The Manufacture of Mozart

[yanni]

...his thoughts....

That's how Wikipedia "reveals" the link of Mozart's music to Rousseau's musical concept:

The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."[8]
These views suggest a musical style quite unlike the style of the Galant, which was dominant at the time. Galant style music was typically melodic with harmonic accompaniment, rather than polyphonic; and the melodic line was often richly ornamented with trills, runs and other virtuosic effects. The style promoted by the Masonic view was much less virtuosic and unornamented. Mozart's style of composition is often referred to as "humanist" and is in accord with this Masonic view of music.[9]

The authors of the article fail to remark that it was "Gluck" who pioneered the "much less virtuosic and unornamented" that Mozart "borrowed somehow" from "Gluck". A common trend among musicologists apparently, to ommit this alias of "Rousseau"!

[Musicology]

Here is a really spectacular 'Mozartean' aria. By Italian 18th century maestro Vicenzo Righini (1756-1812). This piece was written in Vienna during the very time Mozart was living there. Righini, born in the same year as Mozart and a specialist in vocal music and teacher for many years was closely associated with Mozart himself, his family and career. During Mozart's last decade (1781-1791). On closer examination he proves to be still another source of 'Mozart's' operatic music, almost completely unknown today. Righini's achievements hidden away, his career, significance (and his music) deliberately buried by the Mozart industry for almost 200 years. Like so many others.

Vicenzo Righini (1756-1812)
Bravura Aria - Ove son Qual'ure
'Il Natal D'Apollo' (1788/9) - Vienna
Soloist - Diana Damrau (Germany)

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

[Musicology]

Firstly, Gluck died in 1787. But Rousseau died in 1778. A slight problem, yes ? Rousseau is buried in Paris. Gluck is buried in Vienna. Another problem, yes ? The post you have made speaks of Masonic music. But many composers wrote Masonic music, including contemporaries of Mozart such as Paul Wranitsky in Vienna. In fact, parts of the Little Freemason Cantata have long been recognised to be by Wranitsky, and not by Mozart. So, there are all kinds of problems with your idea that Rousseau was Gluck. And, as for 'Rousseau's music' have you any examples to give us of its 'Mozartean' content ? If not, once again, there are real problems.

Thanks

Originally Posted by yanni

...his thoughts....

That's how Wikipedia "reveals" the link of Mozart's music to Rousseau's musical concept:

The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."[8]
These views suggest a musical style quite unlike the style of the Galant, which was dominant at the time. Galant style music was typically melodic with harmonic accompaniment, rather than polyphonic; and the melodic line was often richly ornamented with trills, runs and other virtuosic effects. The style promoted by the Masonic view was much less virtuosic and unornamented. Mozart's style of composition is often referred to as "humanist" and is in accord with this Masonic view of music.[9]

The authors of the article fail to remark that it was "Gluck" who pioneered the "much less virtuosic and unornamented" that Mozart "borrowed somehow" from "Gluck". A common trend among musicologists apparently, to ommit this alias of "Rousseau"!

[yanni]

Need I repeat myself, questioning truth's "quality" once more, to teach you?

If Thomas Jefferson decided to "alter" truth to protect my ancestor-hero and his legacy, if, today, at this absolutely "american literature" site, my revelations on his relations to the first three US presidents remain unchallenged, what makes you think that only "your" Mozart was "manufactured" and other truths of the era that created him were not?

Google for "abbe Raynal+Jefferson" and read (again) my last thread on "abbe Raynal-Rousseau" (it appears as #1 of 28300).

...and do try avoiding quick conclusions: If the foundations of this "house" need "strenghtening", after two centuries and a half, a good, learned, honest, architect must first be found.

(The similarities between Mozart's Bastien and Rousseau's Le Devin du Village have already been discussed elsewhere, see http://www.barenreiter.com/html/vosco/bastien.htm)

Cheers!

Originally Posted by Musicology

Firstly, Gluck died in 1787. But Rousseau died in 1778. A slight problem, yes ? Rousseau is buried in Paris. Gluck is buried in Vienna. Another problem, yes ? The post you have made speaks of Masonic music. But many composers wrote Masonic music, including contemporaries of Mozart such as Paul Wranitsky in Vienna. In fact, parts of the Little Freemason Cantata have long been recognised to be by Wranitsky, and not by Mozart. So, there are all kinds of problems with your idea that Rousseau was Gluck. And, as for 'Rousseau's music' have you any examples to give us of its 'Mozartean' content ? If not, once again, there are real problems.

