The Manufacture of Mozart

[yanni]

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

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

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

[Musicology]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a fair introduction -
You might try this -

Music, History, and Ideas
By Hugo Leichtentritt

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4...0music&f=false


Regards

[yanni]

Musicology,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Musicology]

Musicology,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your conversation.

Regards

[yanni]

Musicology,

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

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

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

My compliments.

[Musicology]

Musicology,

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

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

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

My compliments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yanni]

Musicology,

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

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

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

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

Moreover:

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

[Musicology]

Musicology,

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

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

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

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

Moreover:

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

Yes, Yanni,

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

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

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

Regards

[yanni]

"The Cocchi subject is one in which we are both interested and it would be good if we could continue to exchange views on that. "

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

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

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

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

Best of luck anyway.

[Musicology]

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

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

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

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

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


Regards

[yanni]

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

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

Strain yourself no further, Musicology, I had enough!

Cheers.

[VidaLoca]

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

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

[Musicology]

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

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

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

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

I do not see the logic of your argument.

Regards

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

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

Strain yourself no further, Musicology, I had enough!

Cheers.

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

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


Regards

[yanni]

Michael Jackson's movie "This Is It" will have simultaneous premieres in more than 15 cities around the world this month.

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

[yanni]

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

Is "Magdalena" a romancatholic name?