange the successful election of yet an other Russian candidate to the Polish throne, Paniatowski. Franz Adam Veichtner, Sohn des Regensburger Geigenbauers Johann Georg Veichtner,(friend of Benda, Carl Friedrich Fasch and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach), 1763 trat er in den Dienst des baltischen Grafen Hermann v. Keyserling, in dessen Gefolge er noch im selben Jahr nach St. Petersburg gelangte.



But you first have to discard falsities (such as -but not limited to-those above marked in red) to then make sense.

*The 'Rule Britania' Mallet, born David Malloch.
**For 'Mattei' ,her relations to Koch/Bach and a glimpse at 1764 see http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54106&page=15

[Musicology]

Note -

Part 1B/7 of the 'Grand Tour' (1763-1766) will be available here within the next week. Exposing even more fictions, exaggerations and fantasy myths on the Salzburg 'genius' W.A. Mozart as he continues his stage managed 'musical' tour of western Europe. Assisted by members of the usual fraternities, occultist rulers, men in ''high places'', Herr Leopold Mozart, dozens of 'biographers', paid actors, and his loyal 'servant' Sebastian Winter of Donaueschingen.

Remember, 'Everything you've heard is true' - and that's 'official' ('Amadeus')

And, in the meantime, a musical divertimento -

JSB
Concerto BWV 1064/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGNxFbeM6DU&feature=related

LOL !!

[yanni]

....and, as we are still in 1762-64, ie too early to detect young Amadeus's later 'falsity', the questions "who G(iovanni).S.Bach was?" or "who invented him and for what purpose?" must then* be answered:

'A concerto for oboe and violin attributed to “Bach” in Cat. Breitkopf,
Supplement 1 (1766), col. 248, is attributed to “G. S. Bach” in the
non-thematic catalogue of 1764 and, in a version for solo violin and
flute, to “Förster” (probably Christoph) in Cat. Breitkopf, part 2 (1762),
col. 62. Wq 135 is published in CPEB:CW, II/1.'Janet K. Page on CPEBach.

And of course "1763 war councelor Marpurg" -who had something to do with JSBach's 'creation'-must also be explained! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Marpurg

*After those questions in my previous (on CPEBach's 1763-4 whereabouts and Armellina Mattei/Koch-Bach) are dealt with.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You may be surprised to learn this thread is on W.A. Mozart . (It is not on JS Bach). At the present time we are dealing with the Mozart tour (which lasted almost 3 1/2 years) - between the summer of 1763 and late 1766.

Since you are interested in JS Bach (1685-1750) I would not wish to leave you disapppointed -

Cantata 70
Opening Chorus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bON6vruJlug




....and, as we are still in 1762-64, ie too early to detect young Amadeus's later 'falsity', the questions "who G(iovanni).S.Bach was?" or "who invented him and for what purpose?" must then* be answered:

'A concerto for oboe and violin attributed to “Bach” in Cat. Breitkopf,
Supplement 1 (1766), col. 248, is attributed to “G. S. Bach” in the
non-thematic catalogue of 1764 and, in a version for solo violin and
flute, to “Förster” (probably Christoph) in Cat. Breitkopf, part 2 (1762),
col. 62. Wq 135 is published in CPEB:CW, II/1.'Janet K. Page on CPEBach.

And of course "1763 war councelor Marpurg" -who had something to do with JSBach's 'creation'-must also be explained! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Marpurg

*After those questions in my previous (on CPEBach's 1763-4 whereabouts and Armellina Mattei/Koch-Bach) are dealt with.

[yanni]

Yanni,

You may be surprised to learn this thread is on W.A. Mozart . (It is not on JS Bach). At the present time we are dealing with the Mozart tour (which lasted almost 3 1/2 years) - between the summer of 1763 and late 1766.



This thread is yet another attempt to sterilise Mozart from his entourage-creators.

It follows in step the two centuries old tradition of hiding the mountain behind the molehill.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

It is obvious you simply do not have the discipline or patience to say anything verifiable about W.A. Mozart and his career. You seen not to understand that criticism of such a cultural giant must rightly begin with a steady demonstration of what the facts really are and what the fictions are from Mozart's earliest years until the time of his death. (Only when this is done can we be justified in trying to show how this fairy story came to dominate western muisical 'history' as it does). Though, in this case, this can even be done after we have examined the year of 1770. By that time the evidence of stage managed Mozart will surely be so obvious that nobody can deny it. But these things (which require much study and detailed evidence for ordinary readers) seem beyond you to appreciate. It is being steadily shown that Mozart's career is and always was a contrived fairy story, constructed with the input of dozens, even hundreds of patrons, 'admirers', managers, editors, publishers and propagandists during his musical lifetime and beyond. So much for 'sanitising' Mozart ! (It makes me laugh, since the totality of this evidence is called 'The Manufacture of Mozart'). !!

You now know more than before of the first two musical 'tours' of Mozart (1762) to Munich and to Vienna. The same is true of Mozart's first tour to Italy of 1770. And of his fake admission to the Bologna Academy. And because of discussion of numerous other musical works that have been falsely attributed to him by publishers, biographers and media managers from that time. In actual fact, there is a mass of evidence (musical and other kinds) you have simply never seen on the years of his career in between. (And which few have seen also). The difference is we who are informing you are patient but you are in a hurry.

Perhaps we (unlike yourself) have the advantage of knowing the difference between JS Bach, Handel and Mozart. Since you, Yanni, believe (and have never been embarrassed to say) Handel and Bach were one and the same man. You have even done so here on a thread dedicated to W.A. Mozart ! And no amount of absurdity of the same kind stops you from doing similar things. So that any good of your posts is lost in your inability to give credit to others.

It seems you are happy to be heckler, a man of outbursts, of timelines, innuendos and of no real substance. Which is a pity.

I offer you a constructive suggestion - why not put together a few sentences (not 'timelines' or disjointed statements) and let us have a demonstration of your ability to say something useful about this subject of Mozart ?

In the meantime, please have the patience to learn from what has already been posted here. You will probably not read it anywhere else.

Thank You




This thread is yet another attempt to sterilise Mozart from his entourage-creators.

It follows in step the two centuries old tradition of hiding the mountain behind the molehill.

[yanni]

Save your mud and put up a 'works in progress' sign, Robert. We don't want another King William falling off his horse, do we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molehill

...and add the history of the Kotce/Cocceji/Koch theater in Prague(1739) to your pile/molehill of '18th century cultural myths'.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

This thread is on the transcendental life and career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791). Notice number 10 (and still counting). The theatre of Prague has been a subject refered to earlier here, by me. (I recommend you to read the book of Dr Freeman of the USA on the early Sporke theatre of Prague. He being an American professor of music who has also written an excellent book on the life and career of Josef Myseliveck. And 1739 is 16 years (and 16 reminders ?) before the birth date of our W.A. Mozart. But it will form a part of the overall explanation at a later date. If you wish to write on that subject please do. Perhaps ending in the year of 1768 when the opera 'La Finta Semplice' was ghost written for the 12 year old Mozart who had been commissioned to compose that opera for Vienna by the Austrian Emperor and Empress (after he and his father had been laughed at as musical 'con men' in Vienna for weeks) and who was again laughed at when the 'newly composed' score of that 'Mozart opera' finally arrived in the Austrian capital for rehearsal - the scandal causing that commission be cancelled altogether ? The case taking 9 more months to 'investigate' at the expense of Austria though it drew no conclusions on what happened and the document disappeared! (In the usual jesuitical way. LOL !!). In fact, in charge of the resulting 'investigation' into what had happened was none other the younger cousin of the man who founded the Prague opera in 1739 to which you refer). Named Sporke. A relative who, by that date (1768) and by one of those countless Mozartean coincidences, was, you will be amazed to learn, already in charge of theatre administration in Vienna. Thus presiding over yet another example of the fake and ludicrous career of the iconic W.A. Mozart. With the same Sporke presiding over, in fact, the later adminstration of 'Mozart's' opera productions during Wolfgang's three Italian tours - from 1770 onwards. LOL ! Mozart was an 'inside job' !!! But don't tell the children !!!

Anyway - another hugely talented (and neglected) composer of the late baroque - please take your partners !!! LOL

Johann Friedrich Fasch (1688-1758)
Orchestral Suite No. 5
Minuet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovTnNyFRGt0&feature=related


'Everything you've heard is true - gulp -honest !'


Save your mud and put up a 'works in progress' sign, Robert. We don't want another King William falling off his horse, do we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molehill

...and add the history of the Kotce/Cocceji/Koch theater in Prague(1739) to your pile/molehill of '18th century cultural myths'.

[yanni]

The Prague theatre of the Estates, also called Nostitz (allegedly built by 'Count Nostitz Rieneck' in 1783 on his own vast property, in Prague center, 'adjacent' to the 1739 Kotce/Cocceji*/Kotzen/Koch** theater,demolished around 1781) where W. A. Mozart conducted the world premiere of his Don Giovanni 1787 hosted by Bondini (who shortly before staged Figaro's Nocces there).

Pity "count Nostitz's' biography is nowhere to be found. Neither is Bondini's!

Prague was under 'Carl Ludwig Cocceji/Kotce/Koch' at the time however!

Look under 'Mozart's diapers', Robert, and tell us what you now see!

*See Samuel Cocceji and his relations to Bohemia.
**See Heinrich Gottfried Koch and his first Prague performances in 1739.

[Musicology]

One day Yanni will learn to write an article. Instead of providing sound bites of disjointed information. We wish him well. He is trying.



The Prague theatre of the Estates, also called Nostitz (allegedly built by 'Count Nostitz Rieneck' in 1783 on his own vast property, in Prague center, 'adjacent' to the 1739 Kotce/Cocceji*/Kotzen/Koch** theater,demolished around 1781) where W. A. Mozart conducted the world premiere of his Don Giovanni 1787 hosted by Bondini (who shortly before staged Figaro's Nocces there).

Pity "count Nostitz's' biography is nowhere to be found. Neither is Bondini's!

Prague was under 'Carl Ludwig Cocceji/Kotce/Koch' at the time however!

Look under 'Mozart's diapers', Robert, and tell us what you now see!

*See Samuel Cocceji and his relations to Bohemia.
**See Heinrich Gottfried Koch and his first Prague performances in 1739.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

One day Yanni will learn to write an article. Instead of providing sound bites of disjointed information. We wish him well. He is trying.

One day Musicology may learn not to be a snide, pompous jerk. Though, we doubt this will ever happen.

[yanni]

There is a scientific explanation:

The eyes of moles and of some burrowing rodents are rudimentary in size, and in some cases are quite covered by skin and fur. This state of the eyes is probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection....and as eyes are certainly not necessary to animals having subterranean habits, a reduction in their size, with the adhesion of the eyelids and growth of fur over them, might in such case be an advantage; and if so, natural selection would aid the effects of disuse. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Laws of Variation).


One day Musicology may learn not to be a snide, pompous jerk. Though, we doubt this will ever happen.

[Musicology]

If Mutatis Mutandi has anything to say on W.A. Mozart this is his chance. He probably does not know Yanni has been reminded no less than 10 times on this thread that its subject was (and is) the life and career of W.A. Mozart. And now Mutatis Mutandi has been told the same. (Perhaps he will learn this quicker than Yanni ?).

(One struggles to keep the thread on its subject. The 'Mozarteans' don't like that. They have no answer. As usual).

The fraudulent mythology of the musical 'genius' of Salzburg is, we see, not able to survive daylight. Cross-examination. What does that say about the Mozart industry ? Biographical and musical evidence shows what we are dealing with here. It's garbage. It always was. Music deserves better. As Mutatis Mutandi can see and as everyone can see who examines the facts. But they still teach this stuff to children and to students as musical 'history' though anyone can see it's fraternal nonsense. And we are seeing this, over and over again. From the first years of Mozart's life to the very last.

Stick around -the best is still to come ! And where are these 'experts' when you need them ? They've gone awfully silent. Don't feel bad. 200 years of fiction is enough fiction for musicology.

LOL !!

Yanni has an advantage over you. He already knows Mozart was a stage-managed invention and he tells us this himself. Seems like facts are greater than fictions. And they are !

Please do not presume to speak on behalf of 'we'. It indicates that you have multiple personalities. Since we do not know who the 'we' is. Perhaps you can tell us. Let me guess - you work for the Austrian Tourist Board, or the fraternity of science fiction writers, perhaps ? Do they pay you 30 pieces of silver to defend one of the big monuments of pseudo-history ? They do ? In that case you should post in the fiction section.



One day Musicology may learn not to be a snide, pompous jerk. Though, we doubt this will ever happen.


'Everything you've heard is true' (and that's 'official')

(Trailer to the film 'Amadeus) '


We continue our irreverent series on the legendary musical career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) with another free article, this time dealing with musical and biographical matters related to Mozart's first musical tour of Italy which he made in 1770. During which time (as you already know) he wrote 90 operas before breakfast, 20 concertos before lunch, 23 concertos before sunset and designed 29 suspension bridges. And wrote from memory several volumes of Homer, the Bible, and the notes of a mass performed in Rome. All of which prove his 'genius' status, as you know.

This section examines the thorny problem of 'Who Taught Mozart Musical Composition' ? (If anyone). (Cough, cough !).

In recent years (as you may appreciate) the need to provide the identity of the composition teacher of this mercurial genius from Salzburg (now that Padre Martini of Bologna has been discounted from the list) has become something of a priority to identify in official/conventional 'Mozart Studies'. One influential teacher and writer (as you will see) has been bravely suggesting it was probably a musical aristocrat of the time named the Marquis de Ligniville (1730-1788). Which, if true, solves a centuries old mystery. And rescuing the Austrian Tourist Board and German musicology from that small problem.

Ligniville, for sure, was described in a letter by Leopold Mozart (who met one another at this time) as being one of the best composition teachers in Italy at the time. So he sounds promising, doesn't he ? We examine this theory. We also examine other exaggerations, falsehoods and crude errors which relate to Mozart's presence in Florence during that year of 1770 and the contents of reports made on them during their stay. Thanks especially to Luca Bianchini of Italy and to those interested in the subject of musical history (aka as the struggle to introduce criticism in to the teaching of musical history). And best wishes to investigative journalism and those relying on the oxygen of criticism.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yxngqext3vcb36r

[Pyras]

I congratulate you Robert on your research about the trip Mozart made in his earliest years. I think there are no books as interesting as these chapters, because you are collecting lot of problems, that were never studied in depth. You allow the reader to have a proper idea. So I like it very much. The research is a collection of problems, not a collection of solutions. So I thank you very much for these very intersting materials. Nobody I think has researched anything about Munich and 1763 and so on. I think these informations are strictly related to the researches on music in 1770.

I thank you also for the new link. I will read the new document with great interest.

