The Manufacture of Mozart [Archive] - Page 2

Musicology

12-20-2009, 02:09 PM

Yanni,

Yes, certainly, here with this 'Rosetti' is something very unusual. A composer whose works are remarkably 'Mozartean'. Even stranger, the memorial service held in Prague for Mozart in December 1791 - i.e. within a few weeks of his death - (attended by hundreds, even thousands of people - according to local newspaper sources) at which a Requiem Mass was performed. Whose composer was not W.A. Mozart, but.....'Rossetti' !

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:PAfFZ1K-v0oJ:www.mozartforum.com/Contemporary%2520Pages/Rosetti_Contemp.htm+rossetti+requiem+mozart+prague +1791&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

Around 2 years ago I spent quite a lot of time on this subject of 'Rossetti' in an attempt to understand more of how this music could possibly be virtually unknown and what place it occupies and has occupied within the body of studies known as 'Mozart studies'. The first fact is that the place where this music comes from is the court of Oettingen/Wallerstein. The very place from which two important composers definitely came. Anton Reicha and his uncle who, in 1783/4 are transfered to serve in Bonn. To the musical regime there which was under the control of Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. And Bonn, from that time onwards was a major centre of 'Mozart's' music. Although, prior to 1783/4 (when a detailed survey of music was made there of its musical archives) not a single piece existed there by Mozart ! This was so strange that it contradicts almost everything we always assumed about the reputation and popularity of Mozart at that time. And yet, by 1794 (the date when these music archives were evacuated from the city) we know that around 10 symphonies of 'Mozart' are said to exist there, 9 of which are today held at the library of Modena, in Italy. Having arrived there a few years later. But detailed study of these (including their watermarks) shows many were definitely in existence before 1784. Some of them written on paper which was itself in common use in Bonn.

Researchers such as Giorgio Taboga in Italy, Luca Bianchi, Anna Trombetta and others have noted these strange features of the Modena 'Mozart' symphonies. Which are definitely early copies of works today attributed to Mozart. In fact, the orchestral scoring of these works (many of them famous 'Mozart' symphonies) also clearly indicates these are earlier than many of the versions we know today. They include the 'Haffner' (No. 35), the 'Linz' (No. 36) and even the 'Prague' (No. 38) and 'Jupiter' (No. 41) although each has its own story.

The conclusion I reached was that the name of 'Rossetti' was a label given to various works arriving at Oettingen/Wallerstein from various sources, only some of which eventually became 'Mozart'. But that Oettingen/Wallerstein was only one source of this incoming music. That, from 1783/84 this 'Mozartification' process became more centralised in Bonn. Even including preparing operas and other music to be finally attributed to Mozart. This process was quite complicated and later included numerous other composers and locations including London, Bohemia and Bonn. Both before Mozart's death and in the decade or so after his death.

Your comments on the 'Rossetti' subject are very interesting. Naples was certainly involved in 'Mozart' operas, together with Rome, Florence and other locations in Italy. And of course London. (especially from 1783 to around 1815). You refer to 'Gabriele Rossetti, the "redshirt" or "carbonaro" who escaped imprisonement in Naples assisted by a british admiral and lived in London ever since'. I will certainly read your "Poe decoded" thread).

Gabriele Rossetti is refered to here in this document from the British Library as one of the Italian political refugees in England -

''Panizzi, Gladstone, Garibaldi, and the Neapolitan Prisoners''
Denis V. Reidy

http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2005articles/pdf/article6.pdf

In the meantime, here is another Youtube video recording - again, very remarkably 'Mozartean' -

'A. Rossetti'
Concerto in E Flat Major
Allegro maestoso
c.1783/5
(from Oettingen/Wallerstein archives)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw7KR4vMEzk

Radek Baborak (horn)
Bayerische Kammerphilharmonie
Johannes Moesus

yanni

12-21-2009, 02:57 AM

"He was here at the Concert on Wednesday, & as a great Favor staid late on purpose to give us a Couple of Songs when most of the Company were gone. It is vastly agreable as well as Odd to hear him. His Skill is certainly very great, & his Songs are as much suited to his Expression in Singing as his Solos are to his Playing.

He is an Odd Creature, & the more I see him the more curious I am to know something about him. He is everything with everybody: he talks Ingeniously with Mr. Wray , Philosophy with Ld. Willoughby , & is gallant with Miss Yorke, Miss Carpenter & all the Young Ladies. …I can't but fancy he is a great Pretender in all kinds of Science, as well as that he really has acquired an uncommon Share in some. - Well! so much for Monsr. le Comte de St. Germain, whom neither you nor I have anything to do with…"

btw: My then interpretation of "An artist's studio" was wrong. Christina was referring to "G's" vision of "maiden Liberty" as it-and his then half known story- had evolved in England in her time.

Greetings

Musicology

12-21-2009, 02:53 PM

And something wonderful at this festive time.

1/3

J.S. Bach
Chorus
Christmas Oratorio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUsZcsJnm4&feature=related

2/3

J.S. Bach
Magnificat in D Major
'Esuriente'
Soloist - Bernarda Fink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_x4WonkDk

3/3

G.F. Handel
'He Shall Feed His Flock'
From, 'The Messiah'
Soloists - Andreas Scholl/Barbara Schlick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9rw3RLv9AY

yanni

01-09-2010, 12:44 PM

I wish you all a Happy New Year, with or without JS Bach.

Mozart scholars in particular (like Robert who initiated this thread) may be interested in a piece of....creative art by the title "The Mozart Conspiracy":

Enlisted by Leigh Llewellyn - the beautiful opera star and Ben's first love - to investigate her brother's mysterious death, former SAS operative Ben finds himself caught up in a centuries-old puzzle.

Officially, Oliver died in a tragic accident whilst investigating Mozart's death, but the facts don't add up. His research reveals that Mozart, a notable freemason, may have been killed by a shadowy splinter group of the cult. The only clues lie in an ancient letter, believed to have been written by the composer himself.

When Leigh and Ben receive video evidence of a ritual sacrifice being performed, they realise that the sect is still exists - and will stop at nothing to keep its secrets.

LOL!

:santasmil

Musicology

01-10-2010, 01:07 PM

Happy 2010 to everyone here. Let's hope it brings us all success and a peaceful and happy new year. We all need it !

Speaking of music - what better start to the year than this magnificent piece ? -

Cantata 11
Chorus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDWeTVbkft8

Humbly submitted for the approval of Yanni by a certain Herr Johann Sebastian Bach

:wave::wave::wave:

Greetings !

And -

Cantata 140

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC35GS88OqA&feature=PlayList&p=AF57B6EB61C7E5A5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12

''Greater than mystery is what is revealed'' !

I wish you all a Happy New Year, with or without JS Bach.

Mozart scholars in particular (like Robert who initiated this thread) may be interested in a piece of....creative art by the title "The Mozart Conspiracy":

Enlisted by Leigh Llewellyn - the beautiful opera star and Ben's first love - to investigate her brother's mysterious death, former SAS operative Ben finds himself caught up in a centuries-old puzzle.

Officially, Oliver died in a tragic accident whilst investigating Mozart's death, but the facts don't add up. His research reveals that Mozart, a notable freemason, may have been killed by a shadowy splinter group of the cult. The only clues lie in an ancient letter, believed to have been written by the composer himself.

When Leigh and Ben receive video evidence of a ritual sacrifice being performed, they realise that the sect is still exists - and will stop at nothing to keep its secrets.

LOL!

:santasmil

Gilliatt Gurgle

01-10-2010, 10:39 PM

And something wonderful at this festive time.

J.S. Bach
Chorus
Christmas Oratorio

J.S. Bach
Magnificat in D Major
'Esuriente'
Soloist - Bernarda Fink

G.F. Handel
'He Shall Feed His Flock'
From, 'The Messiah'
Soloists - Andreas Scholl/Barbara Schlick

[QUOTE=Musicology;827008]Happy 2010 to everyone here...

Speaking of music - what better start to the year than this magnificent piece ? -

Cantata 11
Chorus

Cantata 140

Musicology,
I’m a little late, but those pieces are wonderful.
Since architecture is my line of work, I was naturally drawn to the church where Weihnachtsoratorium BWV 248 was performed. I expanded the “more info” and discovered that it was recorded at Münster Heilsbronn.

Here is the Wikipedia link, for those who are interested:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:M%C3%BCnster_in_Heilsbronn

The New Year’s pieces are wonderful as well and I noticed the clever choice of the YouTube recording of Cantata 11 chorus by “Mozartharmony”. If that wasn’t intentional, then I am shocked that your Mozart security filters let that one get past you!

Thanks again for sharing.

I wish you all a Happy New Year, with or without JS Bach.

Mozart scholars in particular (like Robert who initiated this thread) may be interested in a piece of....creative art by the title "The Mozart Conspiracy":

Enlisted by Leigh Llewellyn...
...may have been killed by a shadowy splinter group of the cult. The only clues lie in an ancient letter, believed to have been written by the composer himself.

When Leigh and Ben receive video evidence of a ritual sacrifice being performed, they realise that the sect is still exists - and will stop at nothing to keep its secrets.

Great Athena’s ghost! Why are you doing this to us Yanni?
I bet Dan Brown had a hand in this!

Gilliatt

yanni

01-11-2010, 04:01 AM

Humbly submitted for the approval of Yanni by a certain Herr Johann Sebastian Bach

:wave::wave::wave:

Bach was not my point, Robert (and, btw, the Bachs, as a music family with strong links to London, Paris and "G", must indeed be thoroughly researched as well)but the repetition of similar efforts, ie the clearly seen trend or "pattern", of creating another "truth", via fiction or "research", to suit "our" interests.

Cheers.

yanni

01-11-2010, 04:07 AM

Great Athena’s ghost! Why are you doing this to us Yanni?
I bet Dan Brown had a hand in this!

Tell me one good reason why such an interesting subject must be wasted on pre 1750 music quotations, Gilliat!

Musicology

01-11-2010, 07:20 AM

Hi there Yanni.

It was Christmas/New Year so we could enjoy this music, pre-1750 or not.

Latest news on the Mozart is that I'm working on the operas. That's fun, for sure.

yanni

01-11-2010, 01:48 PM

The Manufacture of Mozart: an upcoming book by Robert Newman
English author shows Jesuit control of the arts dating back 400 years
By Greg Szymanski, JD
May 14, 2009
It’s hard for Americans to believe that the Jesuits and Vatican have had their control fingers on entertainment and education for at least four centuries, perhaps more.
But if you are doubtful, take the time to look at how they even controlled and manufactured the most famous composer of all time, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Be assured if they could control and manufacture Mozart, they can do the same to the likes of Bono, Madonna, Tom Hanks and Ron Howard.
To prove this point English author Robert Newman has dedicated 15 years of his life uncovering how the Vatican and Jesuits perpetrated the Mozart fraud.http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156

The Mozart Conspiracy
(The second book in the Ben Hope series)
(2008)
A novel by
Scott Mariani

An ancient murder! A clandestine society! A conspiracy that will end in death...Former SAS operative Ben Hope is running for his life. Enlisted by the beautiful Leigh Llewellyn - world famous opera star and Ben's first love - to investigate her brother's mysterious death, Ben finds himself caught up in a centuries-old puzzle. The official line states that Oliver died whilst investigating Mozart's death, but the facts don't add up. Oliver's research reveals that Mozart, a notable freemason, may have been killed by a shadowy and powerful splinter group of the cult. The only clues lie in an ancient letter, believed to have been written by Mozart himself. When Leigh and Ben receive video evidence of a ritual sacrifice being performed by hooded men, they realise that the sect is still in existence today!and will stop at nothing to remain a secret. From the dreaming spires of Oxford to Venice's labyrinthine canals, the majestic architecture of Vienna and Slovenia's snowy mountains, Ben and Leigh must forget the past and race across Europe to uncover the truth behind THE MOZART CONSPIRACY!An electrifying and utterly gripping must read for fans of Dan Brown, Sam Bourne and Ludlum's Bourne series. http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/scott-mariani/mozart-conspiracy.htm

Musicology

01-13-2010, 01:55 PM

Yanni,

I think there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction. And there is a difference between the opinions of an author and the opinions of others. Fortunately I'm not a writer of fiction and have no need to invent anything. I'm very happy for readers of my book on Mozart to judge the argument on the documentary and historical evidence alone. In fact this revolutionary approach to Mozart studies may even be welcomed by you as an answer to 200 years of fairy stories. Judge for yourself having examined both sides. That's fair and reasonable, don't you agree ?

Regards

yanni

01-13-2010, 05:20 PM

The fact that you were unable to support your claim that Mozart was manufactured by the Jesuits alllows me to call your work an "invention", a work of fiction, dont you think?

And don't you by now find your "declaration of intent", as presented by Greg Szymanski, out of tune?

And don't you see how your book-to-be follows in step with Scott Mariani's, Dan Brown etc etc, all mumbling in chorus the same convenient old nonsense over and over?

I do!

At http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Illuminati_Conspiracy_2.htm you'll be able to read a more modern (Sept 2008) version of the Illuminati vs Jesuits story that finds me in full agreement.

For more on "Mozart's manufacture" I am preparing a 1777-1779 timeline, "Mozart in Paris", with data from W.A.M. as well as "Grimm" and all other relevant aliases of "G".

Cheers.

Yanni,

I think there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction. And there is a difference between the opinions of an author and the opinions of others. Fortunately I'm not a writer of fiction and have no need to invent anything. I'm very happy for readers of my book on Mozart to judge the argument on the documentary and historical evidence alone. In fact this revolutionary approach to Mozart studies may even be welcomed by you as an answer to 200 years of fairy stories. Judge for yourself having examined both sides. That's fair and reasonable, don't you agree ?

Regards

Musicology

01-14-2010, 01:06 PM

Yanni,

I don't know why you are so sensitive to criticism of Jesuit control of music and culture across continental Europe since the time of the Council of Trent (1545-1653) up to 1773 and even beyond, into the so-called Englightenment, when such things are plain and basic facts of European history. The Jesuits (amongst other things) were pioneers in opera, theatre, and many other areas of culture and education. But this is a plain fact of European history. A gigantic project of church painting, architecture, sculpture, music, publishing, academic control etc. etc. was begun after the Council of Trent to roll back protestant influence. And, prior to their temporary dissolution in 1773, the Jesuit control of music and academic publising was almost total, right across the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps we should 'edit' out these massive facts of European history from our textbooks and pretend these things are untrue ?

You might consider sending in your CV to the editors of 'Encyclopaedia Brittanica' who have been editing out embarrasing chapters of European history ever since copyright of that great encyclopaedia was sold in the early 20 th century.

If the facts of the Jesuit led Counter-Reformation are embarrasing please don't draw our attention to them. But denying the Jesuit led Counter Reformation was a giant movement in all areas of European culture makes you look like a person who is living in denial. Dan Brown stuff, yes ?

You will shortly tell us about Mozart's musical education, right ? Because, so far, we have heard nothing from you. Maybe the Jesuit education of Mozart's father has something to do with it ? Or the dozens of Jesuit associates of Mozart's career. This too is a sheer coincidence, right ? :brickwall

This influence, in later years, also involved other fraternities and patrons which were used by the same Counter Reformation right across continental Europe and beyond as they sought to increase their influence through Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Illuminatists, etc. The Illuminatists coming from a Jesuit university themselves. But that is just another coincidence, right, Yanni ? Before the same Jesuit Order (who went underground) were again restored, in 1814. But what do I know about the Jesuits ? We must pretend they never existed, right ? That their influence was minor. And that Mozart wrote operas before breakfast and sonatas before lunch. Never having studied harmony, orchestration or composition during his entire life. In such a universe, Yanni, we may believe complete nonsense.

But it's OK.

Regards

Musicology

01-14-2010, 03:14 PM

Concerto in D Major
BWV 249

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvI2aPsXhrA&feature=related

Orchestral Suite No. 2
Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwoEvalVNDs&feature=related

Masterful !!

yanni

01-15-2010, 06:52 AM

For your much needed enlightment Robert, I suggest you start with Rousseau’s “Emile”, a universally recognized "first european" study on the merits of education. If you chose to accompany your reading with some "music", here are some interesting sites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BuvIOYQlk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdp5dROQ0U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ben4Axvd4mY.

When you reach “Christophe de Beaumont, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Paris", call again!

Other readers will soon find promised “Mozart in Paris”, 1777-1779 timeline, at…..
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40910
(A thread on Leroux’s opera phantom identity).

Cheers!

Musicology

01-16-2010, 10:19 AM

Yanni,

Thank you for offering us 'enlightenment' on the subject of education. May I remind you that primary school education in Europe was pioneered almost exclusively 200 years earlier by the Reformers such as Martin Luther in Germany ? That it was Luther and others of his time who made it possible for ordinary children from ordinary families to go to school. And to read and write ? The idea was so good that it is due to them that all nations do the same today. In fact, nobody did more to achieve a huge improvement in general education in Europe than the protestants. At a time when the 'Holy Roman Empire' had always reserved education for its own elites and for a small number of its closest associates. The exceptions being the orphanages. And at a time when that Empire had created ignorant masses who were able to neither read nor write. In the 10th century (200 years after Rome and the papacy had virtually taken over all governments of western Europe) the average town of Europe contained serfs of the feudal system who were as ignorant as any who ever lived. Entire monasteries were filled with monks who still could not write. And who could hardly count from one to ten. The elite ruling classes of Europe read only Aristotle or dogmas from their Latin catechisms. The state of European education was generally a disaster. And, even by the early 18th century the Jesuit strangelhold on education (nearly 200 years old) was so shameful that entire towns were complaining about useless standards of education being received by students in their schools, even in areas where the Jesuits were in total control of universities and colleges. Rousseau's 'Emile' was written for the education not of ordinary people but of these elite privileged families and has almost nothing to do with European society as a whole. The same privileged families who, for centuries, had male members who knew little and wanted to know little more than how to hunt deer, foxes, and rabbits and whose career aims were to learn Latin and to take part in crusades, horse riding events and religious pilgrimages. Later, to be faithful stooges of the fraternities. A society where the language of ordinary people was still outlawed in schools. As in France and Germany. In Italy and in Bohemia. And where each and every textbook for students was vetted by the same Jesuit Order, who, by this time, were also the censors of Europe. Have you read any of the mountain of complaints against the Jesuit educational system from the mayors of Portugal, France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere in the late 16th and 17th centuries ? They will embarass you.

Mozart never went to school. Ever. And when this absurd state of student ignorance finally collapsed across Europe the embarrasment was that it had not been allowed to collapse before. Raised on a diet of superstitions, Mary worship, idols, and religious pilgrimages it was finally agreed by the powers that controlled the Holy Roman Empire that children should go to school. Now, distancing themselves from the Jesuit legacy they had to concoct a system of education which was called the 'enlightenment'. Meaning, in practice, fresh control of the same society through these same elites. But this time able to inflitrate non-Catholic lands. Such as England. This time in the name of the Encyclopaedists of Paris and their fraternal supporters in the newly invented Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminatists through the same (hidden) Jesuit control. This merged with Venetian commercial Empire which had been successfully exported to the British. So that Rousseau and Voltaire (both closely associated with the same elites) would be presented today as models of 'enlightenment' when, in fact, they were part of the same roving theatre as Casanova, Cagliostro, and a hundred other actors of the 'Enlightenment'.

The state of education in Germany was widely recognised to be far superior than virtually anywhere else in Europe. Why ? Because the ordinary boy or girl now had access to school education from an early age. Except in areas where the same old sytem still had influence. And because money spent on religious pilgrimages and the 'forgiveness of sins' was now being spent on primary education.

Rousseau, 'enlightened', indeed !! :rolleyes: You should ask his paymasters in the British East India Company. And that of Voltaire.

As for fine music - (late Baroque)

G.F. Fasch
Overture in D Major

Regards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skHHnFLFHI&feature=related

For your much needed enlightment Robert, I suggest you start with Rousseau’s “Emile”, a universally recognized "first european" study on the merits of education. If you chose to accompany your reading with some "music", here are some interesting sites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BuvIOYQlk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdp5dROQ0U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ben4Axvd4mY.

When you reach “Christophe de Beaumont, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Paris", call again!

Other readers will soon find promised “Mozart in Paris”, 1777-1779 timeline, at…..
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40910
(A thread on Leroux’s opera phantom identity).

Cheers!

Musicology

01-16-2010, 11:04 AM

Yanni,

Thank you for offering us 'enlightenment' on the subject of education. May I remind you that primary school education in Europe was pioneered almost exclusively by the Reformers such as Martin Luther in Germany ? That it was Luther and others of his time who made it possible for ordinary children to go to school. An idea so good that it is due to them that all nations do the same today. In fact, nobody did more to achieve a huge improvement in general education than the protestants. At a time when the 'Holy Roman Empire' had always reserved education for its own elites and for a small number of its closest associates. And at a time when that Empire had created ignorant masses who were able to neither read nor write. In the 10th century (200 years after Rome and the papacy had virtually taken over all governments of western Europe) the average town of Europe contained serfs of the feudal system who were as ignorant as any who ever lived. Entire monasteries were filled with monks who still could not write. And who could hardly count from one to ten. The elite ruling classes of Europe read only Aristotle or dogmas from their Latin catechisms. The state of education was generally a disaster. And, even by the early 18th century the Jesuit strangelhold on education was so shameful that entire towns were complaining about useless standards of education in their schools, even in areas where the Jesuits were in total control of universities and colleges. Rousseau's 'Emile' was written for the education of these elite privileged families and has almost nothing to do with the education of European society as a whole. The same privileged families who, for centuries, had male members who knew little more than how to hunt deer, foxes, and rabbits and whose career aims were to learn Latin and to take part in crusades, horse riding events and religious pilgrimages. A society where the language of the ordinary people was still outlawed in schools. As in France and Germany. And where each and every textbook for students was vetted by the same Jesuit Order, who, by this time, were also the censors of Europe. Have you read any of the complaints against the Jesuit educational system from the mayors of Portugal, France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere in the late 16th and 17th centuries ? They will embarass you.