Thanks

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I have already refered to 'Mozart's' Bastien earlier on this thread. In fact, I refered to this work before you did. Maybe you didn't notice it ? If you can't find it just tell me and I will post it again.

The simple fact is Rousseau was part of the same network as Mozart. This was said earlier also. But Rousseau was NOT a music composer. He was a charlatan. Like Mozart.

I agree that other people's reputations have been manufactured. Nobody disputes this. But this thread (in case you have forgotten) is on the manufacture of Mozart. At least, I hope so.

Can you show us some examples of Rousseau and Mozart's music being of the same kind ? It's not much to ask, is it ? But, so far, you have given us no example. I wonder why ? The similarities to which you refer are only text, not music. A big difference, yes ?

Originally Posted by yanni

Need I repeat myself, questioning truth's "quality" once more, to teach you?

If Thomas Jefferson decided to "alter" truth to protect my ancestor-hero and his legacy, if, today, at this absolutely "american literature" site, my revelations on his relations to the first three US presidents remain unchallenged, what makes you think that only "your" Mozart was "manufactured" and other truths of the era that created him were not?

Google for "abbe Raynal+Jefferson" and read (again) my last thread on "abbe Raynal-Rousseau" (it appears as #1 of 28300).

...and do try avoiding quick conclusions: If the foundations of this "house" need "strenghtening", after two centuries and a half, a good, learned, honest, architect must first be found.

(The similarities between Mozart's Bastien and Rousseau's Le Devin du Village have already been discussed elsewhere, see http://www.barenreiter.com/html/vosco/bastien.htm)

Cheers!

Since we are discussing what is real and what is not in music here's a short interlude - an example of superhuman harmony and amazing invention from a real miracle of music.

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)
Cantata 206
Aria 206/3

http://www.mediafire.com/?yzztlhz3j0c

[yanni]

“There is no reply to the ignorant like keeping silence!”

[Musicology]

Yes, Yanni.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clCZg...eature=related

[Musicology]

And here, to complete this short thread (!) some music by one of the many ignored musical contemporaries of Mozart in Vienna, the Bohemian composer Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808). One of various unofficial suppliers of the music in 'Mozart's' 'The Marriage of Figaro'. The remarkable similarities here to various parts of the Figaro overture are just a 'coincidence', of course ! This symphony written 2 years earlier than Figaro. (In later years it was the same Wranitsky who also privately supplied much of the music to 'Mozart's' opera 'The Magic Flute'. Music which had been used a year ealier in his opera 'Oberon'. And 'Oberon' was the most popular opera in Viennese musical history although 'Oberon' has been conveniently unrecorded and is virtually unknown today). What's new ?

Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808)
Symphony in D Major (c.1784/5)
First Movement
London Mozart Players
Paul Bambert, Conductor

http://www.mediafire.com/?yyym3mtzhmm

[yanni]

Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’...... For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’.....

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

.........for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

Mozart first learned to distinguish between opera and singspiel (style) while in Paris by "Grimm" (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...0_num_9_1_1078), ie Cocchi, (ie "Gluck, Chastellux and Rousseau") who, from then on(as Saint Germain, France's minister of war), had more important things to do(burning his aliases, among others, starting with "Rousseau" while Mozart was there) .

"First comes the word", you see, that was "their" basic "stylistic reform", "secondary" music had to obey, particularly when lyrics had to be translated and the piece be modified to suit the tastes of "lesser" audiences and the voice qualities of the actors (it was still "theater" then, ie tragédie lyrique ).

You now have all the answers and, once you drop your jesuit fixation (and develop other essentials), your book has chances!

Cheers Robert!

(BTW seek out the identity of a "Chevalier de Chaumont" who, together with Charles Nicholas Cochin, had some plans and designs on how the first "opera theater" should look like)!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Thank you for quoting what I wrote several years ago on a different website about 'Mozart's' operatic career, namely -

Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’...... For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’.....