Pyras



'Everything you've heard is true' (and that's 'official')

(Trailer to the film 'Amadeus) '


We continue our irreverent series on the legendary musical career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) with another free article, this time dealing with musical and biographical matters related to Mozart's first musical tour of Italy which he made in 1770. During which time (as you already know) he wrote 90 operas before breakfast, 20 concertos before lunch, 23 concertos before sunset and designed 29 suspension bridges. And wrote from memory several volumes of Homer, the Bible, and the notes of a mass performed in Rome. All of which prove his 'genius' status, as you know.

This section examines the thorny problem of 'Who Taught Mozart Musical Composition' ? (If anyone). (Cough, cough !).

In recent years (as you may appreciate) the need to provide the identity of the composition teacher of this mercurial genius from Salzburg (now that Padre Martini of Bologna has been discounted from the list) has become something of a priority to identify in official/conventional 'Mozart Studies'. One influential teacher and writer (as you will see) has been bravely suggesting it was probably a musical aristocrat of the time named the Marquis de Ligniville (1730-1788). Which, if true, solves a centuries old mystery. And rescuing the Austrian Tourist Board and German musicology from that small problem.

Ligniville, for sure, was described in a letter by Leopold Mozart (who met one another at this time) as being one of the best composition teachers in Italy at the time. So he sounds promising, doesn't he ? We examine this theory. We also examine other exaggerations, falsehoods and crude errors which relate to Mozart's presence in Florence during that year of 1770 and the contents of reports made on them during their stay. Thanks especially to Luca Bianchini of Italy and to those interested in the subject of musical history (aka as the struggle to introduce criticism in to the teaching of musical history). And best wishes to investigative journalism and those relying on the oxygen of criticism.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yxngqext3vcb36r

[Musicology]

Thank you Pyras.

We will shortly prepare a number of other articles on the life and career of Mozart. Using musical and historical evidence. These including a series on the well known 'Grand Tour' of 1763-6, articles on his other two tours of Italy, and on matters related to his later career (real or imagined). These will take us through the years of his childhood and youth. A solid foundation for studies of the years which follow them.

Peter Tchaikowsky (1840-93)
Symphony No. 6
3rd Movement
Herbert von Karajan
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bviS_Wt3L6M

In answer to George, members of the Order of St Hubert encouraged French Horns to be introduced in to orchestras in Germany/Austria/Bohemia. One of whose members was Sporke, patron of early opera in Prague during the 1730's. And one of whose relatives was also in charge of operas of the Austrian/Hungarian court in Vienna until 1775. (In fact this later Sporke was in charge of the enquiry in to the cancellation of the 'Mozart' opera of 1768 in Vienna, 'La finta semplice').

Regards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBT76RViKRw&feature=related

[yanni]

Refocusing on 1762:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51451&page=7

[Musicology]

We must remind ourselves that the conventional view of western musical history (so-called) is dominated by a mere handful of musical composers, they and music that has been traditionally attributed to them and which has always been published and performed in their names, but whose iconic status in each case begs the question of the context within which that music was first commissioned, edited, published and performed. But these are subjects rarely questioned within musicology and especially if they call in to question the dominant status of the composer in question. Nowhere is this more obviously true than in music of the 18th century. And particularly in that period known as the 'Enlightenment'. The alleged works of Joseph Haydn, of G.F. Handel, and of numerous others being clear and obvious examples. Nor is modern criticism of musical convention appreciated or encouraged within the wider academic and cultural world. Since these, the ’great’ composers, have become idols of western musical history. Seen as integral parts of western civilization, so-called. Belonging (as they do) to a virtual pantheon who today dominate our musical and cultural landscape with only minimal protest or criticism. Though this silent process of secularised canonisation has indisputably excluded more than 99 per cent of musical composers and has ruled out our appreciation or even the performance of their own music. The vast majority of musical works composed during the lifetimes of these neglected composers lying unpublished, unperformed, unstudied and unappreciated in countless libraries and archives today. As they have for over two centuries.

In the case of W.A. Mozart his canonisation has been justified by creation and survival of a vast quantity of documents related to him and his alleged career which seem to support the well known outlines of his life, career and supposed achievements. Though these, conventionally, are rarely questioned for the truthfulness of their contents. Indeed, the first fact we learn of Mozart Studies is that more documents survive on Mozart’s life and musical career (covering virtually every week of his existence) than on any other composer in the entire history of western music. Which is a foundational fact with which to begin. So, from the start, the attribution of music published and performed in Mozart’s name over the past two centuries has always tended to be accepted wholesale by teachers and students together with that of his giant reputation. These seeming to be justified and complemented by evidence of a biographical kind, which, as said, is voluminous. And, since biographical documents appear to balance and complement the music itself, there seems little more to say - except that we all need to acknowledge and celebrate the 'miracle of Mozart' as a true prodigy of nature and as a great composer. Which we dutifully tend to do. We assume one documentary miracle is related to Mozart (that of ’his’ musical scores) has been supported by a second miracle of roughly equal size, consisting of the voluminous travel diaries, family correspondence, anecdotes, notices, and other written material etc.

That the career of Mozart was falsified virtually from the start, that it was invented, exaggerated, and raised wholesale to iconic status by early and later patrons, by fraternal arrangements, by a stream of loyal publishers, biographers, managers and others may seem at first, to be absurd, preposterous, and highly improbable. Although it finds immediate credibility when we consider what we know, (or think we know) of musical achievement as a whole during Mozart’s own lifetime (1756-1791). Isn’t that a subject which has always been defined for us by conventional reference to Mozart as a finished genius of western music ? The Mozartean mantra has been of great value to controllers of many areas of academic and cultural ‘education’ and has certainly had the effect of excluding virtually all other composers of his time, both they and their music. And since that is not able to be denied we further note this process was swiftly followed by construction and deification of a pantheon of ‘great’ composers of which he, W.A. Mozart, is said to be a vital member.

In short, the fact that Mozart’s giant status can be demonstrated (even by common sense) to have occurred, that it is really a mockery of musical history in any fair or reasonable sense, and that it still lacks meaningful criticism within the academic and wider world prepares us for the fact which follows - that Mozart’s status, his life and career are still being rarely questioned in any meaningful sense. Which facts alone are more than sufficient justification for a modern study, a modern re-examination, of the Mozart phenomenon as a whole.

RN

Let’s Sanitise Our Musical ‘History’

FX Schlichtegroll's ‘Necrology’ (a work providing the outline of the lives and careers of famous people which appeared annually in German during the late 18th century) first appeared with an article on the late W.A. Mozart in 1793 - 2 years after his death and after a comedy of errors. Though it supposedly covered the official life and career of W.A. Mozart from 1756-1791. Furious with the fact that it did not credit Mozart with composing ’Le Nozze di Figaro’ and numerous other musical works for which he is today famous Constanze (widow of Mozart) waited until news came a second edition of the same work was in big demand and was about to be published in Graz in 1794 (a year after the 1st edition). When she arranged for all available copies to be purchased soon after they started appearing in bookshops. And had all of them destroyed. (The same as she had 8 years earlier bought up and destroyed the entire 1st Edition of the earliest Mozart biography of them all - by FX Niemetscheck of Prague (1797/8). (An unusual habit of hers, it seems !). As for her role in managing a third Mozart biography (whose authorship is credited to her second late husband, G. Nissen, and herself and which was published in 1826 she tells brazenly readers in its preface -

‘We must not speak of him (Mozart) as perhaps he would have spoken in the privacy of domestic evenings - to tell all the truth might do harm to his fame, to the success of his very music’

Apart from that, ‘everything you’ve heard is true’. And that’s official ! Bringing to mind those immortal words -

'We must not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' :smash:

Luigi Boccherini
Minuetto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fLPBIBOE5U&feature=related

[yanni]

Mozart's death was faked. He reappeared as Nissen and made a mess (could not correct the long list of lies-ie other fake music masters, like himself, all manufactured by 'Kochs') of music history and his own biography.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

My concern is for Mozart's official life and career.

I hope to post soon on the first days of his 'Grand Tour' of 1763-6. In the meantime -

JS Bach
Overture
Orchestral Suite No. 4
BWV 1069/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPnAwusDYe4&feature=related

[yanni]

'Mozart's official life and career' has already been put in doubt by others, so I fail to see the point you are trying to make, your own contribution towards the truth, other than noises laced with irony!

Biographical accounts of Mozart published prior to the late 1820s make virtually no mention of his mistreatment in Salzburg. Not even Nannerl Mozart, in her reminiscences, has much to say about this. But with the publication in 1828 of Georg Nikolaus von Nissen's Biographie W. A. Mozart, the story of Mozart's early suffering became a standard biographical trope. What gave Nissen (Constanze's second husband) such authority was his publication of lengthy abstracts from the family correspondence - indeed, his is as much an epistolary biography (and as such at least indirectly related to the idea of the epistolary novel) as a scholarly one. The biographical power of these abstracts, including bitter complaints and frequent accounts of abuse, was beyond measurement: not only were they 'authentic', straight from the horse's mouth, but they reinforced the then current 'idea' of Mozart as a quintessentially Romantic artist – discarded and neglected, passed over in favour of lesser talents, sickly and impoverished, doomed to an early grave.
And the music composed between 1784 and 1788: so powerful, so moving, so 'absolute', so Viennese. Could a better foil be found for the creation of this classical (in the sense of exemplary) style than his miserable life in Salzburg, where he was subjugated by his father and the Archbishop and where, as most accounts have it, he was forced to toe the line musically? Almost inevitably, Salzburg came to occupy an important and thoroughly negative place in Mozart's history, fuelled by the composer's own words. Most important of all, perhaps, he was relieved of any personal culpability: it was not Mozart's fault that his life turned out the way it did - his true spirit, and the rewards that he deserved, are manifest in the grace and beauty and purity of his works.
It is a convenient story but not a convincing one.

------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Eisen: Mozart and Salzburg

See also: 'The Mozart Myths: A Critical Reassessment' by William Stafford

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You have again not read the books you are recommending. Such as William Stafford's book entitled 'The Mozart Myths: A Critical Reassesssment', have you ?

If you actually read that book you will see Stafford never, at any time, questions the musical 'genius' of W.A. Mozart, and never, at any time, doubts that W.A. Mozart composed all of the music traditionally attributed to him. As if that is not bad enough he never, at any time, deals with the mountain of lies, falsification and fictions which ARE his official music nor the countless examples of his fraudulent career. That's just for a start.

I am convinced there were no 'great' composers. Not even JS Bach. There are those who serve mankind in music and those who do not. The rest is Babylonian, occultist, nonsense.

Cantata 205
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33nKaU7UDwE&feature=related


Regards

[yanni]

Long ago I came to- and published-the conclusion that, on my subject at least, "everybody but me is lying", a conclusion that was later strengthened to a principle when the music side of the story was tackled in this forum. It would be thus inconsistent to really trust or recommend other authors on Mozart or any other music master. I never did so therefore for Stafford but merely wrote that Mozart's 'truth' was already placed in doubt by others, paralleling their 'work' to yours in their cloudiness (big titles-little content if any).

For what is worth however, Mozart's 'truth' is here, in this site, already, in the threads on music we have gone thru, which threads could serve as a basis to anyone interested, provided it (truth-and not false hope or private interest) is what people really need this day and age, which I very much doubt.


Regards.




Yanni,

You have again not read the books you are recommending. Such as William Stafford's book entitled 'The Mozart Myths: A Critical Reassesssment', have you ?

If you actually read that book you will see Stafford never, at any time, questions the musical 'genius' of W.A. Mozart, and never, at any time, doubts that W.A. Mozart composed all of the music traditionally attributed to him. As if that is not bad enough he never, at any time, deals with the mountain of lies, falsification and fictions which ARE his official music nor the countless examples of his fraudulent career. That's just for a start.

I am convinced there were no 'great' composers. Not even JS Bach. There are those who serve mankind in music and those who do not. The rest is Babylonian, occultist, nonsense.

Cantata 205
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33nKaU7UDwE&feature=related


Regards

[Musicology]

Yanni,

The history of western music (so-called) was and is, to a huge extent, officially approved nonsense. Of course it is. But there is the arrogant dogma that we 'know' the subject and Mozart was a genius. It doesn't matter how much contrary evidence you can present - the mantra remains. Although his myth was protected from the very start by members of the status quo on grounds that were and are entirely bogus. 'His' music in actual fact written by others. Almost totally. So says the evidence. Which teachers and students never see. Or choose not to. That is not, however, the end. It's really the start. The pantheon of 'great' musical composers of which Mozart became a vital member was, of course, an artificial , highly selective and grossly sanitised counterfeit. Requiring a lot of input. This fact can be shown by examining the lives and careers of virtually any 'great' composer from Palestrina up to and including Beethoven and beyond. Mozart is a case in point. So too Handel, Haydn, and many others.

Virtually from the start of the Christian era pagan influences of the east (via Byzantium, Venice and from places such as Como in North Italy from the 5th century onwards) started to control emerging organised churches and rulers of land estates through Rome and the papacy. Also in the control of music. The rise of the Holy Roman Empire from 800 AD and music within it is a classic example. The mystery cults of the ancient world never went away. They early infiltrated the Church of Rome and their influence was often supported by hierarchical nature of the papacy itself. (As a parasite lives on its host, so they, the occultists, lived on the organised structures of Rome and its system). This plus the continual influence of kabbalism and talmudism. In many cases the interests of Rome and those pagan beliefs were one and the same. The ancient guilds, the emergence of early fraternities, the Giovanni, the Cominici, early forms of Freemasony, English freemasonry (which came much later), the rise of the Illuminatists, the entire Enlightenment philosophy, and the dominant role down the centuries of land estate 'owners', of musical patrons and other members of the aristocracy thus presided over the rise of an official 'history' of music that is no history. A pseudo-history, in fact. Belonging to a world of legal fictions and heroic individuals. Welcomed and adored by millions.

A modern examination of Mozart provides proof positive that Babylonian/Assyrian/Egyptian/Talmudic beliefs have been in institutionalised revival since the late 18th century. Taking over and defending cultural monuments for the teaching and learning of music and its history (so-called) to generations and giving a pack of institututionalised myths and lies that are virtually never challenged or criticised. Consumed by the gullible with the help of the mass media as 'convention'.

Mozart was a musical Manchurian Candidate used at a crucial time for further revival of pagan control of a vital part of education and culture - music and its history.

(The control of music was always a vitally important part of control of 'civilization' as a whole. So Mozart was part of the globalist revival of paganism. His official story conforming to the philosophies and belief systems of pagan elites and their own ancestors). Patronised to this day by corporate mythmakers. That is the importance, if any, of a detailed modern expose of W.A. Mozart.

Cantata 201
Chorus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4yqlSikx-Y&feature=related

[yanni]

You might as well blame it on Adam and Eve....or the rotten apple!