Mozart never went to school. Ever. And when this absurd state of ignorance finally collapsed across Europe the embarrasment was that it had not been allowed to collapse before. Raised on a diet of superstitions, Mary worship, idols, and religious pilgrimages the population finally agreed that children should go to school. And realising they had to concoct a controlled system of education which has been called the 'enlightenment'. Meaning, in practice, fresh control of society through the very same elites. This time in the name of the Encyclopaedists of Paris and their fraternal supporters such as the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminatists, and the same (hidden) Jesuit control. This temporarily underground. With the British Empire now a product of the earlier Venetian commercial Empire. So that Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom were closely associated with the same elites) would be presented as models of 'enlightenment' when, in actual fact, they part of the same roving theatre as Casanova, Cagliostro, and a hundred other actors of the 'Enlightenment'.

The state of education in Germany was widely recognised to be far superior than virtually anywhere else in Europe. Why ? Because the ordinary boy or girl now had had access to school education for over two centuries. Except in areas where the same old sytem had influence. And because money spent on religious pilgrimages and the 'forgiveness of sins' was now being spent on primary education and on textbooks. In their own language.

Rousseau, 'enlightened', indeed !! :rolleyes:

For your much needed enlightment Robert, I suggest you start with Rousseau’s “Emile”, a universally recognized "first european" study on the merits of education. If you chose to accompany your reading with some "music", here are some interesting sites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BuvIOYQlk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdp5dROQ0U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ben4Axvd4mY.

When you reach “Christophe de Beaumont, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Paris", call again!

Other readers will soon find promised “Mozart in Paris”, 1777-1779 timeline, at…..
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40910
(A thread on Leroux’s opera phantom identity).

Cheers!

yanni

01-16-2010, 11:46 AM

"Wherever Luther prevails, the cause of literature and learning is lost"

Immortal Erasmus!

Readers interested in Mozart meeting the opera phantom in Paris are advised to look at:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=669725

Cheers!

Musicology

01-17-2010, 02:40 PM

Yanni,

Contrary to these lectures (for which I thank you) the truth is Voltaire, Rousseau and Locke were not special people. They were rather ordinary people who acted a role for their employers. All three were involved in the creation of the British Empire. Faithful stooges of the Venice party who had transfered their influence and assets to London since the time of Henry 8th of England. And who had effectively taken over England by 1700.

In the case of John Locke, it was he who became the chief inventor of the idea of imposing a Bank of England on the nation in 1694. This Bank was not one you could turn to for financial help. It was a giant Venetian transfer of assets and philosophy to England. Within a few years it ran up massive debts to finance endless English involvement in European wars and loading new taxes on an already collapsing economy. The Bank's chief architect was none other than Venetian party leader in England, Charles Montagu, King William's new Chancellor of the Exchequer who later becam British Ambassador to Venice. This is the same Montagu who employed the occultist Isaac Newton to oversee the recoinage swindle in England by giving him the post at the Royal Mint. By 1697 Venetian control of England was almost total. And caught up in this corruption were the protestant merchants of England and Holland. The counter-reformation in practice. And this achieved through Venice. Unknown to most people. A Venice whose leaders had supported the creation of the Jesuit Order (which began the Counter-Reformation) from the very start with the help of Cardinal Contarini of Venice. By 1701 this emerging British Empire, now in the control of the Venetians and through the same John Locke was arguing that all the independent charters of the colonies should come under Royal dictatorship and to ban their manufacture of finished goods.

As for Rousseau and Voltaire, both had careers closely associated with both Venice and England. The 'Enlightenment' has been presented to us a the 'secularisation' of Europe. In fact it was nothing of the kind. It was the same Counter-Reformation in a new phase. By 1717 Freemasonry was born in England. Its ideas had actually been transplanted from Venice. So that occultism would be spread widely across Europe to the emerging middle classes of Germany and elsewhere. The 'Enlightenment' would succeeed in England where Romanist theology had clearly failed for centuries. The 'Enlightenment' was simply another tactic in the counter-Reformation. Soon centred on the rising mercantile empire of the British. So that the monarchy of England even funded the reign of Maria Theresa in Austria and Germany (privately, of course).

As historian Webster Tarpley wrote -

'The shift of the Venetian party from the banks of the Adriatic to the banks of the River Thames became the main project of the world oligarchy over those centuries. The Venetian party knows that ideas are more powerful than guns, fleets, and bombs. In order to secure acceptance for their imperial ideas the Venetian party seeks to control the way that people think. If you can control the way people think, say the Venetians, you can control the way they react to events, no matter what those events may be. So it was vital for the Venetians to control science, culture and philosophy. But the truth is the Venetians were implacably hostile to scientific discovery. Since the days of their mentor Aristotle they have attempted to suffocate true discovery by using formalism and the fetishism of 'authoritative' professional opinion. They have created over the centuries a whole series of scientific frauds and hoaxes which have been elevated to the status of incontrovertible and unchallengeable authorities'.

(Webster Tarpley - 'American Almanac' January 1996).

I certainly don't agree with Tarpley on everything. But on these points he is right.

Rousseau, Voltaire and Locke were all paid stooges of the occultist formation of Britain as an Empire. Supported over the centuries from Venice. A Venetian republic whose culture has never been part of Europe. Whose origins are, of course, found in Byzantium and other pagan centres of the east, beyond Europe. So that the slave traders of Venice eventually became the slave traders of the British Empire. The missing element in so much of 18th century 'history' is not the ongoing disgreements between Protestantism and Catholicism but the role of occultism as a factor in the Counter-Reformation.

England became corrupted. From within. By the rise of its own greedy Empire. And by the oligarchs who were now in control of the nation.

Regards

For your much needed enlightment Robert, I suggest you start with Rousseau’s “Emile”, a universally recognized "first european" study on the merits of education. If you chose to accompany your reading with some "music", here are some interesting sites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BuvIOYQlk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdp5dROQ0U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ben4Axvd4mY.

When you reach “Christophe de Beaumont, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Paris", call again!

Other readers will soon find promised “Mozart in Paris”, 1777-1779 timeline, at…..
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40910
(A thread on Leroux’s opera phantom identity).

Cheers!

yanni

01-18-2010, 02:54 AM

You may even chose to question Aristotle's relations to Democritus, greek Theogony or Adam and Eve but, if I were you, I would remain within the outline of this thread, ie "Mozart's manufacture".

For instance, here is a relevant question for you:

What was Piccinini relation with "Gluck", were they competitors, as music scholars want them to be, or was the former a subordinate of the latter throughout?

Cheers!

Musicology

01-18-2010, 01:36 PM

Gluck was another invention of the 18th century music industry. For sure. This operatic 'debate' between Piccini and Gluck raged in Paris as 'cultural news' and prompted heated discussion between different lovers of music. It was falsely portrayed as a 'struggle' between French and Italian models in opera. Which filled the newspapers of the time and kept everyone who was interested in idle chatter interested. It was of course all 'stage managed'. People actually changed sides all the time in this 'debate'. The lyricism of Italian opera was indisputable. The introduction into French opera of many new diversions was, for sure, new. But the debate, such as it was, was always fuelled by the real arbiters of opera at that time. They considered French models in opera had to become the fashion. So this so-called 'debate' was no real debate. It was all stage managed with Piccini acting his role as being musically unable to reply to Gluck's operas and incompetent. French ideas thus became fashionable with the news of Piccini's supposed incompetence. (This was the plan from the start). French ideas soon became highly fashionable in the operatic world of Europe. These fashions were of course 'managed' from the start. By these arbiters of operatic fashion such as Count Durazzo, Baron Grimm and others themselves. In Vienna it was Durazzo who almost singlehandedly changed operatic and ballet fashions there to those of France. It had nothing to do with nationalism. It had everything to do with obtaining theatrical control across Europe of 'enlightenment' opera. And Durazzo (an Italian) knew this very well. Eventually nationalistic arguments meant nothing. In London Italian opera and French ballet (e.g. dancers such as Noverre) worked side by side.

All these things supported the 'enlightenment' ideas of the Encyclopaedists who were themselves focused in Paris. Out of which, eventually, came Beaumarchais and 'Le Nozze di Figaro' etc. (An opera made famous in the Italian language, though it was originally a French play, of course).

The 'enlightenment' virtually destroyed appreciation of Italian music. For decades. And Paris was portrayed as the very centre of operatic 'fashion'. Gluck was described as a 'genius'. When, in fact, he was always greatly assisted in his music by many others. The 'enlightenment' was designed to use national prejudices but to eventually transcend them. All under the control of the same people. The control of culture and fashion - vital weapons in the 'enlightenment'.

You may even chose to question Aristotle's relations to Democritus, greek Theogony or Adam and Eve but, if I were you, I would remain within the outline of this thread, ie "Mozart's manufacture".

For instance, here is a relevant question for you:

What was Piccinini relation with "Gluck", were they competitors, as music scholars want them to be, or was the former a subordinate of the latter throughout?

Cheers!

yanni

01-18-2010, 03:09 PM

Fiddlesticks!

....and you exhibit astonishing ignorance of elementary music history!

"Gluck"-like"Rousseau", "Grimm", Chastellux" etc his other music aliases--laboured against "oldfashioned" french opera (Rameau) throughout his "french life", favouring italian opera instead (and likewise during his stay in Vienna, Prussia, England, Russia, Bohemia) and praising Gretry, later on, specifically for being able to translate italian libretti to french while maintaining Gluck's music-written originally for italian verse.

Piccinini was an old associate who worked for him in Paris as from 1777 and so did J.C.Bach (and most other wellknown poets or composers of his time).

While "Gluck's" worldwide political influence has gone unoticed till now by music "scholars", Leopold Mozart was obviously well aware of it and tried to exploit it, 1777-1778, as his letters to junior Wolfgand document!

For the rest of the story of Mozart junior meeting the opera phantom see
http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=669725

Cheers!

Musicology

01-19-2010, 04:03 AM

Yanni,

I am convinced your treatment of aliases is so convoluted it becomes almost meaningless. Instead of dealing with aliases by focusing on the person who used them they fly around like butterflies in your posts on the subject and nobody is any wiser. Merely claiming that everyone is an alias of everyone else only makes utter confusion and creates a problem which never existed before. Surely, the whole point is to simplify, to explain, and not to assume people care about a dozen aliases but about their single identity ?

In short, it is not what you are saying that is wrong (since nobody has the remotest idea of who is actually who) but the way in which it is being said.

Regards

Fiddlesticks!

....and you exhibit astonishing ignorance of elementary music history!

"Gluck"-like"Rousseau", "Grimm", Chastellux" etc his other music aliases--laboured against "oldfashioned" french opera (Rameau) throughout his "french life", favouring italian opera instead (and likewise during his stay in Vienna, Prussia, England, Russia, Bohemia) and praising Gretry, later on, specifically for being able to translate italian libretti to french while maintaining Gluck's music-written originally for italian verse.

Piccinini was an old associate who worked for him in Paris as from 1777 and so did J.C.Bach (and most other wellknown poets or composers of his time).

While "Gluck's" worldwide political influence has gone unoticed till now by music "scholars", Leopold Mozart was obviously well aware of it and tried to exploit it, 1777-1778, as his letters to junior Wolfgand document!

For the rest of the story of Mozart junior meeting the opera phantom see
http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=669725

Cheers!

yanni

01-19-2010, 04:15 AM

Answer just this then, if you are so confused:

Fiddlesticks!

....and you exhibit astonishing ignorance of elementary music history!

"Gluck"-***************************- laboured against "oldfashioned" french opera (Rameau) throughout his "french life", favouring italian opera instead (and likewise during his stay in Vienna, Prussia, England, Russia, Bohemia) and praising Gretry, later on, specifically for being able to translate italian libretti to french while maintaining Gluck's music-written originally for italian verse.

Piccinini was an old associate who worked for him in Paris as from 1777 and so did J.C.Bach (and most other wellknown poets or composers of his time).

While "Gluck's" worldwide political influence has gone unoticed till now by music "scholars", Leopold Mozart was obviously well aware of it and tried to exploit it, 1777-1778, as his letters to junior Wolfgand document!

For the rest of the story of Mozart junior meeting the opera phantom see
http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=669725

Cheers!

Musicology

01-20-2010, 04:36 AM

Here, from Freemasonic publications of the late 18th century -

Almost from the time of his arrival in Paris, pleading for an initiation received in America, Voltaire was affiliated with the famous Lodge of the "9 Sisters’’ at a time when we had no less than fifty musicians, mostly "Teachers' ... Among these were counted, including the son of the great Mondonville violinist, Nicolas Dalayrac Pierre Duni, authors famous comic operas, many violinists in the orchestra of the opera singers, so famous, like Lays or Rousseau, the Abbé Nicolas Roze, future professor and librarian of the Conservatoire, the oboist Salantin, creator of the French school of oboe, and many others. The most famous event in which all these talents were called upon to participate that was held November 28, 1778 at the initiation of Voltaire. (* * In 1777-8 Benjamin Franklin)

** The Director of Concerts of this Paris Freemasonic Lodge was a famous amateur, the slightly ridiculous, Baron de Bagge, but direction of the music was actually entrusted sometimes to Brother Piccini, the unsuccessful rival of Gluck, sometimes to Nicolas Capron, violinist at the Opera. This led, after Voltaire took the oath, to an extract of a beautiful symphony of Brother Guenin with which we choose to conclude our discussion''.

//

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.ledifice.net/P022-7.html&ei=aQVWS4muNI2RjAeE-KGcDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbaron%2Bbagge%2Bcorrette%26hl%3Den%26 rlz%3D1G1ACEWCENUK313

//

Nothing is ever what it seems in the 'history of music'. Especially in the case of Mozart and his contemporaries. As said, the Piccini controversy against Gluck was entirely 'stage managed'. By those controlling operatic fashions within the fraternities.

///

yanni

01-20-2010, 07:24 AM

The use of aliases or pennames was extensively used by literature/music authors as well as Freemasons who had every reason to keep their truth to themselves!

IE

If you are ever to draw conclusions as to who "manufactured" Mozart you have to follow my research in detail instead of quoting fairy tales.

Duni (Egidio Romualdo), 11 February 1708 Naples– 11 June 1775 Paris) has a great lot in common with Gioachino Cocchi (I have Duni in my "Cocchi alias candidate" list long time now), "their" works are practically identical, and so does "Baron de Bagge-Bach", ie Charles-Ernest Ennal http://www.torrentdownloads.net/torrent/18725 who, according to http://kosiv.info/ed/grove/Entries/S01761.htm, was born in Fockenhof, Kurland (hah-hah!!), 14 Feb 1722 and died Paris, 24 March 1791)

The emphasis given on his "ridiculous nature" (possibly he used grimaces and violin clumsiness as disguise) is an unfitting cover (first ever confirmed by WAMozart) that does not explain however his patronage of Paris music and musiciens, or his own music, or his relations to the lodge of Les noeuf soeurs*(footnote), Ben Franklin, Mme de Brillon etc (while the specific site you mention fails to mention "Alexander S.Stroganov", "Chastellux" and "LaDixmerie", all aliases of Cocchi and high ranking members of the lodge).

The fact that Bagge's only existing original portrait (as well as the engraving of manuals of his concerts dedicated to the King of Prussia-see Mercure de France, May 1st, 1784), is by Charles Nicholas Cochin*** (Ben Franklin's and Raynal's portraitist-and L'Encyclopedie's illustrator), then commanding painting and sculpture in France, speaks for itself but, if still in doubt...

....look for a german speaking "Brother Bagge", expert in string instruments, appearing in Salem, New York, July the 4th, 1780 ie while "Chastellux" was enjoying himslef in New York!
See http://www.amis.org/publications/newsletter/2005/34.2-2005.pdf.

Also, to further cure your jesuit fixation, check out a book published in Paris 1777-8 or so by the title "Consultation pour le Baron et la Baronne de Bagge" that led to the author's- a lawyer-imprisonement after reactions by the Paris clergy, ie shortly before "Raynal's" book on Philosophy was burned.

But now I'll have you complaining again on the list of aliases getting longer by the day thus making "the manufacturer riddle" impossible to solve, huh?

So let's forget about them and stick to "Gluck", taking my interpretation re his relations to Piccinini for granted (as the exact opposite to the masonic diversifying myth below: "Brother Piccini, the unsuccessful rival of Gluck").

BTW another fact the good site conceals is that "financiers" outnumbered musiciens in Les Noeuf soeurs (by a ratio 70:50, if my memory still holds good** after over two centuries, heh-heh!)

* "G" (from Guess who) founded this lodge in 1771!!

***Actually by his pupil, Simon-Charles Miger, drawn propably around 1792.

**My memory failed me in fact: Financiers, among them undoubtably "G", were a majority in the lodge "Les Amis reunis" -founded 1771 by Savalette de Langes(1747-1797)- that moved to Paris in 1773.

Here, from Freemasonic publications of the late 18th century -

Almost from the time of his arrival in Paris, pleading for an initiation received in America, Voltaire was affiliated with the famous Lodge of the "9 Sisters’’ at a time when we had no less than fifty musicians, mostly "Teachers' ... Among these were counted, including the son of the great Mondonville violinist, Nicolas Dalayrac Pierre Duni, authors famous comic operas, many violinists in the orchestra of the opera singers, so famous, like Lays or Rousseau, the Abbé Nicolas Roze, future professor and librarian of the Conservatoire, the oboist Salantin, creator of the French school of oboe, and many others. The most famous event in which all these talents were called upon to participate that was held November 28, 1778 at the initiation of Voltaire. (* * In 1777-8 Benjamin Franklin)

** The Director of Concerts of this Paris Freemasonic Lodge was a famous amateur, the slightly ridiculous, Baron de Bagge, but direction of the music was actually entrusted sometimes to Brother Piccini, the unsuccessful rival of Gluck, sometimes to Nicolas Capron, violinist at the Opera. This led, after Voltaire took the oath, to an extract of a beautiful symphony of Brother Guenin with which we choose to conclude our discussion''.

//

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.ledifice.net/P022-7.html&ei=aQVWS4muNI2RjAeE-KGcDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbaron%2Bbagge%2Bcorrette%26hl%3Den%26 rlz%3D1G1ACEWCENUK313

//

Nothing is ever what it seems in the 'history of music'. Especially in the case of Mozart and his contemporaries. As said, the Piccini controversy against Gluck was entirely 'stage managed'. By those controlling operatic fashions within the fraternities.

///

yanni

01-20-2010, 09:31 AM

CORRECTION....

Of a previous statement made by yourstruly in this thread re nonexisisting Music History timelines that include political milestones (to allow reader establish correlations between the two, art and "money").

At http://sfrang.com/selides/Mozart/1756.htm the reader may find such a timeline specificaly written for Mozart's (and his manufacturer) era!

In greek.

Cheers!

Musicology

01-20-2010, 04:10 PM

Yanni,

I have a very good idea who wrote most of 'Mozart's' music and it was not one person. In fact, if you have studied this subject in any detail you will know we are talking of more than 700 works. Concertos, sonatas, masses, symphonies, operas etc etc. Stretching over almost 30 years of Mozart's life and beyond. I have spent years examining individual works and am not 'guessing'. Nor do I need fairy stories. The role of Freemasonry is obvious. But so too the role of the Rosicrucians, the Illuminatists, the elite kings and aristocracy of Europe (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire) and beyond. The leaders of 'Enlightenment' society, in fact. This is not puzzling me at all. In fact, it is rather simple. The fairy stories are the standard biographies. As any honest person can see. These different elements converged. And realising this fact makes it more simple.

We do not live in an age where we need to mystify anything. We need instead to clarify and to expose. That's the difference.

As for the Freemasons knowing these things, fine. Two hundred years later we've arrived at a point where honesty and straight talking is enough. The Jesuit 'counter reformation' included control of these fraternities. As we see here in the career of Mozart. One of many examples.

These things were, in one sense, extremely complex. They consist of examining fragments and carefully piecing them together. Until the case gets stronger and tends to solve itself. Most of them hidden, deliberately obscured, suppressed etc. But, in another sense, these things are simple and are able to be showed beyond all reasonable doubt. I choose simplicity.

Musicology

01-20-2010, 05:22 PM

J.S. Bach
Cantata 11
Opening Movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHk9dy0w3DY&feature=related

Cantata 12
Opening Movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwtbUkTj1Yc&feature=related

yanni

01-21-2010, 01:29 AM

Besides Idefix, who doesn't count, the only one who isn't getting "any wiser" is you!

Put your "Baron de Bagge" in the texts below....

A combined Franco-American force fought to drive them (Brits) off of Aquidneck Island. Portsmouth was the site of the first African American military unit, the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, to fight for the U.S. in the Battle of Rhode Island August 29, 1778. The arrival of a far superior French fleet forced the British to scuttle their own ships, rather than surrender them to the French. The celebrated march of 1781 to Yorktown, Virginia that ended with the defeat of the British at the Siege of Yorktown and the Battle of the Chesapeake began in Newport, Rhode Island under the joint command of General George Washington who led American soldiers and the Comte de Rochambeau who led French soldiers sent by King Louis XVI. These allied forces spent one year in Providence, Rhode Island, including at Brown University's University Hall, preparing for an opportune moment to begin their decisive march. Several patriots residing in Rhode Island were involved in the American Revolution, including Royal Governor Samuel Ward, Royal Governor and first Brown University Chancellor Stephen Hopkins, the Reverend James Manning, General James Mitchell Varnum, John Brown, Dr. Solomon Drowne, Yale College president Ezra Stiles and first United States Senator from Rhode Island Theodore Foster.