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem to be. Especially once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

.........for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

You might also be aware that in 1778 Mozart's artistic and financially disastrous visit to Paris (which included the premiere there at the Concert Spirituel of a symphony he never actually wrote, 'Pariser', K297) was followed by his period in Munich when he was falsely credited with writing the opera 'Idomeneo'. But Idomeneo was not by Mozart also. In fact, surviving documents show Mozart had written virtually nothing of that work at the time when he arrived in Munich from Salzburg and there is no record of any payment to Mozart there as being its composer. And there are instead several reports of the time that this Idomeneo music was plagiarised from other composers. Add to this the fact that the March in Idomeneo was composed not by Mozart but instead by Josef Martin Kraus, who used it in Sweden a few years later in a work commissioned by the Swedish king. As far as the two unfinished works, 'L'Oca del Cairo' and 'Lo Sposo Deluso' are concerned, these are totally different in style from anything Mozart had written so far. They are far, far superior, in fact, to anything attributed to him up until that time. The change in style and quality here is amazing. The real Mozart was still writing operatic rubbish as late as 1786. If you have a chance to listen to 'Die Schauspieldirektor' premiered in Vienna in the very year of Figaro, in fact, premiered there only a few months before Le Nozze di Figaro !. Take away its overture and a single interesting aria (neither of which were by him) and we have an ugly work of very crude musical content. So poor, in fact, we are hard pressed to believe this is a work by the same composer responsible only a few months later for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ! A contemporary diarist who attended the premiere of 'Die Schauspieldirektor' in Vienna(Count Zinzendorf) noted 'the entire piece bored me'. Easy to see why he said so. And, judging by the documentary record of that time the 'famous' Mozart was already begging money from his fraternity friends in Vienna as early as that date of 1786. For instance, a letter survives from Vienna publisher Hoffmeister dated that year saying 'Sent Mozart 2 Ducats' - this in response to a begging letter from the same Mozart. This after he, Mozart, had (according to legend) 'earned a fortune' from playing piano concertos in Vienna over the two years before this. But this piano playing reputation proves on closer examination to be fiction also. Those capable of actually writing the music for 'Lo Sposo Deluso' and 'L'Oca del Cairo' included Paisiello, Sarti, Salieri and numerous others. Parts of the same network of composers (with various others) who were to continue to supply 'Mozart's' music for another decade and even beyond it. Stylistically we have been educated to believe this music is 'Mozartean', but, of course, this trick is achieved only by suppressing numerous works by Sarti, Paisiello, Myslivececk, Vanhal, Righini, Rossler, and others of his circle. Perfectly consistent with the disembodied myth of Mozart, the only composer of that time whose music is performed widely and known to modern audiences.

I take your point on the Jesuit involvement in Mozart's career. But, in fact, one can only say Jesuit involvement in the 'Englightenment' certainly was a major factor and had been so since virtually Mozart's childhood. Jesuit involvement in promoting the sciences and the arts was enormous ever since the first decades when Ignatius Loyola had been supported by the Venetian oligarchs during the early years of that Order. The period between the end of Jesuit control of education and musical publication across most of continental Europe (which began in 1762 with their ban from France and culminated in 1773 with the dissolution of their order in Rome) and the artistic appearance of what is today called the 'Englightenment' coincides perfectly with the description of Mozart as a 'composer of the Englightenment'.

Certainly, Grimm played a major part in Mozart's career. It was Grimm who arranged for a commission to be given for 'Idomeneo' as said - despite his disastrous Paris visit.

From the time of Idomeneo onwards up to and including 'Die Zauberflote' and 'La Clemenza di Tito' the supply to Mozart of 'his' operas was a complex affair involving this music being sent to him in Vienna via Bonn, Florence, London and other places such as Prague. These operas of Mozart's last decade (almost without exception) were not composed in Vienna. And are not by Mozart. He (Mozart) was simply the arranger of music written for him.

Cocchi is a very interesting character in the Mozart story. So is the story of Italian opera in England as a whole, especially during the period when Gallini was at the King's Threatre and at Covent Garden Theatre. The riddle of 'Mozart's' operas is close to being solved, for sure.

[yanni]

The 1990 article at http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...0_num_9_1_1078 ,limited as it may be in "sources", fully answers your agonising questions of 2006, as quoted in my previous post, with regard to the provenance of Mozart's "new style" and his grooming* for his new role prior to January 1780, ie during his stay in Paris, by "Grimm"* (ie Cocchi, "Rousseau, Gluck, Chastellux etc", the aliases unknown to author Martin Fontius of the Berlin(DDR) Academy of Sciences**).

Your world theories-commitments do not allow you presently to admit it, you thus once more twist my words around to "misinterpret" my "points" accordingly (a predictable stand, hence my previous recomendation to develop the required "essentials") so that, hard to find, harder to digest, truth, may remain the property of the elit few.

Gallini (Collini?), who had so much in common with Cocchi (but was not the same person), certainly must be investigated too but your answer on Cocchi is still "pending"!

Try harder!