CONCERT IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI IN JAPAN

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Requiem K.626 in D Minor

Conductor: Elias Voudouris
Chorus Master: Nikos Vassiliou

Solists:
Vassiliki Karagianni,
Victoria Ntina-Maifatova,
Antonis Koroneos,
Dimitris Kassioumis

Orchestra and Chorus of the Greek National Opera.


The Greek National Opera presents Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Requiem on Saturday 16 April 2011 at 20:00 hours at the Olympia Theatre.



The Requiem in D Minor (K.626) is for many the crown jewel of Mozart's musical opus (1756-1791), his last and most superior achievement, since in that piece music and words blend in a transcendental way.
The conditions under which the work was written are even today shrouded in a veil of mystery. While the commissioning of the Magic Flute was a caprice of fate, and the commission for La Clemenza di Tito came from an enthusiastic impresario, the existence of the Requiem is surely a commission from some member of the aristocracy to Mozart. In return for paying a price of 60 ducats, this aristocrat intended to dedicate the work to the memory of his wife while presenting that piece as one of his own!
Mozart himself did not manage to complete the work. The contribution of Franz-Xaver Süssmayr, 1766-1803) was definitive in completing the composition and orchestrating the parts.

Starts 20.00

Tickets online

Tickets on sale in advance
from the OLYMPIA THEATRE ticket booths, 59-61 Academias St., Athens from 09:00 to 21:00 daily
Phone bookings 210 3662 100, 210 3612 461, 210 3643 725
Online bookings www.nationalopera.gr

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Why the need for wholesale fakery and falsehood ? Ah, yes - LOL !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzCsSeMXqCM&feature=related



HOW THE MOZART INDUSTRY WORKS
A Comedy in Three Acts

Overture

As the Second World War was drawing to its close a Milan music publisher and editor named Carin, (no doubt hopeful the people of Europe and everywhere else would soon return to peaceful sanity) made a surprising announcement. By providing details of a sensational musical discovery made a year earlier in music archives of the Pia Institutuzione in Cremona by Italian music writer Nino Negretti. An 18th century score of a previously unknown symphony by the Salzburg genius W.A. Mozart (1756-1791). An event which, over the next few years, and in consistency with the iconic name of that genius was soon to be celebrated as a major cultural and musical discovery. A typical example of the news being quick to spread being a French journal in the ‘Revue de Musicologie’ in 1946 under the name of ‘Publication D’Une Simphonie Inedite de Mozart’. (With similar reports appearing in Germany and in English speaking lands).

Now, readers of these pages will not surprised Mozart has long been to Musicology what Pavlov is to members of the canine family. (Since salivation is guaranteed in both cases). And if I tell you this discovery in Cremona burned a few late night candles at the Mozarteum in Salzburg and at august music archives such as the Gesellschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna, Austria, you will get a rough idea of what I mean). You may even be forgiven for thinking your correspondent in these Mozartean matters has, by the very act of sharing these revelations, finally ‘thrown in the towel’ - that he has repented of his ways and has ‘joined the bandwaggon‘, so to speak - of his long term criticism of the transcendental myth that is the Mozart story. (After all, what better way for me to do so than bring to your attention details of the discovery of a little known Mozart symphony, no doubt composed in the white hot moment of musical inspiration by that prodigy of nature against whom he has, over many years and until now had many sleepless nights ?).

But you may also be surprised to know experts, studying this particular discovery in Cremona were strangely reluctant to attribute it to W.A. Mozart. Which was unusual, I assure you. Indeed, there is a professor in the USA who has authored a book on Mozart symphonies who acknowledges that over the past 200 years nearly 100 works of a symphonic kind have appeared at one time or another in Mozart’s name. Most of them commercially published at one time or another. Amazing in itself. Do you know a similar case ? Though, today, less than one third of these symphonic works are still said to be by W.A. Mozart. Thus, we are reminded by such hard facts of his myth and of those promotional offers we see these days in supermarkets offering 3 for the price of 1, and so on.

As for Signor Negretti’s discovery (made in 1943 and announced the following year) its orchestral parts certainly certainly originated from a collection that went back to the 18th Century Accademia Filarmonica of Cremona. Which was a great start, as will see later. So, not unnaturally, Negrotti and others believed that unknown symphony may well have originated in Cremona since Wolfgang and his father stopped there in January 1770 on their way to Milan. And the work was still there awaiting rediscovery in 1943, filed there in Cremona under the name of ‘Mozart‘).

But there were, virtually from the start. numerous problems. Not least, that the work was soon acknowledged by all who actually examined it to be filled with musical errors. And, of course, Mozart did not make clumsy musical errors (as we know). Thus, from the start, its automatic attribution to the musical genius of Salzburg was, shall we say (?) problematic.

I am grateful to that indefatigable and honest Mozart researcher Dennis Pajot for the outline of what happened in the days and years after this remarkable discovery was first announced. Some of his writings on this subject I have briefly paraphrased below. And which I must add to at length myself. In my next post.

Pajot, for example, points out that 12 years later, in 1956, a very famous writer on Josef Haydn and Mozart, H.C. Robbins Landon, wrote briefly on the subject of this symphony. In building his case Landon went to the newly published "Union Thematic Catalogue of 18th Century Symphonies" and pointed out this work was already said to have been composed by one Anton Eberl (1766 - 1807). Moreover, Landon reminded us a score of this symphony exists elsewhere dated February 24, 1785. And, amazingly, it’s a signed autograph still able to be seen today in the Vienna Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna. And Landon, quite sure he had found its true composer, next told us Anton Eberl had once been one of ‘Mozart’s pupils’ in Vienna (apparently in the years of 1785-6). Listing as proof the fact that some more of Eberl’s early compositions had also been falsely attributed by various music publishers to Mozart. And thus, it seemed, this newly discovered symphony was definitely by Anton Eberl.

I must however introduce into this story the awkward fact that elsewhere in Italy (at the Conservatorio Luigi Cherubini, for example) a copy of this very same symphony can today be seen in its music archives although it is neither attributed to W.A. Mozart nor even to Anton Eberl but to a third composer, one Franz Christoph Neuberger (1760-95) !

Landon, quite sure it was by Eberl, pointed out that once a symphony has been wrongly attributed the chances increase of it being wrongly attributed elsewhere. (That being a small understatement in Mozart research. Cough, cough ! You may agree). His remarks were however sufficient to achieve his objective of deflecting most researchers away from the difficulties of this subject. The Cremona symphony ‘became’ for Robbins Landon a simple matter of a symphony by Anton Eberl which, for reasons still not clear and not explained, has somehow been ‘wrongly’ attributed to Mozart. The fact that it had been attributed to him at Cremona since the 18th century was, well, considered to be incidental.

But these things are, I regret, typical when we seek to identify the true composer of music in the mid to late 18th century. As we see again when the editors of the standard list of Mozarts’s musical works (those learned editions known in Mozart studies as the Koechel List which arrived at its 6th edition in 1964) then placed this little known symphony in a special section of that catalogue under the section ‘Misattributed Works’ and even gave it the imposing reference number ‘C.11.14‘. Although its editors (Franz Giegling, Gerd Sievers and Alexander Weinmann) did not agree with Landon. They believed it was definitely a symphony by Franz Neuberger (1760-95). They did so because they knew it is available in other archives under Neuberger’s name. They further stated the piece was ‘unlikely to date from 1770’ (although they gave no reasons for saying so) . Although, of course, in 1770, Neubauer was less than 10 years old.

So the matter of the amazing ’Mozart’ symphony found at Cremona in 1943 rested. For 40 years. Until 1983. When one Stephen C Fischer took up a private study of that work in detail. Fischer began by examining Negrotti’s earlier view that the work may have been written in Cremona by W.A. Mozart around 1770. He concluded the stopover taken by the Mozarts that year had been too brief for that to be a serious possibility. He also dismissed it as being a work by Mozart on musically stylistic grounds. Thus, for Fischer, this was really a symphony by Anton Eberl. But Fischer did more. He decided to examine the Eberl autograph in Vienna (where, as it happens, it’s dated June 25, 1785) I.e. only 2 weeks before Eberl’s own 25th birthday. A fact which, as it happens, had already been considered proof enough to be considered as authentication of its true author by that zealous earlier collector of musical manuscripts Aloys Fuchs. (Whose relationship to the Mozart industry and to Mozart’s music we do not need to examine here). And Fischer, in support of Landon, provided two modern sources that have also attributed it to the same Anton Eberl (both in musical dissertations--A. Duane White in‘The Piano Works of Anton Eberl (1971) and Richard Swordsman in, ‘The Instrumental Works of Franz Christoph Neubauer’ of 1970.

So we can see that what started off in 1943/4 as a discovery by Sig. Nino Negretti of an unknown Mozart symphony in Cremona soon had not one but three candidates as its composer. W.A. Mozart (who started as the obvious favourite) soon falling behind. Overtaken by Anton Eberl and also by those who believe (with documentary evidence) that it is by Franz Christoph Neubaeur. While our knowledge of the music of these two is minimal.

The rest of this article aims to show Sig. Negretti was right. Not so much in the fact of the Cremona work being by W.A. Mozart, but in the fact that this work almost certainly arrived in Cremona in early 1770 with Mozart and his father - then visiting Italy on their first fabulous and grossly invented tour. Wolfgang having attempted to make it ‘his’ at the time and handing over the piece during his days in Cremona as 'proof of his abilities'. As one of ‘Mozart’s’ own symphonies. It’s true composer being, in fact, young Neubauer. And, as for Anton Eberl, to show his role in the career of W.A. Mozart (which was extensive even after Mozart's death in 1791) was merely that of diversion, falsehood, and the usual cover up. Not least in the creation of an ‘autograph’ today held at the Gesselschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna that is no ‘autograph’ at all. Since the work in question is most definitely one by Franz Christoph Neubauer. Palmed off by Mozart in Italy, like so much else, as his very own.


- End of Overture-

[yanni]

Add another Mozart's double, Thomas Linley jr, to your list of unknowns and then try solving the equation via Eberl's dedication to JH (Joseph Haydn/John Hawkins etc) and Neubauer's alleged rivalry with the very obscure JCFBach, JS's youngest son (married to a Munchhausen no less), who passed allegedly away in 1795, a few years after Mozart did(not).

Linley, Mozart, Neubauer and Eberl, all wunderkinds of the undying wunderman!

[Musicology]

Yes Yanni,

Not forgetting JC Bach and CPE Bach. Who, for 30 pieces of silver were drawn in to the total control of 'musical history'. And here, an idea of the organised resistance to genuine musical achievement -

http://www.mediafire.com/i/?4dp0dmg16tgaw36

Magnificat
BWV 243/1
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlKcMJwcgq4

[yanni]

Before quoting unsourced nonsense on GFHandel/JSBach, you better make sure there ever was a real "Matheson" and a real 'Marpurg"-other than just pennames.

After making sure there ever was a real JCFBach.

As for JC and CPE Bachs: They woudn't have survived had they not played along to cover up their father's multiple identities (there were more than just "Handel/Bach", as already outlined in previous posts).

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Before you suggest men did not exist you should at least read their biographies. Then tell us why (after you have read them). If you cannot find biographical details of Matheson or Marpurg just tell me. I will gladly give you 20 biographical references on both. None of which you have read. And none of which you have disproved.

Finally, we do not and cannot prove what does not exist. We prove what does exist. The evidence shows Matheson and Marpurg existed. Your job, if you want to gain credit, is to prove they were pen-names. And we are waiting. Again.

As for JC Bach (a subject on which you really should do some study) he was a friend in Leipzig of Abel during the days of their youth. Meeting again in London years later. (They even lived together for a time). JC Bach was 'converted' at a time when his father (JS Bach) was under fierce criticism from the University of Leipzig. And JC Bach joined up with 'them'. The rest, as they say, is history. Ask Padre Martini. Or go to Benedictine Monastery archives of Einsiedeln. Where virtually the entire church music of JC Bach is still in their archives. Much of this written before JC Bach came to England.

Leipzig at this time was a centre for Venetian ideas. The University was hostile to JS Bach. And that meant that the British Empire was also hostile to JS Bach and his potential to influence music across Europe. Thus Bach's sons were persuaded to side with the 'British'. In actual fact it was, as history says, a fatal decision. Because the British were, of course, inflitrated by the occultism of Venice. And Britain itself, and it's new empire, was modelled on that of Venice.

'How the Venetian System was Transplanted into England' (W. Tarpley)

http://www.mediafire.com/?1azpt757hpe66dv

and -

http://www.mediafire.com/i/?4dp0dmg16tgaw36

(Another free lesson to Yanni). In the meantime -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcinMxNYBc&feature=related


Before quoting unsourced nonsense on GFHandel/JSBach, you better make sure there ever was a real "Matheson" and a real 'Marpurg"-other than just pennames.

After making sure there ever was a real JCFBach.

As for JC and CPE Bachs: They woudn't have survived had they not played along to cover up their father's multiple identities (there were more than just "Handel/Bach", as already outlined in previous posts).

[yanni]

I have already covered the subjects Marpurg, JCBach and JCFBach in this here forum, obviously in your 'absence'. You are still wellcome however to retry providing evidence that they, anyone of them, really existed, AFTER, at long last, explaining and qualifying the credibility of your never mentioned 'sources' (who just happen to be the very same, and more, 'pennames' and aliases).

[Musicology]

Let's start with Johann Christian Bach.

Are you saying he never existed ?

History (and the church records in Leipzig) provide evidence that he was born on 5th September 1735 in Leipzig. History says he spent his childhood in Leipzig. And history says he later came to Germany, Italy and England. At least, so says the actual evidence.

And you believe what, exactly ? You have 'covered' nothing. You have totally ignored the plain, verifiable, musical and biographical evidence. In 1773 JC Bach began a legal case in London. This too you will ignore. It is pointless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD5N0Ubpvns&feature=related

[yanni]

'Are you sure, Ideefix?', Obelix asked!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Here is a work for you. The ‘Toy Symphony’ (1765). A work often attributed to and published in the name of a certain Leopold Mozart of Salzburg - also frequently published, sold and performed in the name of his 'genius' son, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and also (though it will hardly surprise you) in the name of a third Salzburg based composer, Michael Haydn, and even in the name of a certain 'Papa' Joseph Haydn (whose fraternal friendship with the above is very touching). Before, finally, at last, being recognised in 1992-4 as having been actually composed by the virtually unknown composer Edmund Angerer (1740-94).

The real number of symphonies and orchestral works composed by Herr Leopold Mozart was….... zero. (He became a part time dealer in music only. Friends in high places, you know ? ). But don’t tell the children, will you ?

The show must go on.