In 1774, Dr. Manning reportedly presented an argument in favor of religious freedom in an address at Carpenter's Hall to leading figures from Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and other colonies:

It has been said by a celebrated writer in politics, that but two things are worth contending for--Religion and Liberty. For the latter we are at present nobly exerting ourselves through all this extensive continent; and surely no one whose bosom feels the patriotic glow in behalf of civil liberty can remain torpid to the more ennobling flame of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

In the course of the American Revolution, Manning was serving as president of Brown in 1780 when French troops under the command of the Comte de Rochambeau, who led troops sent by King Louis XVI of France, landed in Newport, Rhode Island to aid American troops under the command of General George Washington in the American Revolutionary War. These allied troops were based in Rhode Island for a year before they embarked on a 600-mile (970 km) march in 1781 from Rhode Island to Virginia, where they fought and defeated British forces sent by King George III of the United Kingdom on the Yorktown, Virginia peninsula in the Siege of Yorktown and the Battle of the Chesapeake. During the year of preparation in Rhode Island and under the tenure of James Manning, the Brown campus was turned into an encampment site for soldiers, and the College Edifice at Brown (later renamed University Hall) was converted into a military hospital. (Wikipedia)

...and keep on then reciting your tune to eternity, what do I care for your "Jesuit" fixation?

Truth seeking readers may, however, place "chevalier or marquis de Chastellux"'s (same man as "Brother Bagge", both aliases of Gioachino Cocchi, ie "Le comte de Saint Germain") contribution to the American War for Independence (during the am "march to Yorktown" in particular) in above timeline, such as ....

June 1781: Chastellux tricks the brits into believing the attack would be against New York (http://www.hudsonrivervalley.net/AMERICANBOOK/PDF/R4.pdf

About the middle of August, General Washington was induced to make a total change of the plan of the campaign....the arrival of a reinforcement of three thousand Germans from Europe to New York, the strength of the garrison of that city, and especially intelligence from Count de Grasse that his destination was fixed to the Chesapeake, determined the general to direct the operations of the combined arms against Lord Cornwallis.

Having resolved to lead the expedition in person, he committed the defence of the posts on Hudson's River to Major-General Health, and proceeded on the grand enterprise. While, with consummate address, he kept up the appearance of an intention to attack New York, the allied army, amounting collectively to twelve thousand men, crossed the North River, and passed on by the way of Philadelphia to Yorktown. General Washington and Count Rochambeau reached Williamsburg on the 14th of September, and, with Generals Chastellux, Du Portail, and Knox, visited Count de Grasse on board his ship and agreed on a plan of operations.

.....etc, and draw their own conclusions, while ....

....praising him for his choice for Royal Chamber Music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrOQwiX8I_Y&feature=related...

.....or trying their best to understand him through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpjVFAN3UFE&feature=related.

yanni

01-21-2010, 01:47 PM

...and, btw, you'll nodoubt be pleased to learn,Robert, that I have today removed François-Joseph Gossé (he later changed it to "Gossec" to distinguish from "Causse"-"Cochin") from my list of tentative aliases to now place him firmly and surely among the definite aliases of Cocchi (=Cochin-Caussin in France) -"comte de Saint Germain".

The riddles of the very peculiar (and much debated then and perhaps today) story of Gossec's "cooperation with "Gluck".....

see http://philidor.cmbv.fr/jlbweb/jlbWeb?html=cmbv/BurAff&path=/biblio/bur/02/92/292.pdf&ext=pdf

...and of course with Mozart (and the provenance of his -very curious for his age-five violin symphonies), have just been solved.

Needless to say "Gossec's" data perfectly fit my mastertimeline.

You were saying?

Enjoy!

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

Musicology

01-21-2010, 03:26 PM

Yanni,

Anything which makes your universe less complicated is great with me !

The true origins of 'Mozart's' violin concertos are definitely a major puzzle. But I know of various cases where music written at a much later date by others has been falsely attributed to ''young Mozart in Salzburg''. One embarrasing example is 4 movements from the wind Serenade KV361 these existing in a version for quintet which has always been assigned to Mozart's childhood by the Mozart industry and still being sold as 'a string quintet by the boy Mozart'. (Known as String Quintet KV46). This manuscript in 4 movements is so filled with errors and so amateur in its content (even with an added early date of January 25, 1768) in Mozart's name that it was assigned to 'Mozart's childhood' and published as his.

In fact the music of KV 46 dates from the 1780's and is actually 4 movements of KV 361 (itself not by Mozart). This was so embarrasing and so ridiculous that KV46 was dropped from the list of 'his' works only in the 20th century. The quintet version of 4 movements from KV361 known as KV46 was made in Vienna by the real Mozart of the 1780's. So poor was it in its musical and writing content (being an attempted Vienna arrangement made by the real Mozart for quintet of a work by others) that it had to be reinvented as 'a childhood work' (complete with a falsely added false 1768 date). In fact, on that date Mozart was not in Salzburg.

On 'Planet Mozart' everything is possible !

J.S. Bach
Chorale from Cantata 22
Piano
Angela Hewitt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etB-P6a6wBs

J.S. Bach
Various Little Keyboard Works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HLCRW8Mlok&feature=related

...and, btw, you'll nodoubt be pleased to learn,Robert, that I have today removed François-Joseph Gossé (he later changed it to "Gossec" to distinguish from "Causse"-"Cochin") from my list of tentative aliases to now place him firmly and surely among the definite aliases of Cocchi (=Cochin-Caussin in France) -"comte de Saint Germain".

The riddles of the very peculiar (and much debated then and perhaps today) story of Gossec's "cooperation with "Gluck".....

see http://philidor.cmbv.fr/jlbweb/jlbWeb?html=cmbv/BurAff&path=/biblio/bur/02/92/292.pdf&ext=pdf

...and of course with Mozart (and the provenance of his -very curious for his age-five violin symphonies), have just been solved.

Needless to say "Gossec's" data perfectly fit my mastertimeline.

You were saying?

Enjoy!

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

yanni

01-22-2010, 02:06 AM

Anything which makes your universe less complicated is great with me !

Simplicity is great for simpletons who try to understand and survive in a complicated real world. As simpletons make up over 90% of all consummers, including book buyers, profit-seeking-authors tend to simplify things for them,often presenting the wrong facts, leading them to wrong conclusions, despair and financial loss ultimately!

Many such authors are original simpletons themselves, for no honest intelligent person would purposely misinform and harm another for profit.

You don't belong to this category Robert and enough said on this last attempt of yours to, yet another, tactical distraction (allowing you-so you think-not to address most of my posts):

Do tell me, if you please, how many times are Baron "Bagge"-also spelled "Bache" or "Bach"-and "Gossec" mentioned in idol Mozart's correspondence (in a list preferably that includes place, date, subject)?

...and....

Did Mozart ever meet "Bagge" or was he instead bagged by-and forced to leave Paris in 1778 because of-him?

.....so that, at long last, you become more specific and we may finally compare notes on -your subject afterall-Mozart's manufacture!

By all means surpise me, dispute and challenge my findings for a change, otherwise even the most simple of your simpleton tentative buyers will sense the little something in your wind!

Cheers!

BTW: Do not ommit to read through http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hes_0752-5702_2003_num_22_2_2316?_Prescripts_Search_tabs1=s tandard&i (Le personnel musical de l'Opéra de Paris sous le règne de Louis XVI) where you'll find two references to mason-musician "Baron Bagge". Page 205 pretty much covers my view of things, in general, and "our subject" in particular, ie "G's" (=Bagge's) relations to Ben Franklin and -the "jesuit" creation of(LOL)-the USofA!

Musicology

01-22-2010, 01:03 PM

Hi there Yanni,

Simplicity is closer to truth than error. After all, lies are complex things. Truth is not. The tangled webs of deceivers are everywhere. And, in fact, nature's solutions are almost always elegantly simple. I certainly don't believe 'simpletons make up over 90% of consumers'. I believe most people possess common sense. The ability to know things instinctively. But this faculty of ours is dumbed down by those who allow no criticism of tradition and dogma. And intitution is rarely encouraged these days. Instinct is a good thing. It should be encouraged. It should even be developed.

You ask about Mozart references to Baron Bagge. In fact, Bagge was widely known as 'Bach' (though he never called himself Bach) and that's how he is refered to in the Mozart correspondence. I will check myself on the references to him. But, as you say yourself, the Freemasons protected their own secrets. The reference already posted here comes from a modern Freemasonic publication. Openly admitting close association of Mozart's circle with the musical scene in Paris. And Bagge had a great role, for sure.

The reason for Mozart's hasty departure from Paris in 1778 included the fact that his entire visit there had been musically disastrous. It was little short of a fiasco, in fact. He was sent away from Paris by Grimm because it was becoming commonly known in Paris that he, Mozart, was a musical charlatan. And that sort of reputation woul have been disastrous for the manufacturers of Mozart. Which, by this time, was a big affair. So he was hurriedly sent away to Mannheim by the first available coach. Under the instructions of Grimm. This after a whole series of embarrasing events which had exposed him as a fraud and which threatened to permanently expose the very real musical limitations of Mozart. The same Baron Grimm, however, arranged for him (Mozart) to get involved in the later opera Idomeneo for Munich (another fiasco). In Mannheim, on Mozart's return from this tour o Paris the local news was Mozart had 'died'. (Meaning, in fact, his career was again a public relations disaster which needed to be reinvented - the same as Vienna 1768).

As for your view that the USA was 'invented by the Jesuit Order', no, I've never said this. In fact, the USA came in to existence, Constitutionally, against protests from Rome and the papacy, who hated the US Constitution from the start. Right ? Who actively encouraged and even supported the Confederate states to rebel against the government in Washington. Causing civil war. The sense in which the USA was 'invented by the Jesuit Order' was, of course, not direct, but always indirect. This was achieved by undermining the US Constitution. How ? By means of the 'English Common Law', a law system which was imposed at state level right across the USA. By commercial lawyers. Increasingly conflicting with the Constitution itself. And, as already said, the British Empire was really a transplanted Venetian oligarchy. The same Venetians who had supported Loyola and the Jesuits from the start. Who also made Britain a mercantile empire. So the corruption was spread to the USA via the lawyers of the British Empire by means of the legal system at state level. There's nothing wrong with the Constitution itself.

The great USA had/has a brilliant constitution. Perhaps the best ever made. But it tended to be undermined by this state imposed system of Admiralty Law, by 'English Common Law', in fact, that began to control state governments in the USA after independence from Britain and which is really a hybrid form of real Common Law which gradually undermined the USA. Real Common Law had operated in England before 1066. Before the Norman (papally approved) invasion of England occurred in that year. After which time England itself was undermined by the new 'English Common Law'. So, as said before, this so-called 'English Common Law' is diametrically opposed to the Common Law. It is the legal system of the feudal oligarchy and the other is the great legal system which was derived from the Golden Rule. These two things are really as different as chalk and cheese. That's how the USA was undermined. By the influence of lawyers using imperial law from Britain that came there from the British Empire. A hybrid legal system which travelled with the British Empire, in fact.

The corruption of Common Law was an ongoing product of the counter-reformation and it has certainly destroyed the sovereignty of entire nations. Planted in to the USA by its enemies. So that today the enemies of the USA are corporate lawyers, corporate law, Admiralty Law operating in the name of the 'law' and a failure to know the difference between Common Law and so-called 'English Common Law'.

Do yourself a great favour. Listen to the following for a few minutes. Now you see the difference between Common Law and 'English Common Law' (so-called). The difference, in fact, between a free people and a feudal oligarchy. This man knows what he is talking about. THAT is how the Jesuit influence grew. Through the Imperial Empire of England, which was, itself, a nation undermined by the counter-reformation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grjmnkj7LT4

Anything which makes your universe less complicated is great with me !

Simplicity is great for simpletons who try to understand and survive in a complicated real world. As simpletons make up over 90% of all consummers, including book buyers, profit-seeking-authors tend to simplify things for them,often presenting the wrong facts, leading them to wrong conclusions, despair and financial loss ultimately!

Many such authors are original simpletons themselves, for no honest intelligent person would purposely misinform and harm another for profit.

You don't belong to this category Robert and enough said on this last attempt of yours to, yet another, tactical distraction :

Do tell me, if you please, how many times are Baron "Bagge"-also spelled "Bache" or "Bach"-and "Gossec" mentioned in idol Mozart's correspondence (in a list preferably that includes place, date, subject) so that -and for the first time-you become more specific and we may finally compare notes on -your subject afterall-Mozart's manufacture!

Did Mozart ever meet "Bagge" or was he instead bagged by-and forced to leave Paris in 1778 because of-him?

By all means surpise me, dispute and challenge my findings for a change, otherwise even the most simple of your simpleton tentative buyers will sense the little something in your wind!

Cheers!

BTW: Do not ommit to read through http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hes_0752-5702_2003_num_22_2_2316?_Prescripts_Search_tabs1=s tandard&i (Le personnel musical de l'Opéra de Paris sous le règne de Louis XVI) where you'll find two references to mason-musician "Baron Bagge". Page 205 pretty much covers my view of things, in general, and "our subject" in particular, ie "G's" (=Bagge's) relations to Ben Franklin and -the "jesuit" creation of(LOL)-the USofA!

ennison

01-22-2010, 01:15 PM

"I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view. "

Good grief!

yanni

01-22-2010, 03:15 PM

I kindly asked you in my previous to be more specific and provide evidence ("Bache" reference in Mozart's correspondence in the form of a list etc) supporting your above "theories".

I also asked you if Mozart junior met Bache-Bagge in Paris, 1778, clearly implying that "Grimm" bagged him off to Manheim in a hurry so that junior would not notice that "Grimm" and "Bagge" (and Myslivecek) were one and the same with his 1763-4 memory of "Gluck" -Cocchi.

The fact is Mozart, following his father's advise to contact Bagge and obtain his "blessing" and support, never met him in 1778 (his host Grimm telling him Bagge was absent in London) .

When Mozart became wiser, he met Bagge once only, in Vienna, 1784, to confirm the cover of "ridiculous amateur musician"-patron of the arts and melomaniac.

Mozart was very inexperienced in 1778 and "Bagge" very busy!

Your data please!

Musicology

01-22-2010, 06:43 PM

Hi there Ennison,

Yes, that's right.

You might be able to show us differently of course. Either way, welcome to the thread !

We all grew up believing different things. But, as we get older we are able, if we study, to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. The legend of Mozart is no exception.

I can also confirm Father Christmas does not deliver presents for Coca Cola and that children do not write operas.

"I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view. "

Good grief!

Musicology

01-22-2010, 06:59 PM

Yanni,

If you are unable to check Mozart's references to Bagge for yourself please ask someone to do so for you. I am not operating any research service other than the plain fact that Baron Bagge is mentioned in the Mozart family correspondence.

Here is one reference, in a Mozart letter of 9th July 1778 -

If I were to see Baron Bach, I must have very
good eyes, for he is not here but in London. Is it
possible that I did not tell you this ? You shall find
that, in future, I ■will answer all your letters minutely.
It is said that Baron Bach will soon return here ; I
should be glad of that for many reasons, especially be-
cause at his house there will be always opportunity to
try things over in good earnest.

If, for some reason, your Google search doesn't work let me know.

It is certainly not my job to show 'Grimm' and 'Bagge' (and Myslivececk) were one and the same person ! Because that idea is not mine. It's entirely yours. And never has been my idea.

As for Bagge being in London at the time of Mozart's visit to Paris in 1778 I have never argued differently.

I kindly asked you in my previous to be more specific and provide evidence ("Bache" reference in Mozart's correspondence in the form of a list etc) supporting your above "theories".

I also asked you if Mozart junior met Bache-Bagge in Paris, 1778, clearly implying that "Grimm" bagged him off to Manheim in a hurry so that junior would not notice that "Grimm" and "Bagge" (and Myslivecek) were one and the same.

The fact is Mozart, following his father's advise to contact Bagge and obtain his "blessing" and support, never met him in 1778 (his host Grimm telling him Bagge was absent in London) .

When Mozart became wiser, he met Bagge once only, in Vienna, 1784, to confirm the cover of "ridiculous amateur musician"-patron of the arts and melomaniac.

Mozart was very inexperienced in 1778 and "Bagge" very busy!

Your data please!

stlukesguild

01-22-2010, 08:42 PM

For some reason each time I see this thread this image of Gene Wilder screaming in Young Frankenstein just seems to come to mind:

It's alive!!!

It's alive....!!!

It's ALIVE...!!!!!!!

yanni

01-23-2010, 12:54 AM

If you are unable to check Mozart's references to Bagge for yourself please ask someone to do so for you. I am not operating any research service other than the plain fact that Baron Bagge is mentioned in the Mozart family correspondence. Here is one reference, in a Mozart letter of 9th July 1778 -

I-and all concerned-see you doing your best, labouring to avoid the issue of Mozart's manufacturer, Robert.

I am not asking you to do my research (evidently completed-see my already revised 1777-1779 timeline under Leroux's opera phantom thread at http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=829569#post829569 ) but insist on asking you to provide evidence to support your lame "theories" and you refuse.

Check Leopold's list of Paris tentative contacts at http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+Leopold/Reiseaufzeichnungen+1763-1771/4.+Kurze+Erl%C3%A4uterungen+des+Herausgebers/Zur+gro%C3%9Fen+Reise+1763-1766" : Leopold never in his life met or corresponded with "Bagge". Furthermore for your further information, "Gavinier" the exceptional french violin player in his list, was another alias of "G" (See "Melchior Grimm (revisited)" and "Story of My Life By George Sand, Thelma Jurgrau", reconfirming that "Dupin" was Cocchi/comte de Saint Germain through violinist "Gavinier" of 1794), now thrice confirmed.

Leopold knew Gluck, Cocchi and Grimm were the same person but was not allowed access to "Bache" and propably "Gavinier" and "Gossec" at the time(1764).

Relevant site too: http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=385

Finally: Years ago, Dr. Pei-Gwen South, in "Exploding The Myth Of Mozart" stated, loud and clear, that "Mozart was manufactured" (avoiding the manufacturer as well), so what's your point, where is your own contribution in this thread (other than falsely naming the jesuits as "manufacturers" of not just Mozart but all 18th century reforms that resulted in USA independence)??

Cheers!

yanni

01-23-2010, 01:06 AM

Instead of using sound "effects", be more specific if you please, StLuke:

I assume your interests include not just Mozart but the History of the USA as well, so here is a little puzzle for you to solve:

According to http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/published/uva-sc/viu01144.xml there is....

a letter from Baron de Bache [William Lee] to Arthur Lee, October 8, 1780, reporting on Henry Lauren's* capture by the British and on British projections for reinforcements for General Clinton's army,

In view of previous posts in this thread (and as my mastertimeline confirms) this "William Lee"-"Baron de Bache" must be the same man as the previous fiddle-expert german "Bro" of same year in Newport, ie my hero.

Wikipedia's article on him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(diplomat) however is rather "short" on relative info, failing even to address the issue of the Lee bros correspondence at....

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924092886161/cu31924092886161_djvu.txt

..... confirming, imo, that “Baron de Bache” is using yet another alias.

Cheers!

*http://www.famousamericans.net/henrylaurens/

For some reason each time I see this thread this image of Gene Wilder screaming in Young Frankenstein just seems to come to mind:

It's alive!!!

It's alive....!!!

It's ALIVE...!!!!!!!

Musicology

01-23-2010, 07:55 AM

Yanni,

I think everyone can see my subject is Mozart. But yours appears to be a convoluted story which does not have Mozart as its focus. It consists of multiple aliases on characters which have some relationship to Mozart. But this habit of yours to drift in to the more convoluted parts of your research on this thread has the tendency to confuse all of us.

May I repeat (although I've said it many times before) that MANY composers wrote the music today attributed to Mozart. You do understand this, don't you Yanni ? They did so at every stage of Mozart's musical life. I've said repeatedly there was a network of patrons, composers and propagandists across the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. I am keen you should understand this basic point. But let me repeat it so you will no longer be in any doubt. Many (which is far more than one person ) supplied the music today known as 'Mozart'. And many (which is far more than one person) promoted and published 'Mozart's' music during and after his lifetime. Isn't this rather simple to understand ?

You say I've not explained these things in detail. Yanni, we are dealing with close to 700 musical works. Each of which has its own story. Each of which requires time and is not easy on threads. But I've given pages of replies on particular points. I have refused nothing. When you ask a specific question I have replied with specific evidence. If you ask general questions you will get general replies. This seems fair to me.

You can chase the identity of Baron Bach across Europe and in to the USA. Or can 'prove' Gossec has twenty aliases. Or that Grimm was Rousseau, etc etc. If you could provide a chart of aliases this would help us navigate your ideas more easily.

The manufacture of Mozart is a story almost as complicated as your alias theory. But the difference is mine has a simple solution to the complexity while yours tends to mutate with alarming speed.

Here, as an 'olive branch' is some nice music. Hope you like it -

Cantata 42
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANYtp3JX3w&feature=related

(We shall, at least, be humbled !).

Regards

If you are unable to check Mozart's references to Bagge for yourself please ask someone to do so for you. I am not operating any research service other than the plain fact that Baron Bagge is mentioned in the Mozart family correspondence. Here is one reference, in a Mozart letter of 9th July 1778 -

I-and all concerned-see you doing your best, labouring to avoid the issue of Mozart's manufacturer, Robert.

I am not asking you to do my research (evidently completed-see my already revised 1777-1779 timeline under Leroux's opera phantom thread at http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=829569#post829569 ) but insist on asking you to provide evidence to support your lame "theories" and you refuse.

Check Leopold's list of Paris tentative contacts at http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+Leopold/Reiseaufzeichnungen+1763-1771/4.+Kurze+Erl%C3%A4uterungen+des+Herausgebers/Zur+gro%C3%9Fen+Reise+1763-1766" : Leopold never in his life met or corresponded with "Bagge". Furthermore for your further information, "Gavinier" the exceptional french violin player in his list, was another alias of "G" (See "Melchior Grimm (revisited)" and "Story of My Life By George Sand, Thelma Jurgrau", reconfirming that "Dupin" was Cocchi/comte de Saint Germain through violinist "Gavinier" of 1794), now thrice confirmed.

Leopold knew Gluck, Cocchi and Grimm were the same person but was not allowed access to "Bache" and propably "Gavinier" and "Gossec" at the time(1764).

