Mozart in English

[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!



*See post 343 and later of http://www.online-literature.com/for...sen#post836028

[ERS]

In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases ?) 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_...eature=related

Regards

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

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

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:Ta...ernardo_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...s/Tanucci.html and http://www.archive.org/stream/histor...7past_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).


('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!