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

p.s. 'JC Bach never existed'. So says Yanni. But the truth is JC Bach did exist. So says history. It is the music that is attributed to him that is the problem. Problem/Solution. Thank You.

JS Bach
Prelude and Fugue No. 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw-0PRovMU8&feature=related

Glenn Gould

[yanni]

Undoubtably, Ideefix, 'solid' evidence presentation runs in parallel to the realisation that, thru www, the old pile of lies will collapse, not just on the Mozarts:

Durch die Auffindung einer Notenhandschrift im Jahr 1992 scheint jedoch Edmund Angerer eindeutig als Urheber dieser Komposition nachgewiesen zu sein.

[Musicology]

Happy Easter !

Jesus Christ came into the world to defeat the devil. And He did it.

JS Bach
Concerto
BWV 1041/3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjC6zG4eSM&feature=related

[yanni]

Ofcourse he did.

Likewise!


Happy Easter !

Jesus Christ came into the world to defeat the devil. And He did it.

JS Bach
Concerto
BWV 1041/3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjC6zG4eSM&feature=related

[Musicology]

Cum Sancto Spiritu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRrgHZV_Ks&feature=related

[yanni]

Courtesy of youknowho's Aspen Institute: "Nothing but Mozart"*!

http://www.instantencore.com/work/work.aspx?work=5049551


*Readers are advised to check thru http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51451&page=9 on the existence or not of Johann Sebastian Bach, aka G.F.Handel etc.

[Musicology]

You are quite right Yanni.

The events of Easter are, however, THE exception. As we hear here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRrg...eature=related

[yanni]

Certainly, Robert, Bachandel has become, for some people at least, part of the message for an everlasting life in prosperity.

However your URL doesn't load! Try http://www.kochministry-germany.de/

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Bach is of course a free gift. Those who are really poor believe differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRrgHZV_Ks&feature=related

[yanni]

German gifts are usually free, but their antidotes are very costly.


Yanni,

Bach is of course a free gift. Those who are really poor believe differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRrgHZV_Ks&feature=related

[Musicology]

This gift was suppressed, by Germans themselves. For decades. And it requires no antidote. Just listen to it.

There ! That is easy, isn't it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRrgHZV_Ks&feature=related


German gifts are usually free, but their antidotes are very costly.

[yanni]

In a linguistic wrap up of 18th century history of western culture:

"Gift" means "poison' in german, the latter deriving from french "poisson' meaning fish.

You should have used 'present' instead.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I have developed a rather rapacious obsession of Mozart. I'm currently reading a biography by Piero Melograni (it seems Italians biograph the man more than any other nationality) and a book compiling all of Mozart's letters.
It is gradually taking over my life. I haven't listened to any other composer for about 2 weeks recently because I have jsut had a fresh impetus to listen to Mozart. I am fortunate enough to have an invaluable piece of kit. A box set containing 170 CDs with nothing but Wolfgang Amade on them.
I even have a framed portrait of the great man on my wall incongruously hanging next to a canvas print of Marvin Gaye.

I'm visiting Salzburg and Vienna in September (kill 2 birds with one stone and get a bit of Johann Strauss II appreciation in there too.) It's getting to the point where I am actually considering eclipsing my Batman and Danmgermouse costumes and going to Reading Festival 2011 dressed up as the maestro.

So naturally I like this thread.

Musicology is quite an interminable chap.

The fact that no one can bring up a primary source that convincingly casts doubt over the authenticity of Mozart's compositions being his own speaks volumes. Mozart was biographed extensively following his death by contemporaries who had met him and those who had not. They make no mention of scandal involving his compositions other than the ones that are beyond doubt. The only scandal was in his personal life.
Accusations of Mozart's misappropriation of others' works is based on conjecture, likeness to other composers' works (we call that INFLUENCE) Nobody calls Beethoven a thief and fraud for his early works which are blatantly in the shadow of Mozart's works.
This doubt over authenticity is no more than a witch hunt. I mean basing it on likenes to other composers works or changes in handwriting are quite pathetic. A lot of suppositions are grabbed at so as to reinforce half assed theories. "...and it bears a likeness to Haydn's 38th, which proves such and such" What piffle.

We could do that kind of thing with works that are known to be Mozart's beyond doubt and those that are considering other composers' pieces to prove that they are indeed belong to W.A Mozart.

Nothing said on here can be substatiated by a primary source or even an epistle of any kind from a contemporary. And evenm if there was accusations on paper from his contemporaries one could explain that in the same weak way that the conspiracy theorists try and reinforce their fallacies. With subjective explanations and suppositions

"They were jealous... It was Maria Theresa's doing... he continually upset the aristocracy and they wanted to get their own back by dragging his name through the dirt... Rivals vied for positions at European courts against Mozart" etc etc


Hi Robert

There is a ver important text written by Corrado Ricchi which Bianchini has cited in his paper refering to the events of 1770 in Bologna with Mozart. It is stated clearly there that the voting for Mozart was NOT unanimous. But we are always told he passed his examination with all white balls. Aren't we ? However, we see now, the actual records of the examination which Luca Bianchini has attached show the vote contained both black and white balls. What do you think ? What the hell have these scholars been teaching around the world on Mozart in the light of these facts ?

"Moreover, the judges of the Academy did not give them a great deal of insight. In their report of that day they stated that one Francesco Piantanada was admitted with all white votes (and also his relative Giovanni Piantanida) while, concerning Mozart, they make only a reserved and cold statement which, when allowing for the circumstances, his exam result was considered sufficient – ‘As the votes in his case were concerned it is certain they were not all white: but in any case the jury found in his favour’"
(Corrado Ricci)

This post ignores the attitudes of Italians towards non Italian musicians and the prominence of Italian composers in European courts.

The allegations against Mozart are all one way. A true Historian and biographer worth his salt knows never to lean to one side on anything he encounters. It's like these people are setting out to besmirch Mozart's name and using anything they discover (or appear to discover) in the negative without suggesting any possible alternatives.

The fact that nothing concrete comes from the 18th century tells us a lot and with Mozart's reputation and with him being anathema to the aristocracy of the time and to rival composers you can never be sure if any primary evidence is factual or malicious and false.

All we can say for certain is there are flimsy but it some cases strong doubts over Mozart's signature being worthy of almost 200 of his compositions. But even these compositions if not solely completed by Mozart have his stamp on them.

Musicology gets around

http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html

[Musicology]

Hi Patrick Bateman,

Thanks for saying you have developed a 'rather rapacious obsession of Mozart'. I will reply with that confession of yours in mind. (It's not unusual. In fact, it gets you lots of Brownie points in high places).

It seems the entire 'musical' and pseudo-musical world has a 'rather rapacious obsession for Mozart'. Since he as a phenomenon literally dominates what is taught, believed, eulogised, performed, published, sponsored, patronised etc. on the history of western music (so-called). Doesn't he ? Yes, he does. And since this is a plain fact, I might start there. Let's do so in the light of that fact.

There are teachers, professors and musicologists who are quite happy with this grotesque, even absurd situation. It pays their mortgages. And I myself was a 'Mozartean' for many years. It's difficult not to be, after all. (For me, it was a case of 'When I was a child, I thought as a child... etc').

I would first like to share with you a definition of what is called 'Cognitive Dissonance' -

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously

I mention this as a possibility because you say you plan to visit Salzburg and Vienna this September. And because you in your post are willing to consider things which will clash with your 'education'. So that's fair notice, isn't it ?

During your visit to both places (Salzburg and Vienna) you may make enquiries on 'who taught Mozart music' ? If anyone. Or, on such basic questions as, 'Why was Mozart famous in 1763 and 1764' ? But, since nobody has had any answers, you will of course believe what everyone else does - that he must have been a 'genius'. Since his father said so, didn't he (?) as did all the fraternities and patrons of his career. Despite the fact he never held a full time musical post, never studied music, and has no real evidence of being a virtuoso performer at any time. Which are facts that become ever more obvious when we examine the musical and biographical facts of the case for his whole career. Without exception.

You are trained to attribute to W.A. Mozart a series of high quality musical works which, in actual fact, he never actually composed. But you are not to know this. Nobody has dared to suggest this to you. And it may shock you. Though being oblivious of this fact is quite normal within the cult of W.A Mozart. In fact, this new 'musicology' a la Mozart can gloss over virtually every fact on his official career. And it does so routinely, in the name of 'culture', 'education', and downright nonsense. The history of musical attribution to Mozart is itself a laughable absurdity. This too you may care to examine. Nearly 100 symphonies of 'Mozart' is only one example, of which, today, less than 20 are seriously linked to him. How is that for a fact ?

You speak of musical 'influence'. Well, as someone who describes yourself as being 'obsessed' by Mozart, it is surely fair to say you are obsessed with his myth and are hugely influenced by it. Though, in fact, there is no period of Mozart's entire life that is free from lies, fakery, falsification, exaggeration and wholesale musical nonsense. This is the real truth of it. I assure you of this fact. And you can see it so year after year after year. Starting with the work known as K1 and ending with K626. If this too is OK with you, fine. Otherwise, forgive those who laugh at this blatantly Babylonian counterfeit of 'musical history' that is the Mozartean cult and those who may show you, on case after case, that 3,000 other composers wrote music in that century on which you have virtually no knowledge or interest.

Welcome to the artificially manufactured pantheon of western musical 'history' ! Why, you even celebrate its construction !

(Mozart was not the only fraud composer. Others included Handel, Josef Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven. But, to make a case in point let me finish with this simple point on Mozart. Do you know ONE piece of music by Mozart which you 'know' was composed by him ? And are you aware of any arguments why he did NOT compose it )?

If your answer to this question is 'yes' you deserve credit for having avoided the pitfalls of cognitive dissonance and are in a good state to put away the childish nonsense that is the Mozart myth. I strongly recommend you call your beliefs on Mozart in to question. Since there are tons of reasons.

You love, in fact, the music of an industry that was created for W.A. Mozart. Which, of course, is your right to do. But I must remind you it will cause you cognitive dissonance if you ever call his myth and the attribution of this music to Mozart into serious question. But please, please, see both sides of the story. The evidence already posted on this thread for his early years is refuted by nothing. Because it is the evidence. That's how musicology works. And you welcome this, don't you ? The alternative is more infantile silliness.

In the final analysis, do not be dogmatic about a myth which started with Leopold Mozart and which has been carried on for 200 years by corporate and fraternal nonsense. Sponsored and patronised by the controllers of 'education' and 'culture' with zero cross examination of its track record. Since the actual facts are clear. They are available today as never before. And they point, conclusively, to the fact, that children love fairy stories. They depend upon them, in fact. Remove the 'stereo spectacles', examine both sides, and you will see things very clearly.

May I suggest you examine the theatre score of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' held today at the Austrian National Library. A score used at the premiere of that opera in Vienna on 1st May 1786 which is riddled with crude musical and other errors. It's not music by Mozart. It's a hastily made 'arrangement' of already existing music. Not by him. With newly added Italian text by Lorenzo da Ponte. Predating by many years the commercially available 'autograph' today being sold by the Packard Institute. Why not examine that score in Vienna for yourself ? The 'experts' never seem to do so. Is that an amazing fact, or what ? Since none of these Mozartean 'experts' have done so in almost 200 years. This is typical. And it's a prime example of Mozart mythology.

But hey, I don't want to ruin your fairy story. I want only to rescue you from a paradigm. And which systematically obscures from view the facts of the case. I think the correct word is 'occultist'. But that sort of nonsense has no future. Welcome to musicology !

Best wishes

[Patrick_Bateman]

Hi Patrick Bateman,

Thanks for saying you have developed a 'rather rapacious obsession of Mozart'. I will reply with that confession of yours in mind. (It's not unusual. In fact, it gets you lots of Brownie points in high places).

It seems the entire 'musical' and pseudo-musical world has a 'rather rapacious obsession for Mozart'. Since he as a phenomenon literally dominates what is taught, believed, eulogised, performed, published, sponsored, patronised etc. on the history of western music (so-called). Doesn't he ? Yes, he does. And since this is a plain fact, I might start there. Let's do so in the light of that fact.

There are teachers, professors and musicologists who are quite happy with this grotesque, even absurd situation. It pays their mortgages. And I myself was a 'Mozartean' for many years. It's difficult not to be, after all. (For me, it was a case of 'When I was a child, I thought as a child... etc').

I would first like to share with you a definition of what is called 'Cognitive Dissonance' -

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously

I mention this as a possibility because you say you plan to visit Salzburg and Vienna this September. And because you in your post are willing to consider things which will clash with your 'education'. So that's fair notice, isn't it ?

During your visit to both places (Salzburg and Vienna) you may make enquiries on 'who taught Mozart music' ? If anyone. Or, on such basic questions as, 'Why was Mozart famous in 1763 and 1764' ? But, since nobody has had any answers, you will of course believe what everyone else does - that he must have been a 'genius'. Since his father said so, didn't he (?) as did all the fraternities and patrons of his career. Despite the fact he never held a full time musical post, never studied music, and has no real evidence of being a virtuoso performer at any time. Which are facts that become ever more obvious when we examine the musical and biographical facts of the case for his whole career. Without exception.

You are trained to attribute to W.A. Mozart a series of high quality musical works which, in actual fact, he never actually composed. But you are not to know this. Nobody has dared to suggest this to you. And it may shock you. Though being oblivious of this fact is quite normal within the cult of W.A Mozart. In fact, this new 'musicology' a la Mozart can gloss over virtually every fact on his official career. And it does so routinely, in the name of 'culture', 'education', and downright nonsense. The history of musical attribution to Mozart is itself a laughable absurdity. This too you may care to examine. Nearly 100 symphonies of 'Mozart' is only one example, of which, today, less than 20 are seriously linked to him. How is that for a fact ?

You speak of musical 'influence'. Well, as someone who describes yourself as being 'obsessed' by Mozart, it is surely fair to say you are obsessed with his myth and are hugely influenced by it. Though, in fact, there is no period of Mozart's entire life that is free from lies, fakery, falsification, exaggeration and wholesale musical nonsense. This is the real truth of it. I assure you of this fact. And you can see it so year after year after year. Starting with the work known as K1 and ending with K626. If this too is OK with you, fine. Otherwise, forgive those who laugh at this blatantly Babylonian counterfeit of 'musical history' that is the Mozartean cult and those who may show you, on case after case, that 3,000 other composers wrote music in that century on which you have virtually no knowledge or interest.

Welcome to the artificially manufactured pantheon of western musical 'history' ! Why, you even celebrate its construction !

(Mozart was not the only fraud composer. Others included Handel, Josef Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven. But, to make a case in point let me finish with this simple point on Mozart. Do you know ONE piece of music by Mozart which you 'know' was composed by him ? And are you aware of any arguments why he did NOT compose it )?

