The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Yanni,

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

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

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

I know he staged 2 operas in Rome that year -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very best wishes.

Regards

[yanni]

Re "Rossini"
Here is a copy-paste from "italian opera" site on Cocchi

Bajazette
(Roma, Teatro delle Dame, 1746)

LIBRETTO A STAMPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

[Musicology]

Thank you Yanni,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

[yanni]

"Rousseau" and "Cocchi" (and Grimm and Gluck) are one and the same person. Ask your italian friends (just to see them blushing).

Music exploitation never dies.

Regards.

[stlukesguild]

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

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

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

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

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stlukesguild]

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

Shhh... don't let on.

[yanni]

Musicology

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

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

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

Best regards.

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

[Musicology]

"Rousseau" and "Cocchi" (and Grimm and Gluck) are one and the same person. Ask your italian friends (just to see them blushing).

Music exploitation never dies.

Regards.

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

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

Guess what Drkshadow ?

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

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

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

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

Musicology

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

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

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

Best regards.

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

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

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

So we grow up to believe sheer nonsense.

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

[yanni]

Musicology,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…a convenient word to close the subject with:

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

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

[stlukesguild]

You should really start to read the alternative versions of what you have been taught.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have entered the Twilight Zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep... the twilight Zone.

[Drkshadow03]

Guess what Drkshadow ?

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

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

X-Files.

It's very sad.

Oprah!

We have to get real.

Dr. Phil.

We have to stop being couch potatoes.

The Biggest Losers.

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

The History Channel.

the dumbing down of reality itself.

Fox News!


Ha! I knew my TV never lied to me!

[Musicology]

StLukesguild,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/...zart-myth.html


Regards

[Jozanny]

I enjoy listening to classical music, but freely admit I am not a student of the genre, and after reading all this nonsense, I am glad that I do not try to study everything.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

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

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