*Mozart's 1778 questionable relations to "Grimm", who did not really approve of "flawed" Mozart as his(as "Gluck"-musicmaster) successor(hence Koch's later ommission of Mozart), are important in deciphering "Grimm" himself and his role in diplomacy and world affairs.

**Mr Fontius, possibly still maintaining his deep interest in Enlightment, Voltaire and Rousseau in particular, may also look up "L.H. Nikolay, President of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (April 15, 1798 – June 2, 1803)" who "was granted the title of baron by Joseph II in 1782, on the same day with Goethe", and further continue his research with "Cocceji" next!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

For the benefit of those who may be reading (or trying to read) these exchanges we can summarise this subject as follows -

We both agree the musical life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart were massively falsified and credited to him. And this required a vast network of patrons, composers, propagandists, and supporters. Over decades. Of loyalities which existed well before the time of Mozart. Since the manufacture of reputations is not a new thing in music, art or culture but many centuries old. The reputations of Shakespeare and of others such as Isaac Newton are only two examples. From a musical point of view (in terms of documents and musical analysis etc) this process in the life and career of Mozart is already very clear. It was cleverly done. Most of the time. Great efforts were made to conceal reality. In fact, many of 'Mozart's' manuscripts arrived at their modern form long after his death in 1791 and most of 'his' music was published long, long after his death. The ultimate objective of all this industry included the control of musical culture and of music history itself by the very people who were the musical patrons and managers of those times. So that musicology and studies of musical history would become (and has become) the adulation of a relatively small number of 'great' composers whose status and reputation dominates the musical landscape. The construction of a pantheon, in fact, of 'great' composers. By the emerging music industry. Whose most prominent members include the Viennese trio of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. And the truth of whose lives and careers would be largely concealed by sympathetic biographers and writers.

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair. But amongst the talented composers are those whose names are today hardly known. The music industry has cultivated these 'heroes' of musical history to the virtual exclusion of all others. Robbing us of any appreciation of context, of Mozart's contemporaries and of the musical realities of those times.

The music of Giuseppe Sarti is especially fine. It's just one example of a name hardly known today.

Really, it's a struggle between musicology and the music industry. But I would not have imagined such things when I first started to study Mozart in detail. It's perhaps enough to point out that the history of music is as prone to corruption as banking, commerce, politics or any other field of human activity.

These things were indisputably controlled by the aristocracy of Europe and beyond.

[yanni]

....in the detail, huh?

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

I am unaware of the extent of their 1764 list of contacts (other than it included J.C.Bach) and very much doubt of any intention or need(excluding very particular "ethnic" grounds) at the time to make eight year old Wolfang what he is today

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair.

"This affair", as you have certainly realised by now, is much larger than Mozart's manufacture or even "music" but, if you insist, concentrate your relative research on the assumption that Mozart's myth creation, or perhaps Moz-art, began after 1815 (and is still going strong.)

Having myself in the past highlighted and criticized Cocchi's heavy "complicity" , I find comfort of his choice to distance himself and never look back, chosing to live his last years and die, as he did, in his beautiful garden at Vyborg, with the statue of harpsichord artist Vainamoinen at his side, his youthfull conviction of the benevolance of natural man having, just before, been shattered.

Can we, must we, will we, live on without it?

[Musicology]

Originally Posted by yanni

....in the detail, huh?

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

I am unaware of the extent of their 1764 list of contacts (other than it included J.C.Bach) and very much doubt of any intention or need(excluding very particular "ethnic" grounds) at the time to make eight year old Wolfang what he is today

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair.

"This affair", as you have certainly realised by now, is much larger than Mozart's manufacture or even "music" but, if you insist, concentrate your relative research on the assumption that Moz-art's myth creation started after 1815 (and is still going strong.)

Having myself in the past highlighted and criticized Cocchi's heavy "complicity" , I find comfort of his choice to never look back, chosing to live his last years and die, as he did, in his beautiful garden at Vyborg, with the statue of harpsichord artist Vainamoinen at his side, his youthfull conviction of the benevolance of natural man having, just before, been shattered.

Can we, must we, will we, live on without it?

Yanni,

At the end of the day what matters is what is real, what is true, and what is worthy of our service. Now, in the present. And what is present is the fulfillment of the ages.

Thanks for these exchanges -

J.S. Bach
Orchestral Transcription
BWV 508
Bist du bei mir

http://www.mediafire.com/?jzddn0iznmm

[yanni]

My pleasure Robert!

http://greek-music.eu/video-clips/dimitra-galani/