If your answer to this question is 'yes' you deserve credit for having avoided the pitfalls of cognitive dissonance and are in a good state to put away the childish nonsense that is the Mozart myth. I strongly recommend you call your beliefs on Mozart in to question. Since there are tons of reasons.

You love, in fact, the music of an industry that was created for W.A. Mozart. Which, of course, is your right to do. But I must remind you it will cause you cognitive dissonance if you ever call his myth and the attribution of this music to Mozart into serious question. But please, please, see both sides of the story. The evidence already posted on this thread for his early years is refuted by nothing. Because it is the evidence. That's how musicology works. And you welcome this, don't you ? The alternative is more infantile silliness.

In the final analysis, do not be dogmatic about a myth which started with Leopold Mozart and which has been carried on for 200 years by corporate and fraternal nonsense. Sponsored and patronised by the controllers of 'education' and 'culture' with zero cross examination of its track record. Since the actual facts are clear. They are available today as never before. And they point, conclusively, to the fact, that children love fairy stories. They depend upon them, in fact. Remove the 'stereo spectacles', examine both sides, and you will see things very clearly.

May I suggest you examine the theatre score of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' held today at the Austrian National Library. A score used at the premiere of that opera in Vienna on 1st May 1786 which is riddled with crude musical and other errors. It's not music by Mozart. It's a hastily made 'arrangement' of already existing music. Not by him. With newly added Italian text by Lorenzo da Ponte. Predating by many years the commercially available 'autograph' today being sold by the Packard Institute. Why not examine that score in Vienna for yourself ? The 'experts' never seem to do so. Is that an amazing fact, or what ? Since none of these Mozartean 'experts' have done so in almost 200 years. This is typical. And it's a prime example of Mozart mythology.

But hey, I don't want to ruin your fairy story. I want only to rescue you from a paradigm. And which systematically obscures from view the facts of the case. I think the correct word is 'occultist'. But that sort of nonsense has no future. Welcome to musicology !

Best wishes
You haven't touched upon a single objection I brought up. You just (most likely) copied and pasted - for the most part - an already saved script from your word processor.

Your conjecture and flimsy quasi-corroborative 'evidence' refutes nothing. How can it be that evidence and research conducted by myriad of other biographers and musicologists to support Mozart's authenticity is erroneous and cannot serve to repudiate your research, but yet you have the authority to disregard anything that disagrees with your spurious assertions?

It's perfectly charming to be controversial but a lot of your suppositions rest on a slightly odd signature here and there, his celebrity and the fact he couldn't find a permanent position outside of Salzburg.

You claim there is no evidence for him even being a competent performer. Well I would think 1,000 florins stipend in the court of Prince bishop Colloredo would attest to the fact he was an consummate performer. Yes this post is a rather weak one but let's not forget that hostility Maria Theresa had for the Mozart's once Wolfgang outgrew his child prodigy status.

The Habspurgs had a broad influence throughout Europe and Maria Theresa's distaste for the Mozart's prevented him from ascended to a position at a more prestigious court. Not to mention the fact that the most sought after positions in a European court almsot invariably went to italians at the time.

Mozart compounded the problem of work by his penchant for the Weber family particularly Aloysia and later Constanze. His father continually berated him for his frivolous attitude and not taking his career and future seriously.

Mozart derided the aristocracy throughout his life and was conscious of their supercilious attitude towards him and was often met with indifference when the child prodigy novelty wore off.

His early years as a travelling phenomenon obviously affected his reputation and image when he finally gained liberty from the controlling Leopold. His early role as a virtuoso in a travelling circus, performing concerts all around Europe led to him being scoffed at by the aristocracy and most poignantly Maria Theresa.

Anyone who knows the society of the mid to late 18th century will understand that talent and innate genius takes a back seat to breeding, status and what is essentially marketablilty to the upper classes. Unfortunately Wolfgang was bereft of the latter 3. Which accounts for his inability to find employment suitable for his talents.

Mozart would lament in private correspondents and letters to his father regarding the reluctance for anyone to take on a musician of his own genius. It seems that -although arrogance or megalomania might be a possibility -a man who is devoid of real raw talent would lament his ineptitude and resign himself to the obscurity he deserves. But rather he and leopold would accrue debts and spend countless money on travelling around Europe looking for the position his genius rightfully deserved.

Leopold in his letters and in person always pushed Wolfgang to travel and find a position of prestige in a European court. Even when a relatively handsome paid job was always in Salzburg. It seems that if he was nothign special a job like that would satisfactory. Instead they spent obscene money on manmy journeys around Europe and risked the wrath of their patron to take leaves of absence to travel around Europe (representing the Prince Bishop abroad in the process)

and the Princ eBishop was only too happy grant permission for these trips (osten not suspending their stipend) so that they could spread Salzburg's prestige. It seems that if Mozart was a mediocre musician not only would Wolfgang - and often Leopold as well since you know both at one time were in the pay of the prince bishop - not be able to take such frequent leaves of his post but the prince bishop would surely not be so tolerant as to 1. employ a poor musician 2. allow him to represent Salzburg in Europe.

[Musicology]

Patrick,

Unless you can say with honesty you have examined the actual evidence I am not surprised by your reply. You see no problems in the Mozart myth although dozens have already been posted on his early years. Right on this thread.

Please write again if you have a specific question to ask. And then I will give you a specific answer. How about that ?

But let me ask you a question. You say the Archbishop of Salzburg allowed Mozart to represent Salzburg when on tour. Can you give us a single example of Mozart doing so ? Just one ? I will ask this easy question since you are sure it is true. Let's have your answer please. What I want (shock, horror !) is some actual evidence of Mozart 'representing' Salzburg at any time in his 7 years of childhood touring. Not a difficult question, is it ? But (I predict) one you will never be able to answer. Since Mozart 'represented' nobody. Except the Babylonian mythmakers of western musical 'history'.


Thank You


You haven't touched upon a single objection I brought up. You just (most likely) copied and pasted - for the most part - an already saved script from your word processor.

Your conjecture and flimsy quasi-corroborative 'evidence' refutes nothing. How can it be that evidence and research conducted by myriad of other biographers and musicologists to support Mozart's authenticity is erroneous and cannot serve to repudiate your research, but yet you have the authority to disregard anything that disagrees with your spurious assertions?

It's perfectly charming to be controversial but a lot of your suppositions rest on a slightly odd signature here and there, his celebrity and the fact he couldn't find a permanent position outside of Salzburg.

You claim there is no evidence for him even being a competent performer. Well I would think 1,000 florins stipend in the court of Prince bishop Colloredo would attest to the fact he was an consummate performer. Yes this post is a rather weak one but let's not forget that hostility Maria Theresa had for the Mozart's once Wolfgang outgrew his child prodigy status.

The Habspurgs had a broad influence throughout Europe and Maria Theresa's distaste for the Mozart's prevented him from ascended to a position at a more prestigious court. Not to mention the fact that the most sought after positions in a European court almsot invariably went to italians at the time.

Mozart compounded the problem of work by his penchant for the Weber family particularly Aloysia and later Constanze. His father continually berated him for his frivolous attitude and not taking his career and future seriously.

Mozart derided the aristocracy throughout his life and was conscious of their supercilious attitude towards him and was often met with indifference when the child prodigy novelty wore off.

His early years as a travelling phenomenon obviously affected his reputation and image when he finally gained liberty from the controlling Leopold. His early role as a virtuoso in a travelling circus, performing concerts all around Europe led to him being scoffed at by the aristocracy and most poignantly Maria Theresa.

Anyone who knows the society of the mid to late 18th century will understand that talent and innate genius takes a back seat to breeding, status and what is essentially marketablilty to the upper classes. Unfortunately Wolfgang was bereft of the latter 3. Which accounts for his inability to find employment suitable for his talents.

Mozart would lament in private correspondents and letters to his father regarding the reluctance for anyone to take on a musician of his own genius. It seems that -although arrogance or megalomania might be a possibility -a man who is devoid of real raw talent would lament his ineptitude and resign himself to the obscurity he deserves. But rather he and leopold would accrue debts and spend countless money on travelling around Europe looking for the position his genius rightfully deserved.

Leopold in his letters and in person always pushed Wolfgang to travel and find a position of prestige in a European court. Even when a relatively handsome paid job was always in Salzburg. It seems that if he was nothign special a job like that would satisfactory. Instead they spent obscene money on manmy journeys around Europe and risked the wrath of their patron to take leaves of absence to travel around Europe (representing the Prince Bishop abroad in the process)

and the Princ eBishop was only too happy grant permission for these trips (osten not suspending their stipend) so that they could spread Salzburg's prestige. It seems that if Mozart was a mediocre musician not only would Wolfgang - and often Leopold as well since you know both at one time were in the pay of the prince bishop - not be able to take such frequent leaves of his post but the prince bishop would surely not be so tolerant as to 1. employ a poor musician 2. allow him to represent Salzburg in Europe.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Patrick,

Unless you can say with honesty you have examined the actual evidence I am not surprised by your reply. You see no problems in the Mozart myth although dozens have already been posted on his early years. Right on this thread.

Please write again if you have a specific question to ask. And then I will give you a specific answer. How about that ?

But let me ask you a question. You say the Archbishop of Salzburg allowed Mozart to represent Salzburg when on tour. Can you give us a single example of Mozart doing so ? Just one ? I will ask this easy question since you are sure it is true. Let's have your answer please. What I want (shock, horror !) is some actual evidence of Mozart 'representing' Salzburg at any time in his 7 years of childhood touring. Not a difficult question, is it ? But (I predict) one you will never be able to answer. Since Mozart 'represented' nobody. Except the Babylonian mythmakers of western musical 'history'.


Thank You

Way to circumvent a boat load of damning questions!

I would like to see your 'hard evidence' that proves that Mozart did not represent Salzburg during his travels and tours whether or not it was at the behest of the Prince bishop. Whether or not he was formally representing the town the fact is that as a court musician of a Habsburg if he was performing his or others' compositions then he was representing the court of the Prince Bishop. That is fact.
If you admit he toured abroad and travelled tirelessly for the position he so desired and deserved and if you acknowledge he was musician for the court in Salzburg then the only sensible reply is to agree with what I have stated.

[stlukesguild]

Robert's strategy has long been to avoid any question that challenges his theory and then bombard you with a pile of questions referring you to what he asserts are legitimate documents (all ignored or covered up by experts in musicology). You note that he has been around... all over the musical forums... and been banned from all of them as a result of his posts. He survives here as a brilliant example of post-modern fiction.:smilewinkgrin:

[yanni]

Nissen, Constance and the Kochs* created the Mozart myth. Relative evidence has been presented here that Nissen WAS Mozart (as first observed by Henkel on 'their' same handwriting).

It's not just Mozart and his contemporary and previous music masters that are fake however, the whole 18th century history is a total fraud (or a masterpiece of art), both facts underlined by the 'unknown' identities of the 'Opera Phantom' and the 'immortal count de Saint Germain', their myths protected by Mozart's own.

*Including Ludwig 'Ritter von Köchel' whose wiki biography conveniently ommits his parents and or other Koch links.

[Musicology]

Patrick Bateman,

I am still waiting for your evidence Mozart was 'representing Salzburg' during his travels and tours. And I have asked for some evidence of this.

It seems you are (as predicted) entering in to a phase of cognitive dissonance.Since you cannot answer this simple question. Care to try again ? Can't make it more easy, can I ?

Ask me a specific question on Mozart and I will certainly answer you but do not pretend that you have answered. I have asked you only one question and you cannot answer it. That is the plain and simple fact.

Please give us proof W.A. Mozart was representing Salzburg at any time during the 7 years of his childhood tours of Europe. When, in fact, he was doing no such thing. We want the evidence.

Request Number 2.


Way to circumvent a boat load of damning questions!

I would like to see your 'hard evidence' that proves that Mozart did not represent Salzburg during his travels and tours whether or not it was at the behest of the Prince bishop. Whether or not he was formally representing the town the fact is that as a court musician of a Habsburg if he was performing his or others' compositions then he was representing the court of the Prince Bishop. That is fact.
If you admit he toured abroad and travelled tirelessly for the position he so desired and deserved and if you acknowledge he was musician for the court in Salzburg then the only sensible reply is to agree with what I have stated.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Patrick Bateman,

I am still waiting for your evidence Mozart was 'representing Salzburg' during his travels and tours. And I have asked for some evidence of this.

It seems you are (as predicted) entering in to a phase of cognitive dissonance.Since you cannot answer this simple question. Care to try again ? Can't make it more easy, can I ?

Ask me a specific question on Mozart and I will certainly answer you but do not pretend that you have answered. I have asked you only one question and you cannot answer it. That is the plain and simple fact.

Please give us proof W.A. Mozart was representing Salzburg at any time during the 7 years of his childhood tours of Europe. When, in fact, he was doing no such thing. We want the evidence.

Request Number 2.

You struggle and refuse to answer general never mind specific questions.

I was referring more to his late teenage years and early 20s when I spoke of his representing his hometown rahter than when Leopold was touring his 2 gifted children around Europe.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Robert's strategy has long been to avoid any question that challenges his theory and then bombard you with a pile of questions referring you to what he asserts are legitimate documents (all ignored or covered up by experts in musicology). You note that he has been around... all over the musical forums... and been banned from all of them as a result of his posts. He survives here as a brilliant example of post-modern fiction.:smilewinkgrin:

But the real joy lies in little side notes such as this one:


Mozart was not the only fraud composer. Others included Handel, Josef Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven.

It is at this point that any floating reader who was ever remotely in the smallest of danger of being sucked into the "The Great Mozart Conspiracy" (the point of which I am still not certain) comprehends.

If I may, a word of sales advice - if you want to convert people to believing something (and to be fair many people will believe anything) stick to one major conspiracy theory at a time (i.e. tackle Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, the moon landing/911 at a later date) and do so where you have a chance of succeeding. Perhaps try posting some comments on places like You Tube if you haven't already done so? You'll get some joy there no doubt. Also, why don't you try making a book about it as a popular thriller? Dan Brown did and look at him now.$$$$$$$:crazy:$$$$$$$ However, I suspect that there are less gullible people around on Lit Net.

[Musicology]

Patrick,

You now tell us you are refering to Mozart's 'late teenage years and early 20's'. When, you say, ''Mozart was representing his home town of Salzburg''. Thanks for being more specific. But here too you are talking nonsense. (With respect).

You admit you have no evidence of Mozart 'representing Salzburg' before that date. Do you ? I am glad we seem to agree about that.

His 'late teenage years' would take us from, say 1773 onwards. (When he was 17).

OK, let me ask the same question again. (These childhood years have obviously not helped you). Can you provide evidence that W.A. Mozart was ''representing Salzburg'' from 1773 onwards ? Waiting for your evidence he did so from around 1773 onwards.

This will make interesting reading and your reply is much awaited.