Relevant site too: http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=385

Finally: Years ago, Dr. Pei-Gwen South, in "Exploding The Myth Of Mozart" stated, loud and clear, that "Mozart was manufactured" (avoiding the manufacturer as well), so what's your point, where is your own contribution in this thread (other than falsely naming the jesuits as "manufacturers" of not just Mozart but all 18th century reforms that resulted in USA independence)??

Cheers!

yanni

01-23-2010, 09:23 AM

Everyone can see you lost your interest on "your subject Mozart", Robert, once the going got tough.

The "many musicians" who "manufactured Mozart" have been in the meantime considerably reduced while your failure to distinguish between Mozart/talented pianist/violinist and Mozart/opera-reform-composer , a huge difference, is revealing of your intentions, olive branch or not.

Mozart was promoted by Grimm since childhood and inherited Gluck's music archive after 1784.

The two were aliases of Gioachino Cocchi, aka Le comte de Saint Germain, whom you avoid from the early beginning of this thread, in line with the rest of "them".

Let the myth continue and the music play your introductory (post #1 herein): "I am seeking to establish the Jesuits manufactured Mozart"!

LOL

My regards to Dr. Pei-Gwen South and your "scholarly" italian opera associates/manufacturers.

Cheers.

Musicology

01-23-2010, 12:43 PM

Yanni,

I have not lost interest on the subject of this thread. It remains Mozart. In fact, I'm keen we should discuss the subject of Mozart and not be diverted from it.

And, may I correct you ? I've never said Mozart was a 'talented pianist/violinist'. This is still another of your inventions. But you want to attribute it to me. Why ?

Yes, Mozart was promoted by Grimm virtually since the time of his childhood. That is true. And Grimm was not acting alone. He did so with the assistance of many patrons and propagandists across Europe. As for Giaccomo Cocchi (whom Mozart and his father met in London) I am well aware of him being an important link to the visiting Mozarts of the English aristocracy of that time and have posted here several times on that single subject. Leopold's travel diary names Cocchi as a person met there. Cocchi (as we know) was closely associated with the English fraternal elites of that time and was a person Leopold Mozart definitely associated within during the visit to London with his son and daughter. Proving beyond any doubt a fraternal network supporting Mozart's career. The members of this fraternity included various aristocrats in England of that time and also members of the British government of that time, and by the usual Catholic/Jacobin dignitaries. The same picture emerges over and over again throughout the Mozart story. Because England, by this time had become a major centre of Venetian influence for the 'Enlightenment' philosophy, greatly assisted by men such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both sponsored by the mercantile empire of London including the East India Company). These things are easy to understand and I've avoided none of them. In fact, I've repeatedly said the counter-reformation became after 1773 the 'Englightenment'. This was simply a new phase of the counter-reformation which took on a secularised face at the time the Jesuit Order were finally annulled in 1773 (and 11 years earlier when it was kicked out of France).

You believe this giant organisation (the Jesuits) who literally dominated education across western Europe (and who were wonderfully revived in 1814) went in to a refrigerator in 1773. And were only 'defrosted' in 1814. While I know the very opposite is true. The fact is that of Jesuit association with the Venetian ocultists from the beginning of their own history.

The 'Englightenment' philosophy came from Jesuit educated sources via Venetian influence into England. From the time of Henry 8th onwards. Centuries before Mozart was born. This is exactly why Freemasony emerged from England in 1717, having been transplanted here from Venice. It explains why organisations such as the Rosicrucians and the Illuminatists had close links to the elites of the Holy Roman Empire and why Freemasony spread in Germany and Austria from its 'source' in mercantile England. It explains Weishaupt coming from a Jesuit university. Since the British Empire had been created by the occultists of Venice. From which a second mercantile empire was built. In London. And with whose assistance the Bank of England was founded. So, through these fraternities England and its sovereignty was undermined. This was the cost of occultism on England. And it came from the counter-reformation and the movement later known as the 'Englightenment'. Who infiltrated England through funding the greedy merchants of protestant England. As for the Venetians they were, as said before, the earliest sponsors and protectors of the founders of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius Loyola. You might care to read the various letters of Ignatius Loyola to Cardinal Contarini of Venice thanking him for his great support. Since it was Contarini of Venice who had approved the creation of the Jesuit Order in the first place.

All 'irrelevant', right, Yanni ?

Anyway, here goes (olive branch number 2) -

Cantata 50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyiT45YwmwA&feature=related

Everyone can see you lost your interest on "your subject Mozart", Robert, once the going got tough.

The "many musicians" who "manufactured Mozart" have been in the meantime considerably reduced while your failure to distinguish between Mozart/talented pianist/violinist and Mozart/opera-reform-composer , a huge difference, is revealing of your intentions, olive branch or not.

Mozart was promoted by Grimm since childhood and inherited Gluck's music archive after 1784.

The two were aliases of Gioachino Cocchi, aka Le comte de Saint Germain, whom you avoid from the early beginning of this thread, in line with the rest of "them".

Let the myth continue and the music play your introductory (post #1 herein): "I am seeking to establish the Jesuits manufactured Mozart"!

LOL

My regards to Dr. Pei-Gwen South and your "scholarly" italian opera associates/manufacturers.

Cheers.

yanni

01-23-2010, 01:19 PM

Here is to you, Robert, and may your industry flourish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59ZlOyTmIU&feature=related

Musicology

01-23-2010, 02:03 PM

Thank You Yanni !

I like Greek music and Greek culture very much.

Regards

Here is to you, Robert, and may your industry flourish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59ZlOyTmIU&feature=related

Musicology

01-23-2010, 02:17 PM

Yanni,

Of some relevance to Bagge (known as Bach) - and also illustrating the hidden aspects of the 'great' composers of Vienna -

Bagge's name to French ears sounded like ‘Bach’ in translation. Carl Ernst Baron de Bagge was born at Fockenhof in Courland, 1722. His father, founder of the Courland branch of the family, had entered in 1698 the ducal household as a page, served as a lieutenant of dragoons, and eventually as Comptroller of the widowed Duchess Sophie of Courland who, by a third marriage, became Duchess of Saxe-Meinegen.

And, by one of those ''coincidences'' -

Carl Amenda (1771-1836). Born Courland in Latvia. Attended Municipal Latin School and the Gymasium in Mitau (Jelgava) around 20 miles SW of Riga. Instructed in music by his father he was later student of the ducal Kapellmeister Franz Adam Veichtner (himself a former student of Jesuit educated Franz Benda in Mitau). Benda was much admired by Mozart. In 1792, the year after Mozart's death, Amenda moved to Jena to study theology travelling with Gottfried Heinrich Mylich, a musician he had known since childhood. After Amenda completed his studies in the spring of 1795 the two set out through France and Switzerland earning by performing. Arriving in Laussane they stayed there for 2 years. Amenda’s travels then took him to Frankfurt, Constance, Ulm, Regensburg and finally to Vienna in 1798. He somehow became tutor to Princess Lobkowitz (Beethoven’s patron) and also to the surviving family of Mozart. He became a very close friend to Ludwig van Beethoven.

:)

//

Babbalanja

01-23-2010, 05:04 PM

The reason for Mozart's hasty departure from Paris in 1778 included the fact that his entire visit there had been musically disastrous. It was little short of a fiasco, in fact. He was sent away from Paris by Grimm because it was becoming commonly known in Paris that he, Mozart, was a musical charlatan. And that sort of reputation woul have been disastrous for the manufacturers of Mozart. Which, by this time, was a big affair. So he was hurriedly sent away to Mannheim by the first available coach. Under the instructions of Grimm. This after a whole series of embarrasing events which had exposed him as a fraud and which threatened to permanently expose the very real musical limitations of Mozart.
This is yet another set of claims that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this immense conspiracy.

Wasn't Mozart's career being stage-managed long before this point? I thought his handlers were supplying him with first-rate compositions by Vanhal and Myslivecek, et. al., so why would the musical establishment of the time scorn his work? Is the implication that the real Mozart was actually composing works for Parisian audiences, despite his utter lack of competence in composition? Why would the Jesuit-Freemasons behind the Mozart myth allow their wonder boy to fail so miserably, if their vested interest was to make the world think he was a genius?

And since his famous Paris symphony (#31) was one of the pieces he premiered during his supposedly disastrous stay in France, does this mean this work was actually composed by real Mozart? Or did his ghost-composers write it, and it was still regarded as proof that Mozart was a musical charlatan?

Are there any musicologists who have described Mozart's Paris stay like this, or is it all just in your imagination?

Regards,

Istvan

ennison

01-23-2010, 05:36 PM

I just imagined I heard a tune by some Jesuitically controlled musician so I imagine it wasn't a good toon.

Musicology

01-24-2010, 08:30 AM

Istvan,

The manufacture of Mozart was not an isolated case. It was considered to be culturally vital by the patrons and elites of the time that Vienna, capital of the Holy Roman Empire, would develop and celebrate its own indigenous musical 'geniuses'. Its own musical icons. Controlling the culture was as vital then as it is today. The emerging music industry needed to invent these characters. Vienna 'city of music'. As for the reality, it could be 'altered' to suit them. But the reality, of course, was Italy, Bohemia and other places literally dominated musical achievements. Even in Austria and Germany. The Kapellmeisters of Germany and Austria were, for decades, almost entirely Italian. Bohemian musicians and their achievements were applauded and soon forgottten. Opera was dominated by Italy. A musician who wished to get a good musical education was shipped off to Italy. Those are the plain facts. Italy literally dominated the musical scene. From Italy came opera, the symphony, the string quartet and many, many soloists and performers. It was embarrasing. And, as for careers such as those of J.S. Bach etc., these were inconvenient subjects and their achievements were suppressed, unperformed, ignored altogether. The Viennese of around 1790 were amazed to finally learn of them. The music of Bach was never once performed publicly in Vienna decades after his death. It took J.N. Forkel, father of musicology, to recognise and finally publicise these achievements of the late baroque. This is the same Forkel who mocked the Viennese for their musical ignorance. Suppressed too from posterity and appreciation were the achievements of the Bohemians. The manufactured careers of Josef Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had become culturally vital. Besides, Austria had suffered setback after setback, militarily, for decades. Some good news was vital. And it came in the form of the works of these managed 'composers'. So-called. Of which Mozart was the most outrageous example. Manufactured with the assistance of patrons, propagandists and a network of other composers spanning the entire European continent and beyond. A project of cultural deception.

Yes, Mozart's career was planned. Long, long before his birth in 1756. His career was of course that of the 'enlightenment' which was to dominate musicology throughout the 19th century. Aided by the fraternities and by vested interests of the time. Transcending national borders. The first globalist composer. And the academic study of music, of 'music history' now controlled by the successors of the same patrons. So that 'Mozart studies' would literally dominate our musical landscape. The truth hidden.

You refer to the 'Paris' Symphony (No. 31, KV297) which is said to be 'a symphony composed by Mozart in 1778'. But this too is false. It was published first in his name, in Paris, after he returned to Mannheim. For sure. In fact (and you can see the evidence in music archives such as that of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg and also the copy today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) that both copies of this work show this symphony is not by Mozart. It was actually supplied TO Mozart. As was the 'Haffner' (35) and others. The copy today at Modena exists in an earlier form. Scored differently than the version we are familiar with. Again, at Regensburg its slow movement is different. This work, stylistically, is not musically typical of what we call Mozart. (As has often been said). It was supplied TO Mozart in Mannheim before he left for Paris. The paper type shows this clearly. And when Mozart was asked to supply an alternative slow movement to this same work in Paris by the manager of the Concert Spirituel, Le Gros, before its premiere, he was found to be out of his depth. The same Paris where, years earlier, the first 7 'Mozart' piano concertos were actually pastiches of works by other Paris-based composers. That 1778 tour was a total disaster. Those who have studied the musical score of this 'Paris' symphony at Modena and Regensburg (e.g. Prof. Anna Trombetta, Luca Bianchini and others) have shown this work, this symphony, existed years before 1778. It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too. Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'. And, as for 'Mozart's' earlier symphonies none of them is actually by Mozart.

The following image comes from the score of that same 'Paris' symphony today held at Regensburg. It rarely gets any mention in 'Mozart studies'. You see the name of 'Mozart' has clearly been later added to this score, obscuring what was originally written there. At Modena, as said, this same work exists in a version scored for a different orchestra. It too is older than 1778. Multiply this by a thousand and you have some idea of how massive this musical deception was.

http://www.italianopera.org/luchesi/luchesijupiterE.html

Regards

///

QUOTE=Babbalanja;832327]This is yet another set of claims that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this immense conspiracy.

Wasn't Mozart's career being stage-managed long before this point? I thought his handlers were supplying him with first-rate compositions by Vanhal and Myslivecek, et. al., so why would the musical establishment of the time scorn his work? Is the implication that the real Mozart was actually composing works for Parisian audiences, despite his utter lack of competence in composition? Why would the Jesuit-Freemasons behind the Mozart myth allow their wonder boy to fail so miserably, if their vested interest was to make the world think he was a genius?

And since his famous Paris symphony (#31) was one of the pieces he premiered during his supposedly disastrous stay in France, does this mean this work was actually composed by real Mozart? Or did his ghost-composers write it, and it was still regarded as proof that Mozart was a musical charlatan?

Are there any musicologists who have described Mozart's Paris stay like this, or is it all just in your imagination?

Regards,

Istvan[/QUOTE]

Hi there Enninson,

Nobody is saying this music by 'Mozart' is anything other than excellent. It's excellent because it involved the talents of excellent musicians. Who collaborated in its creation. Jesuit educated and non-Jesuit educated. The 'machine' used it all. The result was the wonder-child, Mozart. Now dominating the musical and cultural landscape. As for the actual reality, this was easily edited out of the textbooks. Rewritten. The takeover, in fact, of what is taught on music history. And the suppression, wholesale, of what does not fit in to the industry picture.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 62
Opening

Amazing !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWwZNNh7T9g&feature=PlayList&p=CBF03CBA58981AA9&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23

I just imagined I heard a tune by some Jesuitically controlled musician so I imagine it wasn't a good toon.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 65
Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6P29wxMw1k&feature=related

Babbalanja

01-24-2010, 09:34 AM

It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too. Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's exactly what we'd expect from a powerful super-secret cabal involved in a complicated plot to have actual musical geniuses like Luchesi ghost-compose works to inflate the insidious Mozart Myth: they simply forgot to mention to Luchesi that he should put "Mozart" at the top of the page, so they had to erase Luchesi's name and put Mozart's there instead.

There's an immense fraud here, but it's not the career of Mozart.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

01-24-2010, 12:15 PM

Well, no.

If you wish to study this subject (and I recommend that you do) you will discover that Luchesi and many others were supplying music to various German courts. In this case Luchesi (being employed by the Bonn Hofkapelle) did not use his name in doing so. He started doing so shortly after his arrival at Bonn in 1771. You would discover too that he supplied music to places such as Esterhazy, Salzburg and other places - symphonies which, in later years, were attributed wholesale to Josef Haydn (as had Sammartini done for years years earlier). And, later still, these were even supplied to Mozart. You would discover too the job of Kapellmeister was promised to Mozart in 1782/3 at Bonn by Max Franz, but that Luchesi already occupied that post at the time when Max Franz finally became elector. You would also discover (as we see in the two volumes written on Composers of the time by Benjamin De La Bordes in Paris - published during 1783) that Luchesi is refered to in that same publication as being in great demand for his symphonies by the rulers of German courts at the time. So says De La Bordes himself. All of these works of his strangely missing today with virtually everything else by the same Luchesi. Some coincidence, yes ? Neither Mozart nor Haydn are refered to at all in that same 2 volume work by de la Bordes as being composers of symphonies. An unusual omission, yes ? You would discover that in his entire lifetime 'Mozart' had published in his name only 5 symphonies of the over 50 now attributed to him. And that none of these 5 are actually by Mozart. The 5 including this so-called 'Paris' Symphony. Which had as said already been supplied to courts such as Regensburg (amongst others) years before. Thus explaining later need to change its written attribution to 'Mozart' by the archivist there at Regensburg. You DO see the change in attribution there, don't you ? Does the picture indicate this, or not ? Luchesi was only one of these composers. By no means the only one. It involved dozens of composers. KV444 was a 'Mozart' symphony up until the early 20th century. Now forgotten. It's not by Mozart also. And so it continues.

But the same thing happened in the case of the 'Haffner' Symphony. (35). Which began its musical history not as a symphony but as a serenade that had been supplied by Luchesi to Salzburg. Which was later expanded at Salzburg in 'Mozart's' name for the Haffner festivities before being further changed to a symphony for its return to Vienna, where, a year later, it was released, newly arranged and published in the 'genius' Mozart's name. (In fact this work was not even ready for performance at Haffner's festivities despite the legend). As Mozart' himself says in his letters (when talking of the 'return' of the score of this same Haffner Symphony to him in Vienna) -

'I never recognised a note of it'.

So Mozart here seems to be suffering from musical amnesia !!! LOL

A score of the same 'Haffner' Symphony which exists (again) at Modena, in Italy though in a far earlier version (with different scoring) as we see from its form and from its watermarks. This too goes unmentioned decade after decade in Mozart publications. It's laughable. Why ! Letters to the editor of the Koechel catalogue on these works go unanswered. But what's new ?

Really ! You should examine the evidence for each and every work. It really will make you laugh.

If documentary evidence really matters to you I recommend you try reading it ! The alternative is the same old fairy story.

To simply say 'it's not Mozart's career which is a fraud' begs the question of how you know this and on what factual basis you say so or than the same old industry publications. You might examine this issue from both sides, fairly. But, if you do, I dare say you will arrive at the same verdict as any other honest person.

Regards

:rolleyes:

Yes, that's exactly what we'd expect from a powerful super-secret cabal involved in a complicated plot to have actual musical geniuses like Luchesi ghost-compose works to inflate the insidious Mozart Myth: they simply forgot to mention to Luchesi that he should put "Mozart" at the top of the page, so they had to erase Luchesi's name and put Mozart's there instead.

There's an immense fraud here, but it's not the career of Mozart.

Regards,

Istvan

yanni

01-24-2010, 01:46 PM

You have improved your story (your answer to Babba) Robert, I must admit, still amazed by your ommision of the old Jesuit culprits now changed to "The Holy Roman Empire"!

I still find it however much too "simple" for my liking and wish to improve it adding comments and questions in your text (All answered in fact by me in previous posts herein).
Here goes:

It was considered to be culturally vital by the patrons and elites of the time (what year exactly?) that Vienna, capital of the Holy Roman Empire, would develop and celebrate its own indigenous musical 'geniuses'. Its own musical icons. (Only Vienna? The same holds true for most other European courts but starting when exactly?) Controlling the culture was as vital then as it is today. The emerging music industry needed to invent these characters. (name them!) Vienna 'city of music'. (Again, only Vienna?) As for the reality, it could be 'altered' to suit them (Whose “Reality”? History has always been lying to glorify winners only). But the reality, of course, was Italy, Bohemia and other places literally dominated musical achievements. Even in Austria and Germany.The Kapellmeisters of Germany and Austria were, for decades, almost entirely Italian. Bohemian musicians and their achievements were applauded and soon forgottten.(You forgot to mention "german" Grimm’s Little prophet-violinist from Bohemia and how he relates to the whole scheme in view of his relations to Mozart-among many other "grim mysteries" . Explain!! ) Opera was dominated by Italy(But Northern Italy, ie Florence, was "Austria" as from early 18th. Did florentine Music not flourish under austrian rule and,if so, where did it ?). A musician who wished to get a good musical education was shipped off to Italy (Myslivecek, however, himself a bohemian yet trained in Naples, tried to ship Wolfgang to same Naples, NOT Praque, in 1777 but Leopold Mozart insisted junior better join "ridiculous" Bagge’s amateurs. Explain). Those are the plain facts (eehhhhmmmm). Italy literally dominated the musical scene (not anymore in 1778, explain why!). From Italy came opera(came where, when??), the symphony, the string quartet and many, many soloists and performers. It was embarrasing.(To whom? and: As from?) And, as for careers such as those of J.S. Bach etc., these were inconvenient subjects and their achievements were suppressed, unperformed, ignored altogether. The Viennese of around 1790(finally a date!congrats!!) were amazed to finally learn of them. The music of Bach was never once performed publicly in Vienna decades after his death. It took J.N. Forkel, father of musicology(You forget earlier French musicologists, such as Rousseau for instance, and Koch another “german”, as well as "Grimm", all of the reform party), to recognise and finally publicise these achievements of the late baroque. This is the same Forkel (How did he come about if german music was in the making still?) who mocked the Viennese for their musical ignorance. Suppressed too from posterity and appreciation were the achievements of the Bohemians.(Fortunately, a “Kotzena” is now reviving bohemian music achievements)The manufactured careers of Josef Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had become culturally vital(As from???) Besides, Austria had suffered setback after setback, militarily, for decades. Some good news was vital.(After, perhaps, 1783-4?) And it came in the form of the works of these managed 'composers'. So-called. Of which Mozart was the most outrageous example. Manufactured with the assistance of patrons, propagandists and a network of other composers spanning the entire European continent and beyond. A project of cultural deception. (Mozart was rejected- as simple piano player-from the cultural center of Europe at the time, in 1778, and was then only dreaming composing an opera. How do you explain this sudden surge in his “creativity” thereafter? How do you relate it to political agreements and, practically universal, peace treaties thereafter until the French revolution(1782-1791)? How was Vienna influenced musicaly by these events? Where is your detailed timeline for this period to explain the provenance and transfer of all this music material to Mozart’s hands???)

Yes, Mozart's career was planned. Long, long before his birth in 1756. (prove it!) His career was of course that of the 'enlightenment' which was to dominate musicology throughout the 19th century (exceptional jump from the 18th to the 19th : Mozart was a faithfull roman catholic until at least 1778 and, other than piano playing, lacked any education or manners and had nothing to do with enlightment other than his promotion by Grimm till then, which was however for somereason, terminated. A lot must be explained here. Try!!) . Aided by the fraternities and by vested interests of the time. Transcending national borders. The first globalist composer. (You contradict yourself since, as you say earlier on, he was meant to promote Austria’s national music) And the academic study of music, of 'music history' now controlled by the successors of the same patrons. (name the patrons, before and after and define date of transfer of authority.) So that 'Mozart studies' would literally dominate our musical landscape. The truth hidden. (again, define year: "Global Mozart" was “manufactured” as from 1814 onwards, ie when Britain, supporting Austria throughout 1791-1814, ruled).