You struggle and refuse to answer general never mind specific questions.

I was referring more to his late teenage years and early 20s when I spoke of his representing his hometown rahter than when Leopold was touring his 2 gifted children around Europe.

Mozart is a fairy story for those who love Babylonian versions of music 'history'. This thread contains numerous articles showing the fakery, exaggerations and downright fictions of Mozart's early career. Answered by nobody.

I repeat that any specific question on Mozart will be answered. We see that the myth makers have no answers when we ask them questions. What's new ? LOL

Thank You




Robert's strategy has long been to avoid any question that challenges his theory and then bombard you with a pile of questions referring you to what he asserts are legitimate documents (all ignored or covered up by experts in musicology). You note that he has been around... all over the musical forums... and been banned from all of them as a result of his posts. He survives here as a brilliant example of post-modern fiction.:smilewinkgrin:

Hi Neely,

You are right. This thread is dedicated to the fake career of W.A.Mozart. You notice how simple questions on the official version are never answered. And you see how various articles are already on this thread which expose the lies, exaggerations and falsehoods of his early 'musical career'. Answered by nobody. As usual. The mythmakers are suffering from cognitive dissonance and are already out of their depth.

A pantheon of great composers of which Mozart is a prime example. All products of fake 'history'. With the actual evidence ignored. That's real smart, isn't it ?

So, one side presents the evidence and the other side shrugs their shoulders and cannot answer it.

Does this sound fair to you ?

Fairy stories do that.




But the real joy lies in little side notes such as this one:



It is at this point that any floating reader who was ever remotely in the smallest of danger of being sucked into the "The Great Mozart Conspiracy" (the point of which I am still not certain) comprehends.

If I may, a word of sales advice - if you want to convert people to believing something (and to be fair many people will believe anything) stick to one major conspiracy theory at a time (i.e. tackle Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, the moon landing/911 at a later date) and do so where you have a chance of succeeding. Perhaps try posting some comments on places like You Tube if you haven't already done so? You'll get some joy there no doubt. Also, why don't you try making a book about it as a popular thriller? Dan Brown did and look at him now.$$$$$$$:crazy:$$$$$$$ However, I suspect that there are less gullible people around on Lit Net.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Patrick,

You now tell us you are refering to Mozart's 'late teenage years and early 20's'. When, you say, ''Mozart was representing his home town of Salzburg''. Thanks for being more specific. But here too you are talking nonsense. (With respect).

You admit you have no evidence of Mozart 'representing Salzburg' before that date. Do you ? I am glad we seem to agree about that.

His 'late teenage years' would take us from, say 1773 onwards. (When he was 17).

OK, let me ask the same question again. (These childhood years have obviously not helped you). Can you provide evidence that W.A. Mozart was ''representing Salzburg'' from 1773 onwards ? Waiting for your evidence he did so from around 1773 onwards.

This will make interesting reading and your reply is much awaited.

In spring of 1781 Wolfgang was in Munich and had exceeded the 6 week leave granted him by Colloredo.

Colloredo was in Vienna to be with his ailing father and (since Wolfgang was still receiving his stipend and had made a handsome amount from the opera Idomeneo. Colloredo ordered Wolfgang to come to Vienna and perform concerts so that he could essentially 'show him off' which Wolfgang wa sobliged to do. But afterward he still refused to return with the other court musicians to Salzburg. Wolfgang felt that his luck was changing and that he hate great opportunity in Vienna after success with Idomeneo in Munich and after the death of the hostile Maria Theresa.

Wolfgang petitioned for his resignation from his post in Salzburg to be formally accepted but by this point Colloredo was so infuriated with Wolfgang's actions and his episodes of impropriety when among other Habsburg royals that he was intent no to grant this secession and therefore make it impossible for mozart to gain a position at another court (since it would indecorous and out of the question for a royal to accept a musician into his court who was already still in the employment of another.)

[yanni]

My congrats for the royal wedding, Robert, along with best wishes, longevity etc.

In the Westminster abbey, no less, where babylonian Haydn enjoyed babylonian Handelbach's commemoration, 220 years ago.

[Musicology]

Patrick,

Is this the best you can do ?

An un-named source ? That's poor stuff, isn't it ?

For your information and education, Mozart in late 1780/early 1781 was NOT 'on tour' in Munich. Nor was he representing Salzburg. He had been there in Munich for several months already (arriving there during the winter of 1780 with no music ready for rehearsal) before he was given a further 6 weeks stay there in early 1781. The disastrous preparations and premiere of that opera 'Idomeneo' is clearly a subject you have never examined. Furthermore, the commission to write 'Idomeneo' (whose music is not actually by Mozart) did not come from Salzburg. And Mozart was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in Munich at any time. Nor was he, as said, on tour. Nor did he perform in Munich. He was, yet again, being granted permission to have a giant stay away from Salzburg and never once claimed to be 'representing' Salzburg. Nor did anyone else say differently at any time. Nor was he ever paid for 'composing' that opera (Idomeneo). Because, in truth, he never composed it.

He was still on the staff of the Salzburg Hofkapelle. As was his father. But he was certainly not 'representing' them. There is not a shred of evidence he was in Munich representing Salzburg. Nor any from any of his many musical tours that he was 'representing' the Salzburg Hofkapelle. He was of course representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who wanted to make him an iconic composer. And who did so. Several months after this opera fiasco in Munich he came to Vienna. After a few weeks of which he (officially) became a freelance composer. Having never, at any time till then, represented in any capacity whatsoever the musical court of Salzburg. If you can show us differently, please do so. Nor did W.A. Mozart, during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood, give a single concert in Salzburg. He was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in any sense. He was, as said, from the time of his childhood onwards until the day of his death representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who manufactured his career.

If, however, you can show us differently, please do. With some evidence. The entire touring career of Mozart has NOTHING to do with him 'representing' Salzburg. Indeed, nobody in Salzburg knew what all the fuss was about. The boy had never studied anything and had spent zero time at school. He was 'representing' only the fairy story.



In spring of 1781 Wolfgang was in Munich and had exceeded the 6 week leave granted him by Colloredo.

Colloredo was in Vienna to be with his ailing father and (since Wolfgang was still receiving his stipend and had made a handsome amount from the opera Idomeneo. Colloredo ordered Wolfgang to come to Vienna and perform concerts so that he could essentially 'show him off' which Wolfgang wa sobliged to do. But afterward he still refused to return with the other court musicians to Salzburg. Wolfgang felt that his luck was changing and that he hate great opportunity in Vienna after success with Idomeneo in Munich and after the death of the hostile Maria Theresa.

Wolfgang petitioned for his resignation from his post in Salzburg to be formally accepted but by this point Colloredo was so infuriated with Wolfgang's actions and his episodes of impropriety when among other Habsburg royals that he was intent no to grant this secession and therefore make it impossible for mozart to gain a position at another court (since it would indecorous and out of the question for a royal to accept a musician into his court who was already still in the employment of another.)

[Patrick_Bateman]

Patrick,

Is this the best you can do ?

An un-named source ? That's poor stuff, isn't it ?

For your information and education, Mozart in late 1780/early 1781 was NOT on tour in Munich. Nor was he representing Salzburg. He had been there for several months already (arriving during the winter of 1780 with no music ready for rehearsal) before he was given a further 6 weeks in early 1781. The disastrous preparations and premiere of that opera 'Idomeneo' is clearly a subject you have never examined. Furthermore, the commission to write 'Idomeneo' (whose music is not actually by Mozart) did not come from Salzburg. And Mozart was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in Munich. Nor was he on tour. Nor did he perform. He was, yet again, being granted permission to have a giant stay away from Salzburg and never once claimed to be 'representing' Salzburg. Nor did anyone else say differently. Nor was he ever paid for 'composing' that opera (Idomeneo).

He was still on the staff of the Salzburg Hofkapelle. But he was certainly not 'representing' them. There is not a shred of evidence he was in Munich representing Salzburg. Nor any from any tour that the was representing the Salzburg Hofkapelle. He was representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who wanted to make him an iconic composer. Several months after this opera fiasco in Munich he came to Vienna. After a few wees of which he (officially) became a freelance composer. Having never, at any time till then, represented in any capacity whatsoever the musical court of Salzburg. Nor did W.A. Mozart, during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood, give a single concert to Salzburg. He was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in any sense.

Are you a complete ****tard??

I am not specifically talking about him formally representing Salzburg and trying to win the town and Prince Bishop prestige. He was a court musician from Salzburg. Everything he did, every note he played, every commission he fulfilled was a reflection on Salzburg.

To say Idomeneo was a disaster is preposterous. Yes it only endured 3 performances that year but there is no shred of evidence that speaks of it being a great success or an epic failure.

We can only discern how it was received from a scarce few documents that offer some subjective opinions of contemporaries (mainly those involved in the production) On the whole the opera was praised and any serious criticism was likely due to the strange and new styles of music within the opera.
The singers found it to contain some of the most beautiful music they ever heard.

You still haven't addressed my evidence of Wolfgang's representing bishop and Salzaburg in Vienna at Colloredo's behest.


And the only evidence you provide is your dogmatic tone.

You have shown nothing to corroborate your charming little fiction

[Musicology]

Thank you Yanni,

I am not a royal watcher myself. But, speaking of auspicious weddings -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1441987/Wedding-unites-Rothschilds-and-Goldsmiths.html

How touching !!

(This one got far less news coverage). The bloodlines are in full production in Babylonia !!

'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories'. (GWB)



My congrats for the royal wedding, Robert, along with best wishes, longevity etc.

In the Westminster abbey, no less, where babylonian Haydn enjoyed babylonian Handelbach's commemoration, 220 years ago.

Patrick,

Thank you for your highly intelligent post.

And you are going to provide us with a bill board, an advertisement, an example, a proof (just one) of W.A. Mozart 'representing' Salzburg, aren't you ? From any time in his entire career. We are still waiting for even one piece of evidence. We have already abandoned his childhood and youth because that produces zero evidence. So much for the real purpose of 7 years of childhood touring, if the reason was to bring credit to Salzburg !!! (Silence - Commerical Break). There must surely be lots of such proofs from 1773 onwards, right ? Pity we can't find a single example also, isn't it ? Not one.

'Idomeneo' (1781) and aged 25 was a total disaster. It was a farce. For example, Mozart was never paid for 'composing' it (unless, of course, you have some evidence otherwise). Nor have you read local newspaper reports of it being staged there from the time. The records of who was paid what in the months leading up to this farce still exist today in Munich. Why not read them ? There is however no record of W.A. Mozart being paid to compose that opera in Munich in those records. Unless, of course, you can show us differently. All very strange, isn't it ?

The Archbishops of Salzburg (and there were several) colluded in this fairy story of a manufactured Salzburg musical genius. It was very Babylonian. They allowed his father and himself (and his sister also) years of paid absence from Salzburg with neither of those children ever having learned composition, music theory, performance on keyboard or even an ordinary education during their entire life in Salzburg. Strange also, yes ? This is what we should expect, of course, isn't it ? Nor is there a single record of a public musical concert ever given by W.A. Mozart in Salzburg before the public. Unless you can show us differently. Strange, yes ? He who was 'representing Salzburg' didn't even perform in Salzburg !! And we find, in fact, even as late as 1770 (at the age of 14) faked music exams at Bolgona in Italy. Already given on this thread. And a series of musical works being repeatedly and falsely attributed to Mozart which, in fact, he never wrote. This continues all of his life.

Would it not be best for you to accept your Mozart mythology flies in the face of the actual, verifiable evidence ? Yes, it would.

Cognitive Dissonance is we see having its (predictable) effects on your posts. Because we keep asking you for evidence to support what you believe and we never get any. But I realise you love the fairy story. This I respect. Please do not confuse it with reality, however.

P.S. We DO have a playbill from Vienna 1786 (the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro') which describes W.A. Mozart as a Kapellmeister. Well !! That proves he was 'serving Salzburg', doesn't it ? No, it doesn't. W.A. Mozart lied on that playbill about being employed as a Kapellmeister just like his father lied about being a Kapellmeister during their 3 tours of Italy. 'Like father, like son', of course. LOL !!


Are you a complete ****tard??

I am not specifically talking about him formally representing Salzburg and trying to win the town and Prince Bishop prestige. He was a court musician from Salzburg. Everything he did, every note he played, every commission he fulfilled was a reflection on Salzburg.

To say Idomeneo was a disaster is preposterous. Yes it only endured 3 performances that year but there is no shred of evidence that speaks of it being a great success or an epic failure.

We can only discern how it was received from a scarce few documents that offer some subjective opinions of contemporaries (mainly those involved in the production) On the whole the opera was praised and any serious criticism was likely due to the strange and new styles of music within the opera.
The singers found it to contain some of the most beautiful music they ever heard.

You still haven't addressed my evidence of Wolfgang's representing bishop and Salzaburg in Vienna at Colloredo's behest.


And the only evidence you provide is your dogmatic tone.

You have shown nothing to corroborate your charming little fiction

[yanni]

Yep, I see what you mean.

Have been asking myself a lot on the Rothchilds bloodline lately, their origins (Wiki) only beginning 1750's or so.

Anyhow, about Mozart, Colloredo and late 1780: One should really highlight Fiala with his lame biography(as lame as Koechel's whose father was a treasurer.)

[Musicology]

Yes, Yanni, Josef Fiala is an interesting character. Recruited from Munich and he ends up living in Mozart's own home in Salzburg. For years. Along with several other composers. It's just a coincidence, of course. I mean, it becomes laughable.

On the playbill of a virtually unknown performance of 'Figaro' (11th April, Frankfurt, 1785) we see the name of Madame Fiala, his wife. Who was an actress and singer of the time. Just a coincidence, of course.

This a year before the premiere of 'Mozart's' own 'Figaro'. (Itself an arrangement of already existing music, as said).

As we have read before -

'We must not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)



Yep, I see what you mean.

Have been asking myself a lot on the Rothchilds bloodline lately, their origins (Wiki) only beginning 1750's or so.

Anyhow, about Mozart, Colloredo and late 1780: One should really highlight Fiala with his lame biography(as lame as Koechel's whose father was a treasurer.)

[Musicology]

And here is the playbill for the 'Figaro' that was staged at Frankfurt fully a year before 'Mozart's' opera in Italian. (April 1785).

You cannot read the names clearly on this print but one of the performing company at that Frankfurt performance is a certain Madame Fiala, who, by one of those amazing coincidences, just happens to have been living in Salzburg in the home of a certain W.A. Mozart at that very time - with her husband, the composer, Josef Fiala. Refered to by Yanni. Nothing strange about that, of course !!! :crazy:

(She was employed at the time by Grossmann, whose theatre group was on tour in Germany. The Grossmann group having for many years been employed by Bonn for staging shows and theatrical productions). The very place where Mozart boasted that he would soon become Kapellmeister. But never did. So they 'owed' Mozart a favour. They gave him one, staging various of 'his' operas during the 1780's. It was all very successful. And we believe it, don't we ?

Ah, we all love great fairy stories, don't we ?

And some say Mozart did not compose the Requiem !! Why, it's so rude of them !!!

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

'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)

[Musicology]

G. Wolter (1901)
Records of the Grossmann Theatre Group

Entry for 11th April 1785
Frankfurt am Main

http://www.mediafire.com/i/?acw8fk5ifcaihaf

(The very performance involving Madame Fiala, wife of the composer Josef Fiala, a year prior to the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro').

[Patrick_Bateman]

He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II

after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator

Good day

[Musicology]

QUESTIONS TO PATRICK BATEMAN

1. Who was paid 450 Florins by Josef 2nd ?

2. When ?

3. For what ?

Since you never tell us your sources or provide details of exactly what you are speaking about let others judge who is an imbecile and an agitator. But let's avoid silly comments. We are interested in evidence, aren't we ? Do you have some ??

So we are waiting, once again, for details of what you are talking about. This is not your strongest ability, is it ? And, from a young age (and who can doubt it ?) you were a consumer of myths. But these, when you reached adulthood, were still the best show in town. And thus, as a purveyor of myths (and as a wholesale consumer of them yourself) you blundered on. Saying something and nothing at the same time. Never staying on one point nor once questioning their truthfulness but firing off posts like a sawn off shotgun. Or, as has been written elsewhere, 'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools'.

(If I told you Ronald Macdonald was paid a million dollars by Frank Sinatra you would expect me to provide evidence of when, where, and for what). If that was under discussion. Is your universe differently constructed from ours ? Evidence please. Thank You.

You have of course abandoned your argument that Mozart 'represented Salzburg' haven't you ? It has been lost in the haze of your mythology. We have not missed this fact.

The debilitating effects of Cognitive Dissonance afford us no better example than the form and substance of your wayward posts.

I consider you to be among the most gifted, talented, and brave Mozarteans I have had exchanges with. Which says a lot for you. But God knows what it says of Mozarteans.





He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II

after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator

Good day

[yanni]

Now, that's a convincing argument!


He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II

after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator

Good day

[Patrick_Bateman]

Now, that's a convincing argument!

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

[yanni]

Musicology has reached the same conclusion as I did, following a totally different methodology.

He is absolutely right on Mozart, has in the meantime accepted that the 'manufacture' included other composers as well, but is still fixed to keep out from the 'manufactured' pool, his safehaven, JSBach, even if he repeatedly failed to provide relative evidence (of Bach being a different man than Handel).

He spent 20 years working on Mozart research (as compared to my ten years on 'roots').

We are both apparently much older than you are!













I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

[Musicology]

Patrick,

It's a strange world you want us to believe in. A man can amass dozens/hundreds of discrepancies in the official fairy story of Mozart's musical career. Starting with the unresolved basic questions (still unanswered) such as who taught him music, and composition, where he went to school, where he started to play keyboard, when and where he composed music that has been attributed falsely on a wholesale scale to him at each and every point in his life (and beyond it). The posthumous rise to iconic status of a legend. Controlled by the fraternal editors of musical 'education'. Why his music exam in Bologna was clearly faked. Why dozens, even hundreds of works were attributed to him, published in his name, and said to be his that were not, in fact, composed by him. You can show example after example of fakery, exaggeration and mythology. And they never, ever have an answer. They never will. Because the truth is Mozart Studies don't work like that. They never have. They are 'pseudo musicology'. For a pseudo civilization of their invention.

The only reason Patrick Bateman subscribes to the Mozart story is he cannot imagine anything except Mozart's popular myth. He has never examined these issues. He never provides evidence. His alleged 'true authorities' on that topic are never actually named. He has yet to provide us here with a single source. He changes the subject with every post. And yet he claims to have put forward a 'convincing argument'. Where, but in the fairlyland world of Mozart Research would anyone give him credibility ? Nowhere. And this is the nonsense which is said to be the best documented, factual record of western musical history ! It's laughable.

You should stay with your myths. And let others stay with actual, verifiable, detailed evidence. The sort you have obviously never read. That it the antidote to your admitted 'rapacious' idolisation of Mozart.

(Cognitive Dissonance is an inability to handle things outside of your paradigm). We wish you a speedy recovery !



I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

[Musicology]

Here I agree with Yanni.

On this subject the Mozarteans are utterly unable to support their fairy story when its basic details are called in to question. It stinks. It always has. It's 'pseduo musicology' and it's a fairy story dressed up as musical history. So says the evidence. One side presents evidence after evidence. The other side produces nothing.

I agree with Yanni on that fact. Food for thought for the writers of textbooks, for lecturers and for the spreaders of corporate fiction. It is, in fact, part of the cultural side of Babylonian globalism. It always was. 200 years of fiction. Constructed before your eyes and loved by the gullible. At the expense of reality. They wanted control of a vital subject. Music. And they got it. The pantheon of great composers was manufactured by them. So say the facts. The rest was/is invention, myth making, deals made by patrons, publishers, and occultist slaves. The gods of the state. They don't like reality.

As for Mozart, stick around. We examine this nonsense year by year. Let's see which side is presenting evidence and which is not. I think you have your answer.


Musicology has reached the same conclusion as I did, following a totally different methodology.

He is absolutely right on Mozart, has in the meantime accepted that the 'manufacture' included other composers as well, but is still fixed to keep out from the 'manufactured' pool, his safehaven, JSBach, even if he repeatedly failed to provide relative evidence (of Bach being a different man than Handel).

He spent 20 years working on Mozart research (as compared to my ten years on 'roots').

We are both apparently much older than you are!

[Musicology]

Patrick,

Nobody is 'privy' to information. It has to be sought. That takes a lot of time. And, when it has been examined we can then say with certainty that things are so. The commentators and historians to which you refer appear to be unable to answer basic questions about Mozart's early and later career. So, if they are worthy of your respect and belief why not give us their actual statements on these issues ? Just a few will do.

We all inherited this problem. The difference is that criticism finally got a hearing. And it came with lots of good arguments. Welcome to the real world of academic research. Compare this with what we have been 'taught'. You see that one side lives in a vacuum free from criticism and the other is ready and willing to examine these issues fairly, openly and honestly.


I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

My friend, my advice is to post the music you have been listening to in the classical music thread. Alternatively, you could post the films you have been watching in the film thread. Or look to the jazz thread, or the crush thread etc, etc...:smilewinkgrin:

[yanni]

"Bateman" huh?
Good choice, heh-heh, but the subject IS exhausted!
And, indeed, Musicology is, most propably, privy to more information than he cares to admit!

[Patrick_Bateman]

I liken you two gentlemen to the myriad of Kennedy conspiracy theorists. If you over analyse every shred of data you are bound to equate 2 + 2 as 5.

There is evidence that links the CIA to JFK's assassination, evidence that proves the Mafia as accountable. Some clues point to Cuban ex pats who felt betrayed by the Kennedy administration as the culprits. Other findings attribute the assassination to the Russians and other Communist agents. Even claims that J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ were behind it have found credence. (All these huge clouds over what really happened and the evidence is not yet 50 years old, whereas fellas you are trying to overhaul 2 centuries of fact with weak 'evidence' from sources which you have not divulged.) Even when primary evidence disproves your theory (you brought up the playbill earlier) you disregard it as a lie or Mozart's fabrication. On what grounds may I ask? Are you so omniscient that you can obliterate all evidence contrary to your beliefs so that it supports your fantasy?

In many things it is usually advisable to call a spade a spade. In conclusion gentlemen

Mozart was a genius of immeasurable talent.

Now if you will excuse me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2IHh8q01IY&feature=player_embedded

[Lokasenna]

This thread is a thing of beauty.

:smilewinkgrin:

[Patrick_Bateman]

My friend, my advice is to post the music you have been listening to in the classical music thread. Alternatively, you could post the films you have been watching in the film thread. Or look to the jazz thread, or the crush thread etc, etc...:smilewinkgrin:

Don't tell me you are a proponent of this dastardly denigration of a musical visionary?

[Musicology]

Patrick,

The reason we think you are wrong is simple. You cannot provide evidence when you are asked for it. You've been hugely misinformed on virtually every aspect of Mozart's life and career. This is not your fault. It's just a fact. I have been writing to your supposed 'experts' for years on these points. They are simply not able to provide any evidence on basic issues. When you show them documentary and other evidence their eyes glaze over, they look at their watch and have another appointment. Others (more honest) wink and admit that it's all nonsense. A pattern has emerged. You've been grossly misinformed.

So, you choose the Mozart myth or the one of actual reality. The one we find in close study of biographical and musical evidence or the one the industry has created for you.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the litany of conspiracy theories you refer to. My business is to point you to the facts, to raise questions on conventions, and to ask if you really are interested in a fair and honest discussion.

Thank You

I leave it here with a celebration at the fall of Babylon -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA_etLMnGb8&feature=related






I liken you two gentlemen to the myriad of Kennedy conspiracy theorists. If you over analyse every shred of data you are bound to equate 2 + 2 as 5.

There is evidence that links the CIA to JFK's assassination, evidence that proves the Mafia as accountable. Some clues point to Cuban ex pats who felt betrayed by the Kennedy administration as the culprits. Other findings attribute the assassination to the Russians and other Communist agents. Even claims that J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ were behind it have found credence. (All these huge clouds over what really happened and the evidence is not yet 50 years old, whereas fellas you are trying to overhaul 2 centuries of fact with weak 'evidence' from sources which you have not divulged.) Even when primary evidence disproves your theory (you brought up the playbill earlier) you disregard it as a lie or Mozart's fabrication. On what grounds may I ask? Are you so omniscient that you can obliterate all evidence contrary to your beliefs so that it supports your fantasy?

In many things it is usually advisable to call a spade a spade. In conclusion gentlemen

Mozart was a genius of immeasurable talent.

Now if you will excuse me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2IHh8q01IY&feature=player_embedded

[Patrick_Bateman]

Patrick,

The reason we think you are wrong is simple. You cannot provide evidence when you are asked for it. You've been hugely misinformed on virtually every aspect of Mozart's life and career. This is not your fault. It's just a fact. I have been writing to your supposed 'experts' for years on these points. They are simply not able to provide any evidence on basic issues. When you show them documentary and other evidence their eyes glaze over, they look at their watch and have another appointment. Others (more honest) wink and admit that it's all nonsense. A pattern has emerged. You've been grossly misinformed.

So, you choose the Mozart myth or the one of actual reality. The one we find in close study of biographical and musical evidence or the one the industry has created for you.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the litany of conspiracy theories you refer to. My business is to point you to the facts, to raise questions on conventions, and to ask if you really are interested in a fair and honest discussion.

Thank You

I leave it here with a celebration at the fall of Babylon -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA_etLMnGb8&feature=related

I cannot believe that all these men and women have dedicated their lives to a lie which - according to you - is so blatant and that only you have seen the light and know the 'truth'. If the 'facts' are in such abundance and your 'evidence' of the falsehoods and 'evidence' against the Mozart myth are so clear cut then why is it that I can only discover this 'truth' on an internet message forum?

People love controversy and people love even more to be controversial and go against the grain. So why has someone not pounced on this and shown Mozart to be the fraud he apparently is?

The evidence is in primary sources and contemporary accounts, myriad letters and other correspondence. Payments Mozart received, the royalties his son received as soon as copyright laws and artists right were being created in the early 19th century.

Haydn himself extolled Mozart's talents.
It is known that Mozart imitated other composers and improved upon their works but this was usually only an exercise in displaying his superiority over other composers as well as showing a reverence for the composers he admired (such as Bach, Handel and his good buddy Franz Josef Haydn) but the accusations and very idea that Mozart stole from other composers is unfounded.


I ask you sir for your evidence.

Kindly send me one of these emails you so frequently dispatch to my 'experts' that cause them to cower and recoil and scramble for explanations.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Robert,
It has been a long time my friend. If I may beg your pardon to interrupt the current line of discussion regarding Mozart and the Italian Job, I would like to address an earlier post submitted by Mr. Patrick Bateman.


...I'm visiting Salzburg and Vienna in September (kill 2 birds with one stone and get a bit of Johann Strauss II appreciation in there too.) It's getting to the point where I am actually considering eclipsing my Batman and Danmgermouse costumes and going to Reading Festival 2011 dressed up as the maestro.


Patrick, you mentioned that you will be visiting Salzburg in a few months. Upon reading this, I became very excited and envious. Salzburg was a destination of mine back in 1988. I still recall humming the tune Edelweiss while snacking on a Mozartkugeln as I entered Getreidegasse 9. Salzburg Cathedral, St. Peter’s and the accompanying cemetery is wonderful and the view of the Salzach river from the Hohensalzburg castle is breathtaking.

You mentioned “2 birds”, why not shoot for three? This is a perfect opportunity to dispel the mystery behind Mozart’s early education. Oh…forgive me, I see you are wondering what in the heck is he talking about? Please refer to post no. 10 of this thread.

If you could possibly set aside perhaps one hour during your visit and head up to the hermitage in the cliffs overlooking St. Peters and the cemetery to verify if Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia (aka “The Bermuda Triangle” among his hermit contemporaries) slate tablets are still on display. At the time I visited, the tablets were set in a small niche carved into the stone wall of Andiamo’s hermit cell.

The conspiracy theorists and Dumas would forever be in your debt.


.

[Patrick_Bateman]

All four members of the 'Mozart Justice Squad' on here appear to have the same unpalatable condescending and supercilious tone. Funny that, especially since one of the four is clearly Musicology's alter ego.

Desperate times really do call for desperate measures.


Robert,
It has been a long time my friend. If I may beg your pardon to interrupt the current line of discussion regarding Mozart and the Italian Job, I would like to address an earlier post submitted by Mr. Patrick Bateman.



Patrick, you mentioned that you will be visiting Salzburg in a few months. Upon reading this, I became very excited and envious. Salzburg was a destination of mine back in 1988. I still recall humming the tune Edelweiss while snacking on a Mozartkugeln as I entered Getreidegasse 9. Salzburg Cathedral, St. Peter’s and the accompanying cemetery is wonderful and the view of the Salzach river from the Hohensalzburg castle is breathtaking.

You mentioned “2 birds”, why not shoot for three? This is a perfect opportunity to dispel the mystery behind Mozart’s early education. Oh…forgive me, I see you are wondering what in the heck is he talking about? Please refer to post no. 10 of this thread.

If you could possibly set aside perhaps one hour during your visit and head up to the hermitage in the cliffs overlooking St. Peters and the cemetery to verify if Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia (aka “The Bermuda Triangle” among his hermit contemporaries) slate tablets are still on display. At the time I visited, the tablets were set in a small niche carved into the stone wall of Andiamo’s hermit cell.