You refer to the 'Paris' Symphony (No. 31, KV297) which is said to be 'a symphony composed by Mozart in 1778'. But this too is false. It was published first in his name, in Paris, after he returned to Mannheim.(How did it come to his hands?) For sure. In fact (and you can see the evidence in music archives such as that of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg and also the copy today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) that both copies of this work show this symphony is not by Mozart. It was actually supplied TO Mozart. As was the 'Haffner' (35) and others. The copy today at Modena exists in an earlier form. Scored differently than the version we are familiar with. Again, at Regensburg its slow movement is different. This work, stylistically, is not musically typical of what we call Mozart. (As has often been said). It was supplied TO Mozart in Mannheim before he left for Paris. (By whom, who did Mozart meet there who could have helped him???) The paper type shows this clearly. And when Mozart was asked to supply an alternative slow movement to this same work in Paris by the manager of the Concert Spirituel, Le Gros, before its premiere, he was found to be out of his depth.(Ah, say a word or two here on Baron de Bache, the ridiculous amateur musician who managed the “Concert Spirituel”, find his relations to LeGros,Piccinini, Gluck, Grimm and Rousseau at least!) The same Paris where, years earlier, the first 7 'Mozart' piano concertos were actually pastiches of works by other Paris-based composers (name them and corresponding works). That 1778 tour was a total disaster.(Why did Grimm fail to support Mozart at the time? Explain!!!) Those who have studied the musical score of this 'Paris' symphony at Modena and Regensburg (e.g. Prof. Anna Trombetta, Luca Bianchini and others-have they aired their Cocchis in the meantime?)) have shown this work, this symphony, existed years before 1778. It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too (Prove it was Luchesi himself who supplied Mozart with his music and explain why would Bonn Kappelmeister Luchesi give poor junior Mozart his music!!). Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'. And, as for 'Mozart's' earlier symphonies none of them is actually by Mozart.

The following image comes from the score of that same 'Paris' symphony today held at Regensburg. It rarely gets any mention in 'Mozart studies'. You see the name of 'Mozart' has clearly been later added to this score, obscuring what was originally written there. At Modena, as said, this same work exists in a version scored for a different orchestra. It too is older than 1778. Multiply this by a thousand and you have some idea of how massive this musical deception was.(IE Mozart was provided with a huge “master archive” including, as you correctly say previously, the works of many masters. Who was it’s previous owner and, again, when, how, why did it come to Mozart’s hands?

And, of course, Junior as "reform opera composer" -totally inadequate as such-is left out of your story alltogether, hah-hah!

Cheers!

Babbalanja

01-24-2010, 04:56 PM

As Mozart' himself says in his letters (when talking of the 'return' of the score of this same Haffner Symphony to him in Vienna) -

'I never recognised a note of it'.

So Mozart here seems to be suffering from musical amnesia !!! LOL
More irresponsible quote mining from the annals of legitimate Mozart scholarship.

So out of Mozart's entire correspondence (which discusses at length his composing and the performances of his works), the only thing you accept at face value is one sarcastic remark he tossed off about a work that he says he "didn't remember composing"? If he didn't actually compose the work, why would he even mention that he didn't remember composing it? Do you seriously take this as a confession that he was a musical no-talent whose work was all written by others and supplied to him by the evil Freemason-Jesuit conspiracy? If it were indeed a confession, why would the conspiracy-employed custodians of the Mozart Myth have allowed it to appear in the fake correspondence that they themselves fabricated to propagate his myth?

This just goes to show the amount of context you're willing to ignore in this huge game of pretend. This is a bizarre parody of how responsible historical research is conducted. This is so far from objective musicological research that it boggles the mind.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

01-24-2010, 05:38 PM

Babbalanja,

OK, let's do this in detail if you like. How about this -

You post here and show us why the 'Paris' Symphony (KV297) is by W.A. Mozart. And I will post here in detail to show why it is not. Sound fair ?

Then readers can judge the case fairly for themselves. Does this sound fair and reasonable to you ? Isn't that how adults discuss things fairly ? Having both sides of the issue on which to form their judgement. Yes, it is. But not in 'Mozart studies', of course. LOL !

Oh, and before we forget, you WILL tell us why you believe as you do, won't you ? Of course you won't. You won't because you've never once studied the subject. Have you ? You believe it because you've read it somewhere. And that's all you have to offer. You will defend tradition with 'faith' in what you have always believed. Right ? As for 'Mozart's entire correspondence' it doesn't all refer to the 'Paris' symphony does it ? But you are of course exaggerating again, aren't you ? Playing to the gallery as if you know your subject. I've quoted what is relevant and appropriate.

I could write pages on this one work. So could others. And they already have. But let's see what you can give us in support of this work, the 'Paris' Symphony being attributed to Mozart. I've already given you some facts, including (as you and everyone can see) a musical score which is clearly altered in its attribution to Mozart. Held today at the Library of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg, Germany. And I have told you also of another score of this symphony which is today in the Estense Library of Modena, Italy. I have told you that neither Haydn nor Mozart were noted as writers of symphonies in the Paris of 1783. None of these things you knew about before today. I can also provide contact details of those who have examined these scores in detail. And I can provide you with literally pages of evidence.

'Responsible research' is not what you are interested in. You are interested in tired dogmas. Which you yourself have never once examined. Have you ? As we will shortly see.

Thus the circular arguments go round and round. Stop and consider who is giving information and who is not. But do better than this - tell us by return why this work is by W.A. Mozart. And I will do as promised.

That would be a true/genuine discussion. And I'm ready for it.

And with this request you will disappear from this thread faster than a corporate spin doctor, right ?

Mozart, the man who writes entire masses from memory at a single hearing, has somehow forgotten every note of an entire symphony he himself supposedly composed only a few months before ! LOL. Welcome to the corporate world of Mozart. A world in which his fans know zero of Mozart's own musical contemporaries. And where every possible benefit of the doubt is given to the myth.

People like you really are born every day. Right ?

Let me end by reminding readers that you chose the 'Paris' Symphony and not me. If you want to present your case here please do so. I will respond in detail. But if you get cold feet just choose another 'Mozart' work. Any one. The result will be the same.

Now, how is THAT possible ? It's possible because I know in advance that your defence of Mozart will never appear here.

Show us differently.

Regards

More irresponsible quote mining from the annals of legitimate Mozart scholarship.

So out of Mozart's entire correspondence (which discusses at length his composing and the performances of his works), the only thing you accept at face value is one sarcastic remark he tossed off about a work that he says he "didn't remember composing"? If he didn't actually compose the work, why would he even mention that he didn't remember composing it? Do you seriously take this as a confession that he was a musical no-talent whose work was all written by others and supplied to him by the evil Freemason-Jesuit conspiracy? If it were indeed a confession, why would the conspiracy-employed custodians of the Mozart Myth have allowed it to appear in the fake correspondence that they themselves fabricated to propagate his myth?

This just goes to show the amount of context you're willing to ignore in this huge game of pretend. This is a bizarre parody of how responsible historical research is conducted. This is so far from objective musicological research that it boggles the mind.

Regards,

Istvan

Yanni,

The manufacture of the myth of 'Vienna, city of music' took time. It started with Hasse. It really started to gather pace with Josef Haydn. And ended with Beethoven. The control of publishing in Vienna and across the Holy Roman Empire had been around ever since the business of censorship started. With the Jesuit Order, in fact. Who controlled all publishing. As you well know. A job eventually taken over by the Illuminati. During the 1780's. A few years after the Jesuits went underground. So say the facts.

As for your other points, these would require long posts and today I am quite busy.

But thanks for your comments on my other post to Babba. Let's see what he can produce on the 'Paris' symphony. This will be fun !

(I would recommend him to avoid embarrasment by choosing another work, but, it's up to him, of course !).

In the flurry of different posts today we might have missed this - so apologies for the duplication. It's one of my personal all-time favourites. Utterly wonderful - music of a better world.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 65
Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6P29...eature=related

Babbalanja

01-24-2010, 07:26 PM

Mozart, the man who writes entire masses from memory at a single hearing, has somehow forgotten every note of an entire symphony he himself supposedly composed only a few months before ! LOL. Welcome to the corporate world of Mozart. A world in which his fans know zero of Mozart's own musical contemporaries. And where every possible benefit of the doubt is given to the myth.
I've already pointed out how nonsensical and incoherent your interpretation of this factoid is. And it demonstrates the futility and uselessness of your entire approach to research. You're the one making the claims, and all you have are factoids mined from legitimate Mozart scholarship (and taken out of their proper context) to back up your claims.

You pretend that the entirety of Mozart biography and musical research is "a fairy tale," which allows you to assume that nothing anyone quotes from the major Mozart biographies in support of his authorship of his attributed works is reliable. However, you are allowed to point to isolated footnotes and anecdotes out of these biographies and act like they support your ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Make up your mind. If the entirety of Mozart biography and scholarship is reliable, then we have a way to judge his life and work, including the Paris Symphony. If it's all lies, then you can't quote footnotes out of it to support any of your points.

Similarly, if Mozart's correspondence is reliable, then we should be able to use it to support the assertion that he composed the works currently attributed to him. If his correspondence is a fabrication of the sinister conspiracy, then you have no business pointing to one isolated sentence and using it to support your ridiculous assertions.

Regards,

Istvan

stlukesguild

01-24-2010, 11:48 PM

Forget Gene Wilder... it' actually far weirder than we initially thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

yanni

01-25-2010, 01:35 AM

It started with Hasse, you say, and you are wrong, as usual:

Gluck’s....debut as an opera composer in Vienna. The date – 14 May 1748. The day before had seen the celebration of the young Empress Maria Theresa’s birthday. A gala performance for which the ”imperial and royal court theatre next to the castle” had been extensively renovated. And no expense had been spared for the gala opera either in the production – stage sets, costumes, props – or in engaging participating artists; a company comprising ”the best voices which could be found” had been sought out, and from Italy, ”on account of her dramatic skills, the most renowned Tesi with a few other virtuosi” were engaged for the orchestra. Four of the six soloists who appeared had previously sung in Italy or London under Gluck’s direction, thus making the group a tried and tested ”Gluck ensemble”.

For the thirty-three year old Gluck, the commission from the imperial city represented an honour and a challenge in equal measure. The choice of libretto for the gala opera was made entirely as a mark of the Empress’s birthday. Metastasio’s dramma per musica La Semiramide riconosciuta had already been set to music as a gala opera expressly for the imperial coronation of Maria Theresa in 1743 in Prague, in reference to the ”Pragmatic Sanction” (the female succession in the Habsburg dynasty). Now, in spring 1748, Metastasio’s dramatic plot about Semiramis, ruling Babylon dressed as the male ”King Ninus”, had an even clearer, indeed highly topical link with the political situation. The peace negotiations taking place at the same time in Aachen were concerned with the recognition of Maria Theresa as Empress by the European powers, particularly by France and Prussia. Those familiar with this explosively problematic situation understood very well the double meaning of the chosen opera title: ”riconosciuta” can mean both ”recognized” and ”acknowledged”.

The history and plot of the opera, which were printed in the libretto, are constructed in a multifaceted and complex way. Separated siblings, old friends, rivals and intriguers meet each other again – at first unrecognized – after a long time, at the court of the Babylonian King Ninus (alias Semiramide), as the Princess Tamiri, who lives at court, is to choose a consort from the suitors hurrying by. The royal palace, the legendary hanging gardens of Semiramis and a picturesque port ambience form the backdrop. An assorted bunch of protagonists from Africa, Asia and the Orient ensure a colourful appearance with their entourage. The action includes duel, abduction and a poisoned chalice until the disentanglement of the plot.

By skilful use of solo instruments, incidental music for ’istromenti barbari’, a dance scene and the chorus at the end of the opera, Gluck was able to create a score of rich tonal variety. Interestingly, the main role of Semiramis is an alto part with a relatively low tessitura. The role of Scitalce (soprano) most closely corresponds to the type of the virtuoso castrato part, whilst that of Ircano portrays an energetic character. The tenor role of Mirteo has mainly moderate tempi and is similarly lyrical to that of the much-courted Tamiri. Pietro Metastasio’s remark – ”una musica arcivandalica insopportabile” – may have referred to some instances where the melodic writing deviated from Italian taste and to Gluck’s boldness in his treatment of the orchestra; Gluck limited himself neither to agile coloratura numbers or to pleasant orchestral writing. He omitted the orchestral introduction to some arias and sometimes refrained from using the da capo form. Far ahead of his time, he had the combined effect of all the theatrical arts in view, and left behind him the narrow constraints of Italian virtuoso singing opera. After the success of the opera, even the critical Metastasio must have admitted that ”Semiramide reaches for the stars”.
Gerhard Croll / Thomas Hauschka
(translation: Elizabeth Robinson)

"Gluck rejoined his travelling opera group" after that, as his story currently reads, to return to Vienna lateron, but nevertheless Hasse only settled there in 1768, ie after "Gluck-Durazzo's etc" departure for Paris!

In the meantime (1748-1768) Metastasio's and Allgarotti's(both also Hasse's librettists as well) views on "Gluck's" reform music had dramaticaly improved.

Re "Semiramide", explain that, too:

Die schöne und intelligente Tänzerin hatte nicht wenige Verehrer, was den König so erzürnte, dass er der Barberina 1748 als „perfide und verführerische Kreatur“ seine Gunst entzog. Sie floh nach England, kam aber bald zurück und heiratete 1749 Carl Ludwig von Cocceji.„

7 May 1748 King=s La Semiramide Reconosciuta.Adaptor unknown; Johann Hasse (composer).Opera.Printed for G. Woodfall (1748). [LS IV.i.54. Based upon a libretto of identical title by Pietro Metastasio. Altered by Giovanni Gualberto Bottarelli (librettist) and Gioacchino Cocchi (composer) as of 9 February 1771. Favourite songs printed for J. Walsh (1748).]

14th May 1748,. Gluck: La Semiramide riconosciuta (14.5.1748 Wien B)

H.Walpole’s letter 34 to The Earl Of Strafford from Paris, August 25, 1771 re (Hobart) meeting Cocchi the composer in Paris.

Do not quote from Burney's Cocchi biography -whence his portrait alongside Hasse, engraved 1801-1804 in Cocchi's absence : Burney, a trusted friend of "Rousseau", was covering up "things" for him.
( A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Volume 3, Cabanel to Cory).

Not to trust also "the Harmonicon" of 1823! Both fine examples of british "manufacturing" (while many more similar myth-establishing-creations were also published across the pond, mainly in Paris as well).

And let go of your "jesuit control of all publishing etc": You are wrong....again!

Musicology

01-25-2010, 07:16 AM

Yanni,

Thank you for your opinion. The date when culture became the victim of corruption is impossible to say. We like to think the history of music is free from corruption. That only politicians, bankers, lawyers and propagandists are guilty of it. In fact it's as ancient as civilization itself.

When I said it 'began with Hasse' I was of course refering the beginnings of a concerted attempt to make German music (and that of German speaking lands) a cause for great celebration. Which, up until that time, had not happened. And since J.S. Bach was easily suppressed, well, what more shall I say ? Just a coincidence, of course !

So, if you think I'm wrong, that's fine.

As for corruption, why not study the mountain of false attributions to the Italian composer Pergolesi which is almost as embarrassing as that of Mozart ? But what do I know about that subject ?

And, as for the Jesuit Order. (Who educated Mozart's father, who engineered the early career of W.A. Mozart from the time of his baptism and even before his birth, who continued to control it even up until 1778 through Abbe Bullinger and others - with whom Mozart was in correspondence during his time in Paris etc.), well, you are again ignoring a mass of documented evidence). The subject clearly does not please you. And you do not like to be reminded of Jesuit dominance of publishing, music, and censorship for centuries, their massive role in the cultural counter-reformation, their real control across most of Europe, their role in the fraternities, and their revival in 1814 after their 'underground' period (1773-1814). In short, the facts of history are not convenient to you. So I will not provoke you by reminding you of them.

Regards

yanni

01-25-2010, 08:02 AM

What "german music" when you yourself admitted previously "it all came from Italy"- even without distinguishing between opera and chamber music-and "Gluck" was a "german from Bohemia" who "only composed on italian libretti", like Myslivecek was... OR NOT?

And what "greater celebration" than Maria Theresa's coronation in Prague, 1743 and "recognition" as Empress by the "other european powers" in 1748 at her birthday, as above. "Who modified Hassse's original muysic for this performance?", I wonder.

But you refuse touching "Semiramide riconosciuta" and my re timetable alltogether, and select instead to keep on serving your "jesuit soup"!

My last posts remain unanswered for all to see!

And you better avoid criticism of "fraternities": Without them- and their struggle against Rome and everything "dogmatic" but science and philosophy-we wouldn't be freely exchanging opinions today across the globe.

Cheers!

Musicology

01-25-2010, 08:03 AM

A Gentle Introduction to the Symphonies of W.A. Mozart

(For Babbalanja and Other Faithful Followers of The Salzburg Genius)

Babbalanja will, we hope, share with us why W.A. Mozart is the true composer of the Symphony KV297 ‘Pariser’, which (he says) was composed by Mozart for its premiere in Paris in 1778. And, since that work was definitely performed in Mozart's name Babbalanja seems to be supported by two centuries of textbooks all saying the same thing about its true composer.

In the meantime, while we wait for this part of our Mozartean musical education here is a gentle introduction to the subject of ‘his’ symphonies as a whole. So you can examine this subject fairly, in context. (Which is not common within the ‘Mozart industry’, I promise you). And so, from this musical 'heretic', here goes -

The next time the subject of Mozart’s symphonies is being discussed there are a number of things you should be aware of. Basic things. I’d like to list a few of them here. It will make you deeply unpopular in polite company but others will break out into applause. In fact, Babbalanja might help us in our enquiries. Since he believes the standard Mozart story and has (as we know) 200 years of ‘expert’ opinion on his side. So, here goes -

1. Of the approximately 800 musical works in all forms (sonatas, masses, concertos, etc) which have been attributed to W.A. Mozart over the past 200 years or so how many of these were actually published in his name during his lifetime ? Care to guess ?

2. The musical works listed in the works catalogue of W.A. Mozart (today kept at the British Library in London) are said to have been composed by him during the last 7 years of his life. How many of these Vienna works were published in the Austrian capital during his lifetime ?

3. Can you name a single opera by ‘Mozart’ which was published anywhere during his lifetime ?

4. Is it your opinion Mozart was a famous composer in Vienna during the last decade of his life (1781-1791) ?

5. Of the 27 Piano Concertos attributed to W.A. Mozart how many were published in his name during his own lifetime ?

6. Is it your opinion W.A. Mozart was a celebrated piano virtuoso in Vienna during his last decade of life (1781-1791) ?

7. I have to hand some documentary evidence from a colleague of W.A. Mozart (a person who was with him for years) who says Mozart was totally unknown to music lovers in Vienna during his last years in Vienna ! Would you like to see this documentary evidence ?

8. And now, focusing on ‘Mozart’s’ Symphonies (which vary in number between 41 and 53 depending on which 'expert' source you read) can you say which of ‘his’ symphonies before the age of 22 (I.e. before the year of 1778) are today available for us to see in his own handwriting ? That is, ‘autograph scores’. The first 25 or so, that is.

9. Since we are now focusing on ‘Mozart’s symphonies’ I want to quote you a letter written to Mozart by his father (Leopold) during this year of 1778. At the very time the ‘Paris’ Symphony (KV297) was allegedly being written by W.A. Mozart. Highly relevant to our subject, you will agree. He writes -

‘Whatever does you no credit is best to remain unknown. It is for THIS reason I do not give away any of your symphonies. Because I see in advance that in the future, when criticism grows, you will be pleased these symphonies are not in the hands of anybody’

(Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart, Letter of 24th September 1778 -Salzburg to Paris ).

So here is Mozart’s father saying Mozart’s symphonies up until this date were not worth performing. None had been released. None had been published at this time also. And he ends as follows -

‘One becomes more and more careful’

LOL !!!!:goof:

But this documentary evidence will not stop you and your colleagues automatically attributing this ‘Paris’ Symphony to W.A. Mozart !! Yes ? I think common sense suggests something else. But what do I know ?

10. Do you believe the ‘Haffner’ Symphony (No. 35) is by W.A. Mozart ? Why ?

11. Symphony No. 37 (KV444) is definitely NOT by W.A. Mozart. But the opposite was being said by the 'experts' up until 1908. When these same ‘experts’ actually examined the manuscript for the first time. Is that embarrassing, or not ?

And finally -

12. In the year 1784 a musical inventory was made at one of the largest teaching institutions in Germany of the contents of its musical library. (Bonn at this time was rated as the 3rd greatest centre of musical study in Germany). The Bonn Hofkapelle. Among the thousands of musical works that were listed in that inventory (which document still survives) not a single work by Mozart is listed ! Not one sonata. Not one mass. Not one concerto. No opera. No symphony.

13. In a 2 Volume work on Music of Europe and Composers of the time, 1783, (which was published by Benjamin de la Bordes in Paris) no reference is found there to Mozart being a composer of symphonies. But this too is just another coincidence, right ? Maybe we can find a reference to Mozart, writer of symphonies, under our bed, or in some published source. If not, not problem. Believe it anyway !

And finally -

14. Is it possible you, dear lover of ‘Mozart’s Symphonies’, may be mistaken ?

We will shortly see, when we can hopefully discuss the ‘Paris’ Symphony (No. 31) with the input of Babbalanja.