The conspiracy theorists and Dumas would forever be in your debt.


.

Thank you for your proposed amendments to my itinerary. I shall take them into consideration.

It seems Musicology has declined my challenge.

He cannot overturn over 200 years of musical history like he claims

[LitNetIsGreat]

Don't tell me you are a proponent of this dastardly denigration of a musical visionary?

What? What? Don't suggest such a thing - how could you?

I was merely trying to save you :mad2:time.

I'm hurt and wounded. I think you should PM me a beer as recompense...enjoy the trip though, it should be amazing. Pah, thinking Neely could get caught up in this.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=yanni;1029772 ...but the subject IS exhausted!
[/QUOTE]

If only! But it isn't, because Musicology has no intention of allowing it to be. After all, what would he do with his spare time were it not for this thread and its forerunner that he initiated months (though it seems like years) ago?
Of the innumerable quotes he has made throughout the course of his dissertation, it's significant that the one that stays in the mind is that of George W Bush warning about conspiracy theories.

[Patrick_Bateman]

What? What? Don't suggest such a thing - how could you?

I was merely trying to save you :mad2:time.

I'm hurt and wounded. I think you should PM me a beer as recompense...enjoy the trip though, it should be amazing. Pah, thinking Neely could get caught up in this.

Ahhh I beseech you to pardon me squire.
I thought your post was telling me to do all those things because I am in my own fantasy land by not seeing 'the light'.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ahhh I beseech you to pardon me squire.
I thought your post was telling me to do all those things because I am in my own fantasy land by not seeing 'the light'.

That's OK, that's the Internet/email for you isn't it - things can be read both ways? I'm still suffering minor heart palpitations from it, but I'll get over it...

I do think Musicology/Robert/Yanni figure should write a novel about it though - The Mozart Fakery - $quids in$, knock Dan Brown off the top spot and save us all the pain.

[yanni]

"Yanni" and "Musicology" both sign by their real names their conclusions (identical on Mozart's 'manufacture' at least), as any reader of re threads may find out.

As far as I am concerned: I joined this forum Dec 2005 aiming to confirm/expand my findings on an unknown 'greek side' of Edgar Allan*Poe , http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=167&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=views, a thread which has since attracted, by far,the most views and received the highest ratings on its subject.

"Musicology" appeared much later, attracted by my next threads (on Gluck, Grimm, Rousseau and the Opera Phantom, see http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=639003#post639003 ), aiming to discuss his favorite and only subject, Mozart, limiting it however to a minimum.

Antonios Emm. Kokkinis, aka "Yanni", Athens, Greece.

PS My conclusions on a 'Koch-Koechel' manufactured Mozart (among other), are also crosschecked and reconfirmed by Dorothea Link's** "Mozart’s appointment to the Viennese court" (discrediting Koechel's conclusions).

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Link%20-%20Mozart's%20Appointment.corr.with%20Index,180707 .pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"Allen" actually.
**Chair, Classical Music, Hodgson School of Music, The University of Georgia.





That's OK, that's the Internet/email for you isn't it - things can be read both ways? I'm still suffering minor heart palpitations from it, but I'll get over it...

I do think Musicology/Robert/Yanni figure should write a novel about it though - The Mozart Fakery - $quids in$, knock Dan Brown off the top spot and save us all the pain.

[Musicology]

'They' can invent any musical 'history' they want. Does it survive cross-examination ? No, it doesn't. It isn't designed to be questioned. It falls apart from the very start. It keeps falling apart. It's the same in Mozart's Vienna years.

That's why 'they' can't answer. What sort of science is that ?? Pseudo-science. Occultist control and nonsense.

Meanwhile -

J.S. Bach
Cantata 11
Chorus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDWeTVbkft8&feature=related

[Patrick_Bateman]

'They' can invent any musical 'history' they want. Does it survive cross-examination ? No, it doesn't. It falls apart from the very start. It keeps falling apart. It's the same in his Vienna years.

That's why 'they' can't answer. What sort of science is that ??

J.S. Bach
Cantata 11
Chorus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDWeTVbkft8&feature=related

I want these emails that make experts shiver to their very core

Offer me SOMETHING that may change my mind about Mozart and you.

[Musicology]

Patrick Bateman,

Which 'experts' are you refering to ? We still don't know. Do they exist ? You are chasing the Phantom of the Opera, perhaps ? I have corresponded at one time or another with leading propagandists of Mozart. On detailed points of 'his' alleged achievements. For over 20 years. So have others. Ask around if you like. There are numerous forums on Mozart. Surely, surely, there must be something in all of this posting. Either they are able to defend their conventional views or they are not. They are not. They never have been. It's a business. And it has its consumers. It's as fake as so much else of 'civilization'. Patronised in high places. Never cross-examined. As fake as political promises, fiat bankers, and unelected dynasties. And this is able to be demonstrated. Here, for sure, in general terms because our conversation is so far a general one.

I and others have been studying the life, career and iconic status of Mozart for many years. From all aspects. Several articles are here on this thread.

I will offer (once again) the 'something' you ask for. Tell us please such basic things as -

1. Where did Mozart go to school ? If at all.
2. When did Mozart learn music ?
3. Who taught him composition ? If at all.
4. Can you give a list of 'his' compositions up to, say, his teenage years, that stands cross-examination ? You can choose any year you like. Can it get more simple ?
5. Can you admit his music entrance exam to Bologna (1770) was faked ? An article on this by Bianchini has already been posted here. It's one of numerous examples. It's typical.
6. Can you name a single public concert given by W.A. Mozart in his home city of Salzburg ? At any time in his whole life ? There were none.
7. Can you tell us when Mozart studied keyboard playing ? And under which teacher ?

8. Have you actually examined the alleged musical career of Mozart in any detail ? And will you, when in Vienna, go to the Austrian National Library and examine the musical score used of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' at its premiere there on 1st May 1786 ? You will then see why this music was laughed at and hissed off the stage. It is a poor arrangement of music already composed by others to a German text that had been cobbled together by Mozart and given an Italian text by the rogue priest Lorenzo da Ponte. A pastiche, in fact. And virtually unperformable. Withdrawn a few performances later. Contemporary writers on music (such as JN Forkel, Da Ponte, Koch and others, all show 'Mozart' was virtually unknown, even in Vienna, during his last decade. Contrary to the fairy story. Do you want their actual statements on this ?). Do their statements mean anything to you ?

I could add dozens and dozens of similar questions. These are simple, basic questions. And, to date, there are no answers. This farce started in Salzburg and it continued decades after Mozart's death. It was calculated, deliberate and it involved many people. Why this was done (and how it was done) are subjects that I have been working on for many years. It's not even a question that it WAS done. And so, if you believe the story is genuine, fine. I know it is not and am saying why. With others. They hid their traces. But not well enough. It's all about control.

But this is the musical 'hero' you believe in. And millions of others the same. He literally dominates your musical paradigm. You have never questioned its truthfulness, have you ? Although, in fact, 'his' music was not composed by him. So say the actual facts. An examination of the evidence (biographical and musical) would confirm this to anyone who examines it. As for the false attribution to him of hundreds of works he never composed (published and often performed in his name) that's a plain fact also. In fact, it's a starting point. And it starts with 'his' first composition, KV1 and ends with 'his' last, KV 626. His actual achievements being those of a provincial musician of no real talent. So says the evidence.

So these, plus a thousand other reasons (during his lifetime and posthumously) convinces me that criticism, cross-examination, of the Mozart myth (musicological enquiry into them) is something you neither welcome nor can accept. That means you subscribe to a paradigm. That you like the artificial pantheon of 'great composers'. And it's proof, I believe, of Cognitive Dissonance. Since one (and only one) side is saying that when we examine the myth in the light of the actual evidence it proves to be a huge invention. And that side includes me. We are so sure of it that you can judge for yourself who is telling the truth. Month after month. Year after year. This has serious implications, don't you think ?

Those who HAVE studied these matters in the light of day say you and others are believing an elaborate fairy story. As did I myself for many years. Woven around a family of liars. Aided and abetted by men who wanted to control what is taught and believed of musical history. We are so sure of it we are writing various articles on his official career. And have been doing so for many years.

The answer so far is silence. There ! That is mythology for you !!




I want these emails that make experts shiver to their very core

Offer me SOMETHING that may change my mind about Mozart and you.

[yanni]

'This farce started in Salzburg and it continued decades after Mozart's death.',Robert writes, purposely misleading the reader by limiting the forgery exclusively on Mozart and diverting his focus away from the Hannover alliance's HQs in London!

The musicology fakery started,thru Amyandhandelbachkoch in London and still continues today, with Mozart used as a cover, a role he accepted to play in his lifetime, as 'Mozart' and 'Nissen', faking among others his alleged correspondence with his father Leopold!

So, instead of foot-dragging, Robert is requested to deliver on his 'Why this was done (and how it was done) are subjects that I have been working on for many years' statement!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You ask why Mozart's career (and that of Handel, Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven was faked). I will offer a very simple answer. But since this thread focuses on Mozart this will be my only post on the subject on this thread.

Get your history books out. The papacy was a deliberate marriage of church and state that emerged in the last years of the 4th century. Inflitrated from the start by men who wanted to rule over manking and who depended on the hiearchy of empire of which they were a part. And who already had their own estates in Europe. Centuries before. Men whose ancestors had been migrating east from the huge expansion of the Assyrian Empire for over 1,000 years. In the centuries before Christ. With the same belief systems as those ancient Assyrians. (Themselves copied from Sumer and Babylonia). These migrating peoples and their religious systems had many centuries earlier taken over Egypt also and had been for centuries an influence in Palestine and even in Greece. (Added to which eventually, came Talmudism). The 'new religion' of Christianity was an obvious target for them. It's why Imperial Rome invented a hiearchical church system. Which emerged out of the ashes of its own collapse. Inflitrated from the start by these pagan influences. Including the mystery religions believed by the ancient Greeks and Etruscans. (Out of the latter came the papacy made by Imperial Rome). Prior to which the pagan priest of ancient Rome had held the office of Pontifex Maximus. An office that continued. There is the real origin of freemasonry. Being transfered at the time of Julius Caesar from being a different man there in Rome to the Emperor himself (Julius Caesar himself being a pagan). The Emperors then hold that pagan priestly office themselves, for several centuries. Until that same office of pagan priest of the pagan Roman state was finally transfered by the dying Roman Empire to the papacy itself. Pontifex Maximus. There is the start of it.

Look at Odoacer. A general who finally took over all Italy and much of Europe. Some time later. There is the same thing.

Early 'Christian' music is falsely said in textbooks to have come from the Temple in Jerusalem. To be modelled upon it. Centuries after, in fact, Christianity was already in the west. So say the textbooks. But that is false. In fact, the influence of these dignitaries within the Roman Imperial system introduced that music into their organised papal church. With Mozarbic Chant and Gregorian Chant etc etc. These have nothing to do with western music. They are imports of the eastern mystery religions.

The history of western music as we know it is a giant fake. Starting with the fact that for centuries there were no 'great' composers. They too had to be invented. Giant gaps are ususal in such 'history'. The 'third' religion arranged that too, through Venice (the colony of Byzantium in modern Italy) and their continuing links with occultism. That is also the start of opera (with its themes of the ancient pagan world revived in the renaissance - lit. 'the rebirth' - of the pagan world). By the 18th century the fake moved on to invent secularised gods of the state in 'great' individual composers such as Hasse, Gluck, Handel, Haydn, and even Mozart. All of them fake products. Engineered by the controllers of that pagan belief system, by its patrons, whose success was shared by their own bloodlines and their own rulers. Thus, out of 10,000 composers and their music who have lived and achieved in western history we end up with around a dozen. Who dominate the subject of 'musical history' in the same way that corporate interests and unelected dynasties today dominate so much else in western civilization. Musical history as it is taught is, of course, a highly sanitised, grossly invented and little criticised fairy story. Invented by stealing and obtaining the music of countless men, publishing it in the name of a handful of slaves, especially from the 'Enlightenment' period onwards, grossly eulogising their biographies, and celebrating the process in the name of culture and education. While the ocean of musical achievement lies unperformed, unappreciated and virtually ignored, generation after generation.

The manufacture of Mozart was a vital part of that process. Since Salzburg, from an early date in the Holy Roman Empire, was the very frontier of that Holy Roman Empire. How appropriate, therefore, that Mozart, 'a musical genius' would be born in the very city which, for centuries before he was born, sent Roman missionaries east.

Mozart was/is a fairy story. Part of the giant but clever fraud that is our conventional western history of music.


I hope this helps.

[yanni]

Yes, that was your initial interpretation, the one that I called your 'Mozart's diapers fixation', I know.

It is wrong!

[Musicology]

We started with Mozart's early years for the simple reason we should start an examination of the Mozart phenomenon from the beginning. We have briefly examined the years 1756-1770 so far. It gets even more interesting in the years that follow. And there is so much more that has not even been posted here.

Mozart offers an excellent test of 'western musical history' as we know it. That is its value, it's signficance. It's a test case, in fact. And now you have a broad outline of Mozart's place within the entire faked 'history of western music'. It's a huge subject. But this, at least, is a sketch.

Concerto BWV 1055/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qinD192l0c&feature=related




Yes, that was your initial interpretation, the one that I called your 'Mozart's diapers fixation', I know.

It is wrong!

[yanni]

'The musicology fakery started,thru Amyandhandelbachkoch in London and still continues today, with Mozart used as a cover, a role he accepted to play in his lifetime, as 'Mozart' and 'Nissen', faking among others his alleged correspondence with his father Leopold!'


We started with Mozart's early years for the simple reason we should start an examination of the Mozart phenomenon from the beginning. We have briefly examined the years 1756-1770 so far. It gets even more interesting in the years that follow. And there is so much more that has not even been posted here.

Mozart offers an excellent test of 'western musical history' as we know it. That is its value, it's signficance. It's a test case, in fact. And now you have a broad outline of Mozart's place within the entire faked 'history of western music'. It's a huge subject. But this, at least, is a sketch.

Concerto BWV 1055/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qinD192l0c&feature=related

[Musicology]

If a subject is so rigid, so dogmatic, that people get offended when it is called in to question there is something wrong with it. We have had 200 years of non-criticism as far as W.A. Mozart is concerned. That's just a plain fact. Why ? The answer is simple. Mythology. The myth is elaborate but it cannot stand criticism. It has been invented. Using the resources of those who could, and still do, control what is taught and believed.

[yanni]

Are you aware if any musicologist, ever, has compared Handel's Osanna to Bach's and or 'their' Osannas to Haydn's/van Swieten's Hosanna(Creation), english provenance included?