In the meantime - (a musical break from a better world)

J.S.B.
Cantata 65 Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6P29wxMw1k

Thank You

Musicology

01-25-2010, 08:32 AM

Dear Istvan (aka Babbalanja),

Yes, you have 'pointed out' various things. All we are waiting for now is your evidence. As for 'factoids' the Mozart industry produces these by the kilo. 'Everything you've heard is true', remember ? And this is said in the trailer to the film 'Amadeus'. Must be true, right ? The factoids of Mozart research break new records and prove the power of eulogy, exaggeration and factoid expertise.

Contrary to your view, we are BOTH making claims about Mozart. And it's fair and reasonable that readers should be able to compare our two different points of view. Which, if you accept, will be a 'small step for mankind and a giant leap for all of Mozart research' (so-called). (I think it's called reality-check).

I am not pretending the entirety of Mozart biography and of musical research is a fairy tale. No. I am saying the entirety of Mozart biography and of musical research with respect to W.A. Mozart is really a fairy story. A very different thing. Indeed, a few days ago I was in a major library and I realised that thousands and thousands of composers are listed there (with their works) who are almost completely unknown. Buried under the avalanche of Mozartean 'expertise'. And you will forgive me thinking this is childish. That you are unable to understand the mythology although it stares you in the face.

I don't have a 'ludicrous conspiracy theory'. But what I have is the ability to present a critical case against the nonsense you believe. Which I am keen to compare openly here with your side of the story. So that readers can judge the case for themselves. This is fair. It's radical, right ? But it's standard practice within all academic study. Within science. And within the real world. Though it is unheard of within 'Mozart research'. Your ludicruous belief in the legendary Mozart has the same chance to win as myself. In fact, it should be simple for you to win the case. You have a ton of textbooks to refer to. But you seem to be struggling already on the 'Paris' Symphony.

Let me open my heart and suggest you choose another 'Mozart' work. I leave the choice to you. Place your proofs of 'his' authorship and then readers can judge both sides of this argument. Is that fair enough ?

Can I make this more simple ? :yawnb:

What further concessions do you, dear Mozartean, require ? Shall we forever bow to your icon ?

I have no 'ridiculous assertions'. I have only the hope that you, realising you are swimming out of your depth, can finally put together a few evidences in support of your hero. Which, so far, seems beyond your ability to do.

The good news is your Mozartean colleagues are all just as shocked, horrified, and intimidated whenever they are asked to defend their mythology in a fair and open way. So you are in good company. You and your 'experts'.

I have posted (above) a gentle introduction to 'Mozart's' symphonies for your education and amusement. A small gesture of goodwill and a few of the fruits of much work.

Regards

Robert Newman

I've already pointed out how nonsensical and incoherent your interpretation of this factoid is. And it demonstrates the futility and uselessness of your entire approach to research. You're the one making the claims, and all you have are factoids mined from legitimate Mozart scholarship (and taken out of their proper context) to back up your claims.

You pretend that the entirety of Mozart biography and musical research is "a fairy tale," which allows you to assume that nothing anyone quotes from the major Mozart biographies in support of his authorship of his attributed works is reliable. However, you are allowed to point to isolated footnotes and anecdotes out of these biographies and act like they support your ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Make up your mind. If the entirety of Mozart biography and scholarship is reliable, then we have a way to judge his life and work, including the Paris Symphony. If it's all lies, then you can't quote footnotes out of it to support any of your points.

Similarly, if Mozart's correspondence is reliable, then we should be able to use it to support the assertion that he composed the works currently attributed to him. If his correspondence is a fabrication of the sinister conspiracy, then you have no business pointing to one isolated sentence and using it to support your ridiculous assertions.

Regards,

Istvan

Babbalanja

01-25-2010, 08:53 AM

(Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart, Letter of 24th September 1778).

So here is Mozart’s father saying Mozart’s symphonies up until this date were not worth performing. None had been released. None had been published at this time also. :lol:

Once again, you're mining the correspondence of Mozart and his family for material to add to your burgeoning list of sinister-sounding factoids. You're implying, I suppose, that these letters contain damning evidence that Mozart was a musical no-talent whose career was completely manufactured, But aren't all these letters part of the cover story fabricated on behalf of Mozart's Freemason-Jesuit overlords? So why would you consider any part of such propaganda even remotely reliable?

As for your list of questions, why are you asking anyone here? Why aren't you talking to credentialed musicologists and getting them to confront the evidence you say you have about this sinister conspiracy? If your case truly were as strong as you claim, why aren't you confronting the musicological establishment with it instead of discussing it with amateurs on message boards?

Could it be that this bucket of factoids isn't persuasive to anyone who understands the context of Mozart's life and work: the real political and artistic milieu of 18th-century Europe? Could it be that any actual expert in musicology understands details of the creation, performance, and attribution of Mozart's works, and the development of his catalog over the centuries? And such an expert may not be as receptive to some amateur's theory about secret societies engineering a monumental fraud and a two-hundred-year cover-up?

Waste your time as you will, Robert. I'm done.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

01-25-2010, 09:07 AM

And, once again, you are not mining anything. The airy fairy story of Mozart has evaporated once again.

In answer to your point on the contents of the Mozart correspondence, the fairest and most obvious thing to do when we are judging correspondence is to read it. To allow it to speak for itself. Which we have done here by presenting a letter from Mozart's most loyal supporter, Leopold Mozart. He hides away all of Mozart's symphonies since they do him no credit. And he says this at the very time of the 'Paris' Symphony (1778). Not even Babbalanja can escape that fact.

You ask why I am writing on a forum instead of confronting the musicological establishment. Well, that's easy. You are a consumer of their products and have even wanted to defend them. But now you've resigned, just as it promised to get interesting. You and your factoids, exposed to the light of day, do not like bright sunshine.

As for the true background to the giant, domineering, corporate, myth of Mozart, this has no interest for you. Which, again, is typical of 'Mozart studies'. Since the Mozartean knows less of music during Mozart's time than my next door neighour's cat. And it shows. His grinning figure still looms over your education like the icons of Easter Island. A proud member of the pantheon of musical gods who have shaped your education. And even worse. They have convinced you that regardless of evidence your faith is unshaken.

I nominate you, dear Istvan, for canonisation at the next ritual Salzburgfest as a good and loyal servant of the Mozart industry. Together with 10% discounts on Mozart CD's, DVD's and trips made with the Austrian Tourist Board.

Regards

:lol:

Once again, you're mining the correspondence of Mozart and his family for material to add to your burgeoning list of sinister-sounding factoids. You're implying, I suppose, that these letters contain damning evidence that Mozart was a musical no-talent whose career was completely manufactured, But aren't all these letters part of the cover story fabricated on behalf of Mozart's Freemason-Jesuit overlords? So why would you consider any part of such propaganda even remotely reliable?

As for your list of questions, why are you asking anyone here? Why aren't you talking to credentialed musicologists and getting them to confront the evidence you say you have about this sinister conspiracy? If your case truly were as strong as you claim, why aren't you confronting the musicological establishment with it instead of discussing it with amateurs on message boards?

Could it be that this bucket of factoids isn't persuasive to anyone who understands the context of Mozart's life and work: the real political and artistic milieu of 18th-century Europe? Could it be that any actual expert in musicology understands details of the creation, performance, and attribution of Mozart's works, and the development of his catalog over the centuries? And such an expert may not be as receptive to some amateur's theory about secret societies engineering a monumental fraud and a two-hundred-year cover-up?

Waste your time as you will, Robert. I'm done.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

01-25-2010, 09:24 AM

Yanni,

There is one fraternity that matters. The one whose members are united by things done in broad daylight. Not hidden. Not done in a corner. But open and in broad daylight. And since mystery is synonomous with paganism and is opposite to what is freely revealed we can say that what is honest, accountable and open to view is more worthy of our belief and loyalty than what is man-made, hidden, and suppressed.

Why the secrecy ? No answer. As usual.

I am convinced we need daylight. That it is the antidote to night. In these studies of musical history as in everything else.

As for the fraternities of the 18th century, nobody can doubt they, as systems, are corrupt. That we deal with them best by recognising the good individuals who have often associated with them but also the corruptive impact of man-made systems as a whole. But each person, ultimately, is answerable to what he knows. And not to what he does not.

Regards

What "german music" when you yourself admitted previously "it all came from Italy"- even without distinguishing between opera and chamber music-and "Gluck" was a "german from Bohemia" who "only composed on italian libretti", like Myslivecek was... OR NOT?

And what "greater celebration" than Maria Theresa's coronation in Prague, 1743 and "recognition" as Empress by the "other european powers" in 1748 at her birthday, as above. "Who modified Hassse's original muysic for this performance?", I wonder.

But you refuse touching "Semiramide riconosciuta" and my re timetable alltogether, and select instead to keep on serving your "jesuit soup"!

My last posts remain unanswered for all to see!

And you better avoid criticism of "fraternities": Without them- and their struggle against Rome and everything "dogmatic" but science and philosophy-we wouldn't be freely exchanging opinions today across the globe.

Cheers!

Cheers!

yanni

01-25-2010, 11:14 AM

I have lost count by now of "Robert's pending answers" in this thread. Time to make a list!

Musicology

01-25-2010, 11:47 AM

Yanni,

Since your questions are numerous (and since many need to be answered repeatedly with the same answer) I think the best we can say is that if the subject is Mozart you will get fair answers. Mozart lived within a context. That context (believe it or not) was the Holy Roman Empire. Which we should appreciate and understand. But it's this context which the average Mozartean supporter does not know, and does not care to know about. Nor does he know much about the rise of the British Empire, or the role in occultism of Venice and England. The role in Freemasonry of England and Venice. Or even the musical realities of Mozart's time. But, unless these things are understood/appreciated Mozart remains a subject which 'floats' through the air separated from reality and from the facts of his time. This sort of fairy story is useless and it is of no value to our understanding of musical history. Context is vital. So it's the Holy Roman Empire which is one vital aspect. The British Empire and Venice (a vital second part) is just as important.

Freemasonry has been exploited just like every other human organisation. This is obvious. It was exploited by the Illuminatists, for example. We should be aware of this. It was exploited by the Rosicrucians. And by other vested interests. To deny such facts is useless. And Freemasony came from Venice. Its ideas were transplanted to England. From where it was exported back in to western Europe and beyond. This basic stuff is essential as we get to the facts of Mozart and his legendary career.

If you make your list of questions that will be fine.

Regards

I have lost count by now of "Robert's pending answers" in this thread. Time to make a list!

yanni

01-25-2010, 12:16 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but the subject is titled "Mozart's manufacture", not just "Mozart".

And repetition of "empty" answers does not make them "fair".

"Freemasonry came from Venice" you say but present no evidence, therefore you are called to take the "tryall of ye airt of memorie and science yrof" (check it up!)

Regards to you too.

Musicology

01-25-2010, 12:48 PM

Dear Yanni,

I know you will not be happy with sub-standard information so here is an article on the subject -

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/venfreem.htm

Regards

Correct me if I am wrong but the subject is titled "Mozart's manufacture", not just "Mozart".

And repetition of "empty" answers does not make them "fair".

"Freemasonry came from Venice" you say but present no evidence, therefore you are called to take the "tryall of ye airt of memorie and science yrof" (check it up!)

Regards to you too.

yanni

01-25-2010, 02:08 PM

There is no "evidence" in the suggested site, just unfounded interpretations and conclusions, all intending to "blame it to the dearly departed" (ie Venice).

Wikipedia's version on Freemasonry speaks about their "scottish origins" and the late 16th quotation in my previous links them to the first "guilds" formation.

On the other hand, the pyramidic hierarchical structure of freemasonry, with "truths revealed" increasing according to the member's degree, the "absolute truth" at the pyramid tip, speaks by itself, reminding of Moses speaking to God at the mountain tip.

Debating the issue is a loss of time, that's why, among others already explained, I keep asking you to stop introducing such "diversionary elements" in the discussion: One might think you are doing it on purpose!

Musicology

01-25-2010, 06:49 PM

Yanni has briefly skimmed the journal article entitled, 'How the Venetians Took Over England and Created Freemasonry' by G. Rose of the Schiller Institute Conference (Printed in the American Almanac of 1993). But he says it contains 'no evidence' of any Venetian orgins of Freemasonry.

I am now convinced, Yanni, you cannot see the wood for the trees because you do not see any trees and do not want to see any. Why not read a few more articles on this same subject ? If you need some please let me know. I cannot let you go on like this. Do you really learn from single posts on such a subject ? I've given you one article from many. Hoping that it might stimulate you to read more. I might also mention one of the earliest Freemasonic librettists, Goldoni. A Venetian. But that's just another coincidence of course ! He was Venetian wasn't he ? And we must never link the librettos of Lorenzo da Ponte with librettists in Venice, of course. And various others. There are in fact no trees anywhere in the whole forest, right Yanni !

There are, in your universe, no links at all between Venice and the formation of the British Empire. And none between early Freemasonry and Venice. Shall I send you a few more articles of the same kind ? Or will you bother to look for them yourself ?

:lol:

There is no "evidence" in the suggested site, just unfounded interpretations and conclusions, all intending to "blame it to the dearly departed" (ie Venice). On the other hand, Wikipedia's version on Freemasonry speaks about their "scottish origins" and the late 16th quotation in my previous links them to the first "guilds" formation.

On the other hand, the pyramidic hierarchical structure of freemasonry, with "truths revealed" increasing according to the member's degree, the "absolute truth" at the pyramid tip, speaks by itself, reminding of Moses speaking to God at the mountain tip.

Debating the issue is a loss of time, that's why, among others already explained, I keep asking you to stop introducing such "diversionary elements" in the discussion: One might think you are doing it on purpose!

Here are some more articles for Yanni -

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30038765

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924026375570/cu31924026375570_djvu.txt

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/952_venice.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg17357.html

etc etc etc

yanni

01-26-2010, 02:32 AM

Why "Goldoni" when I have already mentioned his senior, "the first ever italian mason, Antonio Cocchi" and his relations to Britain, an early focus of my research?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoneria

http://biblio.unipi.it:8081/archiviofoto/Persone/Cocchi%20Antonio/links/Il%20primo%20massone%20italiano.htm

Ben Disraeli started the "Hang it on Venice" thing in the mid 19th and is, as such, irrelevant to the subject*.

Please stop therefore going around in circles and do try remaining within 18th music and "Mozart's manufacture", if you can afford it.

Cheers.

*Unless we start our story with Shakespeare's "Shylock" character, born at times when Britain's "public debt to GDP ratio" was less than zero (as compared to the 260% of the early 19th, the time when Niemcheck, Nissen etc began "Mozart's manufacture"....and then came Disraeli).

Musicology

01-26-2010, 04:21 PM

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ?

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did not spend time in their tour of Venice being shown around that city by the occultist priest Abbe Giammaria Ortes (1713-90) ? (Ortes being the first man to publish a book about eugenics. Human control of global populations. In late 18th century Venice. Of course. And Ortes' later followers and admirers including Malthus of the 19th century, friend of that well known occultist and madman Charles Darwin). The Merchant of Venice and creation of 'Shakespeare's' plays. This too is sheer Venetian coincidence. Of course. The fact that Venetian architecture was a main feature of London's housing. This too is sheer coincidence. There were, in fact, no Venetian links with the creation of the British Empire. Right, Yanni ?

Nobody can teach you anything, right ? If the facts of history are inconvenient they can always be ignored, yes ? So the Doge of Venice and the oligarchs of England are sheer coincidence. They, like the Jesuit Order, can be ignored in any work which deals with the culture of the 18th century or any other century.

Venice did NOT help to create the British Empire. It did not have a hand in the creation of the Bank of England. Venice and Venetian models did NOT have massive influence in England from the time of Henry 8th onwards. Venetian intelligence agents did NOT have massive influence in England from the time of Henry 8th onwards. The Royal Society in London was NOT packed with occultists from the time of its formation. And Venice did NOT help to create the merchant empires and banking systems of both Holland and England. Through the East India Company and the Dutch East India Company. It's all in our imaginations isn't it Yanni ? Although these things are well documented. England did NOT start trading in slaves, the same as her protoge, Venice. England did NOT develop Admiralty Law (the same as Venice) by the use of 'English Common Law' (in the place of the Common Law). Any relationship between Venice and creation of the later British Empire and the banking City of London is purely coincidental.

How many trees do you need to see before you recognise a forest ?

I mentioned Goldoni because he is directly associated with Mozart's career. But if he was not associated with Mozart you would complain about that too !

'Heads you win, tails I lose', right Yanni ?

Why "Goldoni" when I have already mentioned his senior, "the first ever italian mason, Antonio Cocchi" and his relations to Britain, an early focus of my research?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoneria

http://biblio.unipi.it:8081/archiviofoto/Persone/Cocchi%20Antonio/links/Il%20primo%20massone%20italiano.htm

Ben Disraeli started the "Hang it on Venice" thing in the mid 19th and is, as such, irrelevant to the subject*.

Please stop therefore going around in circles and do try remaining within 18th music and "Mozart's manufacture", if you can afford it.

Cheers.

*Unless we start our story with Shakespeare's "Shylock" character, born at times when Britain's "public debt to GDP ratio" was less than zero (as compared to the 260% of the early 19th, the time when Niemcheck, Nissen etc began "Mozart's manufacture"....and then came Disraeli).

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ? Cardinal Contarini of Venice was the first major patron of the Jesuit Order. There survive letters from Loyola thanking him for his patronage. Just a coincidence, of course. And Contarini's family supplied no less than 5 Doges of Venice. Just a coincidence, of course !

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did NOT spend time in their tour of this same Venice being shown around the city by occultist priest Abbe Giammaria Ortes ? (Ortes being the first man to publish a book about eugenics. The reduction of human populations. And Ortes' later followers included Malthus of the 19th century, close friend of occultist Charles Darwin).

Nobody can teach you anything, right Yanni ? If the facts of history are inconvenient they can always be ignored, yes ?

So, according to you, Venice did NOT help to create the British Empire. Venice and Venetian models did NOT have massive influence in England during the time of Henry 8th onwards. Venice did NOT help to create the merchant empires and banking systems of Holland and England. It's all in our imaginations isn't it Yanni ? Although these things are well documented. The merchants of England did NOT start trading in slaves, the same as their financial and philosophical mentor, occultist Venice ? Any relationship between Venice and creation of the British Empire and the banking City of London over centuries is purely coincidental, right, Yanni ?

How many trees do you need to see before you recognise a forest ?

I mentioned the librettist Goldoni of Venice because his work is directly associated with Mozart's career. Indeed, the opera commission for 1768 'La Finta Semplice' came from Goldoni. But if he was not associated with Mozart you would complain about that also.

'Heads you win, tails I lose', right Yanni ?

According to Alessandro Bonnelli - and it's mere coincidence again. Honest !

As early as 1271, the Venetian congregations agreed to devote part of their income to relieve the poor and the sick. Later on they provided pensions to widows and guardianship to orphans, founding special hospitals for sick companions. As well as trade or craft guilds, devotional and religious confraternities flourished, open to all. They were wholly independent and had full freedom to elect their own leaders and to draw up their own statutes as long as no state laws were broken and the honour of the Doge was upheld.

Some of these brotherhoods, such as that of the ‘San Giovanni Evangelista’ (S.John Evangelist), were in the habit of enrolling, as brothers, illustrious people and even foreigners, including some Englishmen such as one Baron Odoardo Vindefor (sic) who died aged 41 in 1574 and who was buried within the complex of ‘San Giovanni e Paolo [Paul]’.

By now, many and obvious points of contact can be perceived between these Venetian brotherhoods and the first speculative Freemasons’ lodges, although the peculiar characteristic of secrecy is missing, and we know nothing of rituals. Had the Venetian brotherhoods secrets to protect, they succeeded perfectly.

Source - ''Masonic Symbology and Activities in Venice'' - Alessandro Bonelli.

Fortunately, common sense and broad daylight are superior to 200 years of mystery and evasion. As honest people everywhere can see. Including yourself. I hope.

//

Why "Goldoni" when I have already mentioned his senior, "the first ever italian mason, Antonio Cocchi" and his relations to Britain, an early focus of my research?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoneria

http://biblio.unipi.it:8081/archiviofoto/Persone/Cocchi%20Antonio/links/Il%20primo%20massone%20italiano.htm

Ben Disraeli started the "Hang it on Venice" thing in the mid 19th and is, as such, irrelevant to the subject*.

Please stop therefore going around in circles and do try remaining within 18th music and "Mozart's manufacture", if you can afford it.

Cheers.

*Unless we start our story with Shakespeare's "Shylock" character, born at times when Britain's "public debt to GDP ratio" was less than zero (as compared to the 260% of the early 19th, the time when Niemcheck, Nissen etc began "Mozart's manufacture"....and then came Disraeli).

J.S. Bach
'Out of Sheba shall they all come'

Contrapuntal Chorus

BWV 65/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqICaQ9RTFs&feature=related

yanni

01-27-2010, 02:23 AM

Musicology

01-27-2010, 06:55 AM

Yanni,

We know perfectly well Rome was not on good official terms with Venice. It's a basic fact. Because Venice did not belong to the Holy Roman Empire. It, Venice, was a concession made to the Eastern Empire. Venice was an independent area. And had been since 814 A.D. And its culture was never that of Western Europe. Its culture came from Byzantium, from pagan Greece and from Babylonia. The Jesuits were not on the best official terms with Rome also. And there is indisputable evidence the creation of the Jesuit Order was achieved with the patronage of Venice. So let's stop going round and round in circles. That's a fact. If you wish to have copies of correspondence between Ignatius Loyola and Cardinal Contarini of Venice during the time of the formation of the Jesuit Order, just ask. The facts are the facts.

You are right Florence was a seat of early Freemasonry in Italy. During the 1730's. But that is because early Florentine Freemasonry was vitally important to the British presence there. Florence was the place where the occultists of Britain in Italy were based at this time. England, officially, 'exported' Freemasonry to Italy, Germany and everywhere else. Including Florence. But the reality is that it was developed first in Venice. In 1717 its modern form was arrived at in London. And from there in its modern form it arrived later in Florence and elsewhere. That is exactly why the links exist between the English patrons of Mozart in Florence, such as Earl Cowper, who was the virtual agent for opera in Italy during the time of the King's Theatre in London. It is why, today, in Florence, there are a complete set of 'Mozart' opera scores in the Cherubini Institute library which hardly get a mention in the textbooks. Florence was an early Italian base of Freemasonry because the English brought it there from that early date. Florence was also a base for Jacobism in Italy. So was Padua. (Padua being the centre of the Aristotelian education of the Venetian elites for centuries). The ambassdors of England were all private supporters of the Jacobins. And they were all occultists.

I have no problem with truth. We either have it or we don't. And if we don't others do. So that our job is to see its relevance. And, if we disagree, fine. At least we can share on these things and leave it there. And in this area the evidence is plain. The modern form of Freemasonry was arrived at in England around 1717. Having earlier existed in the occultist fraternities of Venice. The same occultist fraternties which were hugely influential in the aristocracy by helping to develop the British Empire and its merchant fleet and banking. And that is why Venice and Venetian opera/librettists (such as Goldoni, da Ponte and many others) are vitally important elements in the Mozart story. Again, commercial law, Admiralty Law, this too shared between Venice and England. The empire of Venice transfered to the City of London. And from there across the world by means of the 'British Empire'. Indeed, that Empire was privately funding the reign of Maria Theresa in Austria. For decades.

You refer to Mozart's enthusiasm for English things. Yes, and the same is true of Voltaire and Rousseau. The entire system of western Europe was under the strong influence of the British Empire by this time. Complete with the East India Company, its merchant elites etc. These employees of the British Empire. And the career of Mozart was no exception.

Mozart was manufactured in the same way that Shakespeare was manufactured. In the same way the 'discoveries' of Isaac Newton were manufactured (plagiarised from Leibnitz in Germany), in the same way that Hadyn was manufactured, and in the same way that Darwin and others were manufactured heroes which have been a vital part of all pagan cultures at all times.

I have in my notes the names of Venetians whose early writings and teachings anticipate early modern Freemasonry and will post them when I have time.

As for your other points we can surely deal with these when these issues are resolved.

Regards

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ?

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did not spend time in their tour of Venice....

Against my repeated advise that Venice (+1797) and Florence (+1730's) were never in the best of terms with Rome's Jesuits (and that both were, in any case, irrelevant at the time of Mozart's manufacture, as from 1814, "Rule Britannia" era), you have indeed been "hanging it" on Venice and the Jesuits both, while carefully avoiding Florence, seat of the first italian "english freemasonry lodge" around 1730's.

Funny thing about truth, how "personnal", how subjective, it always is, how people's fixations or private interests affect it.

"Everybody has his individual truth" sort-of and, wrongly assuming you are seeking a "common british truth" or, even better, a "global people's truth unchanged thru the ages", I did my best to provide you with food for thought in my previous, re "public debt vs gdp" at the time of Shakespeare's Shylock and his "Merchant of Venice" to compare with same, two centuries later, when Mozart's manufacture started by his early "biographers" (including, as some say, Mozart himself, ie Georg Nic. Nissen, Mozart's first biographer, lookalike and next husband of his widow).

Because, you see, a very much "universal people's truth unchanged thru the ages" is "hunger" and what "common people"-like Mozart-do to avoid it!

You chose to ignore all that to put forward instead a Mr Bonelli's "truth", "a "fraternising occulist" as per your previous definition, cut furthermore to size to fit your contoversial fixations/intentions!
(http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/10/p08.php)

No, you are not "getting close to it", in fact you are doing your best to avoid it, everything possible to get away from your own subject, ie "The manufacture of Mozart".

What you should be really answering at this stage is :How trustworthy are the already disputed "Nissen & Constance" data concerning in particular Mozart performing privately for "Gluck", 1782 in Vienna?

My opera was performed again yesterday, this time at the request of Gluck. Gluck paid me many compliments on it. I am to dine with him tomorrow. (Vienna, August 7, 1782, to his father. [How Mozart and Gluck differed in principle on the relation between text and music the reader has already had an opportunity to learn. H.E.K.]) "Mozart: The man and the artist as revealed in his own words by Friedrich Kerst , translated by Henry Edward Krehbiel".

18th January 1783: Gluck writes allegedly from Vienna he will be unable to travel to Paris for illhealth and reduces the fee for his French Danaides (Calzabiggi Ipermestra, the libretto translated in French by Gluck’s librettists, Du Roullet and Tscudi) suggesting Salieri cooperated with him, a fact he later-on the premiere of Les Danaides in 1784-refused, leaving all glory to Salieri! (Antonio Salieri and Viennese Opera, John A. Rice).
(In same January: Weishaupt writes to Zwack how he would control The Scottish Orthodox Rite defining his enemies, the Rosicrucians and Les Philalethes.
Dec 1782-April 1783: Mozart changes house three times and then moves to Salzburg)

With a remarkable fondness for everything english at the time, Mozart, you see, somehow "inherited" Gluck's immense music archive, there is now no doubt about it, and had every reason to cover the fact. My question, ie for me only to answer, is "what else he did to secure it, what hold he had on "Gluck", who was not in Vienna throughout 1782 and early 1783, that forced perhaps "Gluck" kill his alias "comte de Saint Germain" in 1784"?

(And what else did "Gluck" lose due to his association with the Mozarts?)

Cheers!

yanni

01-27-2010, 07:16 AM

You almost saved "it" but the subject is far from closed!

And when you do provide serious evidence of pre 1730's Freemasonry presence in Florence, I'll reconsider it, even if it is still irrelevant to this thread. People adjust with time, you see, often changing sides or even dogmas.

Cheers.

Musicology

01-27-2010, 08:25 AM

I will see what I can do. Certainly the connections the Mozart's had in England during their visit to London lead us to the inescapable conclusion that there was a cultural network within the fraternities of that time. Cornelys/Casanova etc. is only one obvious example. The Cornelys house literally next door to the site of the Venetian ambassador. (Cornelys having arrived from Holland with a close association with Casanova years before in Holland). In fact, the year before Cornelys took over the running of Carlisle House it had been leased to two shipping magistrates of the Dutch East India company. Who had come to form an agreement with the British government on merchant fleets etc. The government of Walpole (Prime Minister) was literally created by the fraternities of that time. Leading figures within that government play a major part in the Mozart story. Including the King of England and the Prince of Wales. And then of course the extensive correspondence of Walpole with diplomats such as Horatio Mann in Italy. etc etc. Known early Freemasons. The British diplomats at Florence during the early 18th century are others. The career of Lord Cowper in particular in Florence and his role in opera generally and the fact the British lived in great numbers in Florence during these early decades of the 18th century. Cowper eventually becoming a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire. etc etc.

You are right about dogmas. But it's best to avoid them. We agree.

/

You almost saved "it" but the subject is far from closed!

And when you do provide serious evidence of pre 1730's Freemasonry presence in Florence, I'll reconsider it, even if it is still irrelevant to this thread. People adjust with time, you see, often changing sides or even dogmas.

Cheers.

yanni

01-27-2010, 09:50 AM

Is this what you consider evidence of "pre 1730's Freemasonry presence in Florence"?

And-friendly advise-do try puting a break on your tendency to draw "inescapable conclusions" at this stage.

Remember Nissens "Barbary" (but do bless us with your opinion on my previous: "How trustworthy are the already disputed "Nissen & Constanze" data concerning in particular Mozart performing privately for "Gluck", 1782 in Vienna?")!

Cheers.

I will see what I can do. Certainly the connections the Mozart's had in England during their visit to London lead us to the inescapable conclusion that there was a cultural network within the fraternities of that time. Cornelys/Casanova etc. is only one obvious example. The Cornelys house literally next door to the site of the Venetian ambassador. (Cornelys having arrived from Holland with a close association with Casanova years before in Holland). In fact, the year before Cornelys took over the running of Carlisle House it had been leased to two shipping magistrates of the Dutch East India company. Who had come to form an agreement with the British government on merchant fleets etc. The government of Walpole (Prime Minister) was literally created by the fraternities of that time. Leading figures within that government play a major part in the Mozart story. Including the King of England and the Prince of Wales. And then of course the extensive correspondence of Walpole with diplomats such as Horatio Mann in Italy. etc etc. Known early Freemasons. The British diplomats at Florence during the early 18th century are others. The career of Lord Cowper in particular in Florence and his role in opera generally and the fact the British lived in great numbers in Florence during these early decades of the 18th century. Cowper eventually becoming a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire. etc etc.

You are right about dogmas. But it's best to avoid them. We agree.

/

Musicology

01-27-2010, 01:41 PM

It is a list of things anyone who wishes to examine the subject can read for themselves. Actually I've used the term 'inescapable conclusion' only once in this entire correspondence. In reference to the network who assisted Mozart and his father during their time in England.

You ask about Nissen/Constanze's reference to Gluck in Vienna 1782. In my view Constanze Mozart's stories are often false. There are dozens of examples. A classic case is the 'Requiem' where she wrote (and so did her 'mentor' Abbe Maximilian Stadler) that the Requiem was 'so near to completion at the time of Mozart's death that any copyist could have completed it'. This story was repeated (virtually word for word) by Stadler himself in his 'Authenticity of the Requiem' of 1825. And why was this said by Stadler ? It was because musicologists such as Gottfried Weber had published evidence the year before in a music journal (Caelicia) that the Requiem is also not by Mozart. Stories surrounding its rehearsal from Mozart's death bed were also later inventions. So too the 'grey messenger' and other fairy tales.

So, no, the many falsifications of Constanze Mozart/Nissen (added to those we find in Niemetsheck's 'biography') are typical of what was widely taught and believed on Mozart. These two early 'biographies' together with much of the contents of the Nekrology contain much of the fairy story we know today. Gluck's career is, for sure, massively exaggerated also. But this we already agree about.

Rgds

Is this what you consider evidence of "pre 1730's Freemasonry presence in Florence"?

And-friendly advise-do try puting a break on your tendency to draw "inescapable conclusions" at this stage.

Remember Nissens "Barbary" (but do bless us with your opinion on my previous: "How trustworthy are the already disputed "Nissen & Constanze" data concerning in particular Mozart performing privately for "Gluck", 1782 in Vienna?")!

Cheers.

yanni

01-27-2010, 02:10 PM

Remind me please when I agreed that "Gluck's carreer was highly exaggerated" because I neither recall, nor do I have the knowledge to judge "Gluck's" music myself, I do know however he is still considered as father of modern opera and have already identified him as "The phantom of the opera".

Perhaps his "other commitments" while composing prevented him from distinguishing himself further, "like Mozart did" as we'll soon see!

Cheers!

Musicology

01-27-2010, 02:32 PM

Gluck's dubious origins in Bohemia and his official career involve much invention and exaggeration. Even in Paris. The truth is Gluck's principal patron was Lobkowitz, intimately associated (and his son) with the invention of Mozart. The same Lobkowitz who was a close associate of Cagliostro and others. The same Lobkowitz who was a close associate of Goethe. And with Beethoven. Cultural inventions were as real then as those we see today.

And how much of 'Gluck's' music is noteworthy today ? Very little.

Remind me please when I agreed that "Gluck's carreer was highly exaggerated" because I neither recall, nor do I have the knowledge to judge "Gluck's" music myself, I do know however he is still considered as father of modern opera and have already identified him as "The phantom of the opera".

Perhaps his "other commitments" while composing prevented him from distinguishing himself further, "like Mozart did" as we'll soon see!

Cheers!

Musicology

01-27-2010, 03:12 PM

Cantata 84
Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM4EDkkUWGg&feature=PlayList&p=1FA45391DA9FF116&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=30

Musicology

01-27-2010, 03:57 PM

Antonio Vivaldi
Concerto for 2 Violins in G Minor
RV 578

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkU4F27WahA

Arcangelo Corelli (1653-1713)
Concerto grosso in D major Op. 6 No. 1
3. Largo 4. Allegro 5. Allegro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vlORhf-7_M

yanni

01-28-2010, 03:21 AM

You neither answered my question re my ever agreeing on your previous views ("the highly exaggerated career of Gluck") nor do you now prove them through his relations with Lobkowitz or even Cagliostro.

Because of his diplomatic duties, often undercover, "Gluck" had to associate himself with all sorts.

Also

You say previously that "Constanze stories are often false", which is an undestatement: Nothing written by them (Nissen included) is trustworthy, ie everything written on genius Mozart based on their data is Mozart's view of things , or the product of later,1826-1829, "improvenents", ie all is a great fake. Because Nissen was Mozart, as we'll soon see.

At this point a comment must be made re Mozart's above first biographers and Feurstein* :

No self respecting author, but a fool only, could fail to explain the mystery between Mozart's disasterous performance in Paris, 1778, where he was supposed to learn music from Bagge, joining his amateurs (already covered in previous) and his alleged stellar success in Vienna, July 1782 The Abduction, ie just four years later.

Before sending the biographers lot back to their foolsparadise however, something to their defense:

Nissen died 1826, Feyerstein "did his bit" the next couple of years and the "work" was published 1829 (see relative comments by Angermüller, Stafford and Halliwell calling the biography all sorts of names at Wikipedia)

"Gluck" had died 1819 in his Monrepos in Vyborg, Karelia (suggesting the couple delayed publishing until then) but "Gluck's" ' french relatives had already earlier on reassumed positions of authority in France where the production of fictionary literary works on Saint-Germain-based-characters soon started thereafter.

IE

Mozart's biographic group were constrained while composing their "Mozart myth", wishing neither to reveal nor to offend "Gluck" and his aliases true identity, and were propably financed for the task as well.

Hence the flop!

The question "why did Gluck supply Mozart with his music archive in the first place?" remains open of course but, certainly, a part of the answer is as above: His identity had to remain secret.

Cheers.

* a relative of Dresden physician Dr Johann Feuerstein diagnosed consumption as the cause of Mozart's death perhaps?

Gluck's dubious origins in Bohemia and his official career involve much invention and exaggeration. Even in Paris. The truth is Gluck's principal patron was Lobkowitz, intimately associated (and his son) with the invention of Mozart. The same Lobkowitz who was a close associate of Cagliostro and others. The same Lobkowitz who was a close associate of Goethe. And with Beethoven. Cultural inventions were as real then as those we see today.

And how much of 'Gluck's' music is noteworthy today ? Very little.

Musicology

01-28-2010, 10:21 AM

Yanni,

You should write a book about Gluck. It seems (to me anyway) your way of presenting things lacks any structure. We are to accept, on your say so, that Gluck was a diplomat. That Nissen (Constanze's second husband) was Mozart himself. And so it goes on. I can only suggest you spend time showing us these things. With real evidence.

I have spent some time on these things. Let's take the Nissen theory. Just that. I've corresponded with its inventor. Several times. An American. Asking him to do the basic research that would tend to confirm his theory. Things like, for example, producing some examples of Nissen's handwriting. The Nissen theory has some good points, for sure. And I've said so in the past. After all, what chance is there for a Danish diplomat to be renting a room in Vienna with the widow of Mozart ? It's absurd. Of course it is.

But the absurdity of the story is not proof of an alternative. It is pefectly clear Nissen had links with Regensburg earlier in his career. As did Mozart. It is clear too he is some way involved in the manufacture of Mozart. As were various diplomats (including the British Ambassador in Vienna). But it is not clear (at least to me) that Nissen was Mozart himself. Still, I am sure those who believe differently will provide the much needed evidence that would make their theory credible.

We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that on the basic issue we are agreed. Mozart's musical career was manufactured. And since this, from a musical point of view, is my focus, I hope to see from you and from others more on Nissen. A man who knew virtually nothing of music and whose portrait bears more than a striking resemblance to Mozart. But which, to date, lacks more than circumstantial evidence.

I understand from one source the word 'Nissen' means 'elf' or mythical creature in Danish. The idea itself is interesting.

Virtually none of the works of Gluck are today performed or regarded as great musical value. Which is why I mentioned the fact before.

I, like most people, have a finite capacity to entertain ideas which never seem to result in conclusion. It remains my view that in a world of aliases the onus is on you to give us the hard information that links them all, and this first of all. Since the human mind does not find attraction in unsubstantiated speculations and is not convinced by one line 'proofs'. The basic structure must be presented. On which complexities are explained. But, without that, we can spend our lives going round and round in circles. This I wish to avoid.

I look forward to your 'proof' that Nissen was none other than W.A. Mozart. For myself, I find it to be an interesting idea that lacks hard evidence. Designed to 'muddy the water'. To throw dust in our eyes on the actual fact that this music exists and that its origins had nothing to do with either Nissen or Mozart. Nissen was a propagandist. Of this there is no doubt. But, whether or not he was Mozart himself, well, that is for others to show. I have examined it and found that it lacks basic evidence.

Does the Mozart story stand up to close examination ? No, it does not. That is fact number 1. Does a body of music attributed to him exist ? Yes, it does. And therefore you will understand that my priority is to stay with those issues and not to entertain ideas which, so far, have done little to explain how that music came in to being.

Regards

//

You neither answered my question re my ever agreeing on your previous views ("the highly exaggerated career of Gluck") nor do you now prove them through his relations with Lobkowitz or even Cagliostro.

Because of his diplomatic duties, often undercover, "Gluck" had to associate himself with all sorts.

Also

You say previously that "Constanze stories are often false", which is an undestatement: Nothing written by them (Nissen included) is trustworthy, ie everything written on genius Mozart based on their data is Mozart's view of things , or the product of later,1826-1829, "improvenents", ie all is a great fake. Because Nissen was Mozart, as we'll soon see.

At this point a comment must be made re Mozart's above first biographers and Feurstein* :

No self respecting author, but a fool only, could fail to explain the mystery between Mozart's disasterous performance in Paris, 1778, where he was supposed to learn music from Bagge, joining his amateurs (already covered in previous) and his alleged stellar success in Vienna, July 1782 The Abduction, ie just four years later.

Before sending the biographers lot back to their foolsparadise however, something to their defense:

Nissen died 1826, Feyerstein "did his bit" the next couple of years and the "work" was published 1829 (see relative comments by Angermüller, Stafford and Halliwell calling the biography all sorts of names at Wikipedia)

"Gluck" had died 1819 in his Monrepos in Vyborg, Karelia (suggesting the couple delayed publishing until then) but "Gluck's" ' french relatives had already earlier on reassumed positions of authority in France where the production of fictionary literary works on Saint-Germain-based-characters soon started thereafter.

IE

Mozart's biographic group were constrained while composing their "Mozart myth", wishing neither to reveal nor to offend "Gluck" and his aliases true identity, and were propably financed for the task as well.

Hence the flop!

The question "why did Gluck supply Mozart with his music archive in the first place?" remains open of course but, certainly, a part of the answer is as above: His identity had to remain secret.

Cheers.

* a relative of Dresden physician Dr Johann Feuerstein diagnosed consumption as the cause of Mozart's death perhaps?

Musicology

01-28-2010, 10:58 AM

The Wonderful

Cantata 104
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyCTYtL5A-M&feature=PlayList&p=66E67B09C0508DC5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=60

Musicology

01-28-2010, 11:23 AM

One of the most inspired moments in all of music. You will note how, from about 1' 57'' into this first movement the music shifts up beyond the norm. Even for Bach. Just the work of a little German chapelmaster perhaps ? Probably not. Something greater. How marvellous ! Miraculous, even.

Cantata 104
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyCTYtL5A-M&feature=PlayList&p=66E67B09C0508DC5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=60[/QUOTE]

Musicology

01-28-2010, 12:40 PM

Yanni,

On the origins of Freemasonry in England from Venice - part of an article that appeared in 'American Almanac' by Donald Phau (1994 Vol. VIII, No. 17 and No. 18). ) -

In 1527, Henry VIII of England resolved to divorce his wife. His concern was predominantly dynastic. The Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon, his queen of 18 years, had failed to produce a male heir, after suffering several miscarriages and losing two sons in the early stages of infancy. The single surviving Tudor child, Princess Mary, was not considered by her father or his advisers to be a suitable candidate to rule England after Henry's death.
The divorce and remarriage of a Catholic king was infrequent, but certainly not unheard of. Annulments of royal marriages for dynastic and political reasons were even more common. Around 1450, the pope had even granted Henry VI of Castile a dispensation to marry a second wife, while still married to his first wife, who had borne no royal heir ! At the outset of his negotiations with the Vatican, Henry had every reason to expect that, in time, his request would be granted.

Instead, the case of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII of England was to become the most famous divorce in history. Before the curtain fell on this historical drama, the nation of England had been transformed. Henry VIII had pulled England out of the Catholic Church, establishing the Church of England under the authority of the monarchy; had beheaded Sir Thomas More, one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance, for not supporting his break with Rome; and had steered his country off the path leading to industrial-capitalist economic development and republican government.

Henry VIII had also thrown open the door for the cultural, political, and financial takeover of England by agents of the city-state of Venice. By the middle of the 1530s, Henry's government was in the hands of Venetian agents, and being shaped into a model of police-state political terror. By the end of Henry's reign, Venetian bankers were in control of a burgeoning English foreign debt, and dictating terms to the English throne. Within slightly over a century following Henry's death, England had been transformed into the usurious, slave-trading, imperial power of Great Britain, under the dictatorship of a Venetian party, which had been transplanted directly from the lagoons of Venice.

The manipulation of Henry's divorce was a foreign policy matter of some importance to the ruling oligarchy of Venice. As Donald Phau has documented in the first two parts of this series, the tiny Italian city-state established and maintained its vast influence over the economies, trade, and governments of Europe by the artful application of ``divide and conquer'' trickery, applied with the help of the largest and most sophisticated diplomatic corps in all the known world. Though successful during the first decades of Henry's reign in provoking two expensive and bloody wars between England and France--the most populous country in Europe--Venetian diplomacy had failed to do serious damage to cooperative relations between England and Spain, the homeland of Henry's queen.

Together, England and Spain controlled the Straits of Gibraltar, Atlantic entry-point to the Mediterranean; the English Channel, entry-point to the North and Baltic seas, as well as the location of rich Low Countries (what today are Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) port cities; and, in the case of Spain, half of the New World. As recently as the 1480s, Henry VII had overturned the privileges of Venetian merchants in English ports, awarding this carrying trade to ships of his own citizens; in 1494, the first Tudor king successfully challenged Venetian monopolies in trading of French wines and Spanish sherry. Together, Henry VII and King Ferdinand of Spain had played a forceful role in encouraging reforms from within the Catholic Church.

This alliance was to come to an abrupt end over the matter of Henry and Catherine's divorce.

The Venetian oligarchs, who hated the Christian view that all men are created in the image of God, (particularly as it was reflected in the Church's disapproval of slavery and prohibition of usury) were also interested in cutting down the influence of the Catholic Church. Venice spawned, nurtured, and sponsored both the leadership and footsoldiers of the Protestant Reformation for their own reasons. The theological apologetics for the schismatic movement within the Church were manufactured in the Camaldolese monastery of Santa Giustina, and in the salons of Lucca and other Italian cities, satellites of Venice, from whence they were injected into the academic institutions and courts of Europe. It was not until Henry VIII's break with Rome, however, that the Venetian efforts resulted in the establishment of a Protestant state church.

No wonder the Venetian gamemasters pounced on the opportunity to use Henry's dissatisfaction with Catherine to their own ends. And, they succeeded in doing just that by 1535, with the death of Thomas More, Henry's break with the Church, and the destruction of the English-Spanish alliance.

Cultural Warfare
Thus far, however, we have examined only Venice's tactical considerations vis-a-vis the King's Great Matter. The oligarchs of the lagoons had far more important, strategic goals in mind. These longer-term projects centered on questions of culture, especially Venice's hatred of the conceptions of man and nature which were the foundations of Western Judeo-Christian culture, in particular as it was being spread throughout Europe and the New World in the decades following the Golden Renaissance in Italy.

The Venetian deployment into England around Henry's divorce reveals the nature of the cultural warfare directed from Venice against the influence of the Golden Renaissance. From every nook and cranny popped out-and-out Venetian agents, ready to assist Henry. Right behind--in a classic display of the Venetian maneuver known as ``playing both sides against the middle''--followed Venice's candidates to enter the lists on the side of Queen Catherine.

And with them came everything bad Venice wished to impose on humanity: Aristotelianism, occultism, gnosticism, and other forms of mysticism and irrationalism. In short order, this invading force was to deal a mortal blow to English humanist circles led by Thomas More and Erasmus, which had struggled to build institutions to uplift society to the level befitting each individual human being's identity as man made in the image of God. England, a strong outpost of the Renaissance Christian cultural tradition in Europe, was to be turned into a new Venice of the north. < p>

First with his foot in the door was the Venetian-trained bureaucrat Thomas Cromwell, who rose to power on the corpse of Thomas More. Cromwell lay in wait as a court underling during the latter 1520s. He assumed the chancellorship upon More's resignation in 1532, after he had-according to More's son-in-law and biographer William Roper--presented the King with a theory of government based on the idea ``that his will and pleasure [be] regarded as law.''

Cromwell surrounded himself with a coterie of misguided and radical Protestants, similarly trained in Venice (just a coincidence, of course) or at the Arisotelian University of Padua. These included Thomas Starkey and Richard Morison, both of whom entered Cromwell's service in the early 1530s. Morison and particularly Starkey served as the pamphleteer-propagandists during Cromwell's reorganization of the English church and government. Cromwell's thoroughgoing reforms--accompanied by a reign of terror and hundreds of political conspiracy trials and executions--transformed England from a polity based on the rule of law, toward the ideal of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, in which the rule of men--in this case the suggestible and unstable Henry VIII--was concealed behind the appearance of the rule of law.

One historian of the period summarizes Cromwell's outlook thus:

``Cromwell wished to free statutes from that older limitation which wished to test it by reference to some external law--the law of nature, the law of Christendom (Thomas More's test). He held that [the positive law of a nation or state] was omnicompetent, and must be obeyed.''

(Thus, it was possible for historians to speak of the 'Church of England' as if it was the Reformation itself. When, in fact the formation of the Church of England was politics, plain and simple).

It was this lawless regime which framed up and murdered Thomas More.
To fortify Henry's case for divorce from Catherine, Cromwell compiled reports from more than a dozen royal emissaries, including John Stokesley, Richard Croke, and Thomas Cranmer (later to be named the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury) who had been sent to comb Europe's universities and religious institutions for scholars and divines who would buttress the King's position. This dragnet produced, among others, one Marco Raphael, a Venetian Jew converted to Christianity, and the reputed inventor of a new invisible ink. Though he held the high position of chief cipherist for the diplomatic service of ...... Venice, Raphael traveled to England to assist the King.

Also materializing at the English court, one might imagine in a puff of grey and aromatic smoke, was Francesco Giorgi, nicknamed the ``Cabalist Friar of Venice,'' by the Warburg Institute's late occult-specialist, Frances Yates. Giorgi was there to help Henry VIII, and brought with him armfuls of manuscripts, letters, and other documents supporting Henry's arguments for the divorce. Giorgi remained in England for more than five years, gaining the king's ear and entry into the inner court circle.

Meanwhile, partisans of Catherine's cause were busy trying to recruit another leading occultist--Henry Cornelius Agrippa--on her behalf.

Giorgi and Agrippa were two sides of the same coin. They were both political-intelligence agents, deployed at the instruction of their oligarchist masters. They were also agents of cultural warfare, carrying and propagating the Venetian currency of antiscientific irrationalism. Their occultist poison was--and remains Venice's most powerful weapon to prevent the development of an educated and rational population, equipped to dispense with aristocrats and govern itself.

Let us take a longer look at the necromancer and black magician, Henry Cornelius Agrippa, keeping in mind that Agrippa's outlook, and even his main writings, were virtually identical in essential content to those of Henry VIII's adviser and confidante, Francesco Giorgi.

Agrippa, who learned astrology at his mother's knee, was perhaps the leading occultist of early sixteenth-century Europe, rivaling Johannes Reuchlin for that title by dint of his energetic travels across the continent and back again, to build the sixteenth century occultist movement. He was born about 1486, in Nettesheim, Germany, and educated at the University of Cologne. How he was started on the road toward black magic and the occult is not known. But he spent a significant portion of his younger years in Italy, studying the mystical and occultist works of Pico della Mirandola, and in Paris, in the circles of occultists who were very active there. In Italy, France, and later Germany, Agrippa organized and recruited for a secret society reminiscent of the later freemasons.

This secret society was unabashedly gnostic. Its brotherhood was committed to the study of an ancient knowledge [Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge] which it believed must be limited to an elite, kept secret as it had the power to be dangerous to the inferior masses of humanity. This secret knowledge could secure eternal salvation for initiates, while the common man was excluded from knowledge of God and eternal life. Agrippa wrote in his 1516 'The Three Ways of Knowing God' (De triplici ratione cognoscendi Deum), ``even the Gospel, like the Mosaic law, has one meaning on the surface for the more simple, another in its core, which has been separately revealed to the perfect ... nothing could be more absurd'' than the law, if taken literally.

Agrippa's tome, 'De occulta philosophia' (1510) catalogued the elements of this secret knowledge, and became the virtual bible of the occultist movement. It was the handbook of John Dee around the turn of the fifteenth century in England, and later of Robert Fludd, the founder of the Rosicrucian cult which prefigured freemasonry.

What superstitious nonsense did Agrippa peddle in 'De occulta philosophia'? Among other things, the conjuring of demons, magic rituals, astrological formulae, numerological combinations, and songs, poems and spells for controlling the actions of angels, demons, other human beings, and the physical universe. This passage from Book III discusses a spell for changing the weather:

``I have seen and known a certain man inscribing the name and sign of a certain spirit on virgin paper in the hour of the moon. When afterwards he had given this to a river frog to devour, and had murmured a certain song, having replaced the frog in the water, soon showers and storms rose up.''
De occulta philosophia delved at length into the so-called Jewish Cabala, the secret knowledge believers asserted had been handed to Moses by God when he declared the 10 Commandments. Cabalists like Agrippa asserted that God revealed his law in a literal form for the masses, but in an elaborated form for the inner elite. To this was added the study of other ancient secret knowledge, passed from the Egyptians, through the Greece of Plato and transmitted to the West during the middle of the fourteenth century with the Greek texts brought to Florence by Gemisthos Plethon. Among these texts were those attributed to Hermes Trigmegistus, the probably fictional Egyptian high priest whose writings are known as hermeticism.

Christian cabalists like Pico, Giorgi, and Agrippa sought to syncretize this ancient secret knowledge with the tenets of Christianity. In his Three Ways of Knowing God, Agrippa described three paths to knowledge of the Almighty: the natural world, which reveals only a reflection of God in His creations; the cabala--the ancient, secret knowledge; and, after the coming of Christ, the divinely inspired Holy Gospels. But, specifies Agrippa, the New Testament, like the Old Testament, is divided into an open revelation available to all who read it, and a secret revelation, available only those who possess the secret knowledge.

At their irrational extremes, Giorgi and Agrippa studied the numerological significance of the Hebrew letters in the name of Jesus Christ, which they believed proved that Jesus was the Messiah. Both Giorgi and Agrippa also asserted that the universe is divided into three realms--the natural world, the celestial world, and the supercelestial world, Heaven--all under the control of angels and demons upon whom a magician may call for special aid. Giorgi's elaboration of this three-fold system appears in his 1525 textbook of the occult, De harmonia mundi (The Harmony of the World).

Also on the occult fringe were astrology, alchemy, and magical music and poetry, such as the so-called Orphic hymns which fascinated Pico. These date back to Attic Greece in the centuries before Christianity. The Orphic hymns were part of violent orgiastic rituals, in which maddened women, known as Maenads, drugged or otherwise intoxicated, roamed through the forests at night, tearing animals from limb to limb; the same fate befell any man who was unfortunate enough to cross the path of one of these rampaging bands.

(Agrippa - perhaps under the influence of an Orphic hymn--argued vociferously that women are superior to men. In his 'De nobilitate et pracellantia foeminei sexus' of 1509, Agrippa advanced a number of occultist and feminist arguments that women are more perfect than men.)

The influence of the stars on the human personality traits (which Agrippa called ``humours'') is put forth in the following passage from ;De occulta philosophia:

``The humor melancholicus, when it takes fire and glows, generates the frenzy (furor) which leads us to wisdom and revelation, especially when it is combined with a heavenly influence, above all with that of Saturn.... Therefore, Aristotle says in the Problematica that through melancholy some men have become divine beings, foretelling the future like Sybils ... while others have become poets ... and he says further that all men who have been distinguished in any branch of knowledge have generally been
``Moreover, the humor melancholis has such power that they say it attracts certain demons into our bodies, those whose presence and activity men fall into ecstacies and pronounce many wonderful things.... This occurs in three different forms, imagination ... the rational ... and the mental... [When] the soul is fully concentrated in the imagination, it immediately becomes a habitation for lower demons, from whom it often receives wonderful instruction in the lower arts.... But when the soul is fully concentrated in the reason, it becomes the home of the middle demons; thereby it attains knowledge of natural and human things;... But when the soul soars completely to the intellect, it becomes the home of the higher demons, from whom it learns the secrets of divine matters....''

Though Giorgi, Agrippa, and other occultists of the day moved in the intellectual circles of the university and the church, their ideas radiated with some intensity into society around them. By the 1530s, De occulta philosphia was the handbook for sorcerers, witches, and wizards all over Europe. Giorgi's De harmonia mundi was translated into French in 1578, and spurred the witchcraft movement in France.

Jean Bodin, the leader of France's politiques faction, which sought to promote religous toleration, took very seriously the extent of Giorgi's influence, and fiercely attacked him as a chief architect of the witchcraft movement plaguing Europe. In 1580, Bodin published a his 'De la démonomanie des sorciers', a treatise on the philosophical foundations of satanism, with suggestions for dealing with witchcraft.

In Elizabethan England, where the ideas of Agrippa and Giorgi were at work in the occult movement that was to become freemasonry, dramatist Christopher Marlowe attacked black magic head on. In his 'Tragical History of the Life and Death of Dr. Faustus', Marlowe presents the cynical, devil-conjuring Dr. Faustus as a student of Agrippa. When Faustus conjures up Mephistopheles using cabalist numerology and anagrams, Faust tells the devil that he is too ugly to appear as himself: ``Go and returne an old Franciscan Frier, That holy shape becomes a devil beast'.

Under influence of Venetian agent Thomas Cromwell's Aristotelian ``might makes right'' philosophy of government, and the occultism spewed by such as Giogi and Agrippa, it is no wonder Henrican England descended toward a new dark age, both culturally and economically, after Thomas More's death in 1535. The country which, on the occasion of Henry VIII's coronation in 1509, Erasmus had hailed as a new opportunity to develop a society based on the dignity of man, was now set on the downward path toward slave-trading, drug-dealing, and imperialist conquest.

//

yanni

01-28-2010, 01:18 PM

Having already proven beyond reasonable doubt the true identity(Gioachino Cocchi) of Le Comte de Saint Germain, as well as his basic literary aliases (Grimm, Rousseau, Raynal, Chastellux etc) , the conclusion that Cocchi-Saint Germain used also "Gluck" as alias was (and still is today for anyone who cares to check it on the web) easy to reach, a piece of cake (in my opinion, at least)!

Yet you still keep on asking me to provide "evidence of Gluck and other aliases" while,from early on when you first joined this site, you have been offered ample opportunity, via continuing references to my other threads, to enable you verify yourself the fact and publicaly accept or dispute it, presenting evidence to the contrary.

You did neither and, obviously not wishing to be part of such "radical" notions, assumed to my annoyance the "haven't seen, haven't heard" stand, dragging your feet to eternity, never to cross the lines of your "Mozart was manufactured" uniquely monotonus motto.

OK he was manufactured, everybody knows, so what?

You "spent sometime with these things", you say: that's fine, where are your answers?

Which side was Mozart on, early 1783, when Weishaupt took control of the Scottish Orthodox Rite attacking Les Philalethes and the Rosicrucians, and how was his "career" relatively affected, do you know?

Are you still asking yourself the same questions Volkmar Braunbehrens selected to close his 1989 article with?

Had the Scottish Rite taken its revenge against those who tried to impose reason and a Christian concept of love upon the Freemasonry?
Could Mozart's sudden demise in 1791 have been an earlier death sentence by these forces?
Is the new ritual murder being carried out today against Mozart, by the movie producers of Amadeus and others, who portray this great moral artist as a foul-mouthed, brainless fop effortlessly churning out divine compositions, being committed at the behest of the heirs of Mozart's enemies?
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/mozart.htm Review of: Mozart in Vienna, 1781-1791, by Volkmar Braunbehrens, Grove-Weidenfeld, New York, 1989,

And what do you make of this author's selection to leave both Gluck and Grimm (and diplomat Nissen's "Barbary" involvement with the USA navy) alltogether out of his "study"?

Give it a try!

Cheers!

Yanni,

You should write a book about Gluck. It seems (to me anyway) your way of presenting things lacks any structure. We are to accept, on your say so, that Gluck was a diplomat. That Nissen (Constanze's second husband) was Mozart himself. And so it goes on. I can only suggest you spend time showing us these things. With real evidence.

I have spent some time on these things. Let's take the Nissen theory. Just that. I've corresponded with its inventor. Several times. An American. Asking him to do the basic research that would tend to confirm his theory. Things like, for example, producing some examples of Nissen's handwriting. The Nissen theory has some good points, for sure. And I've said so in the past. After all, what chance is there for a Danish diplomat to be renting a room in Vienna with the widow of Mozart ? It's absurd. Of course it is.

But the absurdity of the story is not proof of an alternative. It is pefectly clear Nissen had links with Regensburg earlier in his career. As did Mozart. It is clear too he is some way involved in the manufacture of Mozart. As were various diplomats (including the British Ambassador in Vienna). But it is not clear (at least to me) that Nissen was Mozart himself. Still, I am sure those who believe differently will provide the much needed evidence that would make their theory credible.

We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that on the basic issue we are agreed. Mozart's musical career was manufactured. And since this, from a musical point of view, is my focus, I hope to see from you and from others more on Nissen. A man who knew virtually nothing of music and whose portrait bears more than a striking resemblance to Mozart. But which, to date, lacks more than circumstantial evidence.

I understand from one source the word 'Nissen' means 'elf' or mythical creature in Danish. The idea itself is interesting.

Virtually none of the works of Gluck are today performed or regarded as great musical value. Which is why I mentioned the fact before.

I, like most people, have a finite capacity to entertain ideas which never seem to result in conclusion. It remains my view that in a world of aliases the onus is on you to give us the hard information that links them all, and this first of all. Since the human mind does not find attraction in unsubstantiated speculations and is not convinced by one line 'proofs'. The basic structure must be presented. On which complexities are explained. But, without that, we can spend our lives going round and round in circles. This I wish to avoid.

I look forward to your 'proof' that Nissen was none other than W.A. Mozart. For myself, I find it to be an interesting idea that lacks hard evidence. Designed to 'muddy the water'. To throw dust in our eyes on the actual fact that this music exists and that its origins had nothing to do with either Nissen or Mozart. Nissen was a propagandist. Of this there is no doubt. But, whether or not he was Mozart himself, well, that is for others to show. I have examined it and found that it lacks basic evidence.

Does the Mozart story stand up to close examination ? No, it does not. That is fact number 1. Does a body of music attributed to him exist ? Yes, it does. And therefore you will understand that my priority is to stay with those issues and not to entertain ideas which, so far, have done little to explain how that music came in to being.

Regards

//

Musicology

01-28-2010, 01:48 PM

Yanni,

You again refer to -

Gioachino Cocchi of Le Comte de Saint Germain, as well as his basic literary aliases (Grimm, Rousseau, Raynal, Chastellux etc)

Do please tell us something. For whom was this person working ? I am keen you should tell us after all these posts. Can you tell us ?

It is not difficult to see 'Scottish Rite' Freemasonry was, from the start of its existence, associated with support for the Stuart cause, starting with Mary Queen of Scots whose aim (unless we are all mistaken) was to restore the Catholic dynasty of the Stuarts to rule over Britain. Whose most recent attempt was with Stuart Prince Charles in 1745, this after the papally approved attempt of the Spanish Armada of 1588 had spectacularly failed, also after the failed Gunpowder Plot of a few years later etc. etc. Such things are not really so hard to understand, are they ? Nor is it difficult to understand the aristocracy of England had many low key papal supporters in the 18th century. After all, their heritage came from the papally approved invasion and carve up of English land in 1066. I even dare to think such things can be understood by almost anyone. With minimal effort. Whether you support the European Union or not (an institution nobody in Britain voted for but which also aims to take over the sovereignty of Britain). Such things are not new, are they ?

But do please reveal, finally, who Cocchi was working for with all these 'aliases'. That will help.

Regards

yanni

01-28-2010, 04:22 PM

You are obviously confused:

Rite of Strict Observance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series of articles on Freemasonry
The Rite of Strict Observance was a Rite of Freemasonry, a series of progressive degrees that were conferred by the Order of Strict Observance, a Masonic body of the 18th century.

Baron Karl Gotthelf von Hund (1722-1776) introduced a new Scottish Rite to Germany, which he renamed "Rectified Masonry" and, after 1764, the "Strict Observance", while referring to the English system of Freemasonry as the "Late Observance."

The Rite appealed to German national pride, attracted the non-nobility, and was allegedly directed by "Unknown Superiors". The Strict Observance was particularly devoted to the reform of Masonry, with special reference to the elimination of the occult sciences which at the time were widely practiced in many lodges, and the establishment of cohesion and homogeneity in Masonry through the enforcement of strict discipline, the regulation of functions, etc.

Depite its initial popularity, growing dissatisfaction among members over the failure to being initiated into the mysteries of the Unknown Superiors ("ascended masters" which were later claimed to be clerics of the Knights Templars) led to the Strict Observance being dissolved in 1782.[1]

References Trevor W. McKeown, "The Rite of Strict Observance", Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-06-11. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Strict_Observance"

Comte de Saint Germain:

As "Pierre Michel Hennin-Cocchini", comte de Saint Germain was first employed by the Foreign Ministry of Royal France (about 1750's, see previous on Durazzo), 1776-78 he served France as Minister of War, fought in USA as "Chastellux" 1781-83, served then again French Foreign Affairs under more names, left France about the time the royal couple was executed to join his (Grimm's) friend, Empress Catherine of Russia. He served Russia to his death, 1819 or 20.

Cheers.

Musicology

01-28-2010, 06:10 PM

Yanni,

We may all be confused at different times. But what most confuses me most is why you can't answer a simple question. Perhaps I need to ask it again ? Can you please tell me who Cocchi was working for ? Cocchi, alias etc etc etc. Since you seem unable to tell me plainly. Do tell us please Yanni.

As for the dissolution of the 'Scottish Rite' (in 1782) this roughly corresponds to formation of the Illuminatists. Just a coincidence, right, Yanni ? From that Jesuit University of Inglostadt. Speaking of which, Knigge (who is credited with writing the German text of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was himself in the pay of the King of England (and his father before him) although the same von Knigge, of course was a leading Illuminatist in Germany. In Hanover. From which came the ruling Hanoverian dynasty in England. Indeed, there is a record of payments to Knigge held at the British Library made by the King of England to Knigge's father during the time of George 2nd.

You have suggested various official employers of Cocchi. Whom, you say, was also Saint Germain, Rousseau etc. Fine. But why should an Italian with many aliases also serve France, Russia and be active in the USA and on close terms with England and other countries ? Does this scenario not suggest he was serving an organisation throughout all these roles ? Which organisation ? You see, there is no connecting thread suggested by you. Is there ? And since he supposedly used these multiple aliases you should tell us with which single movement he was associated. Any at all ? Without which he must have confused himself with so many aliases.

Why use aliases throughout one's life (many) if there was no reason to use them ?

Thanks

yanni

01-29-2010, 02:59 AM

It seems your insistance to focus exclusively on Mozart has disappeared somehow while my brief description of Saint Germain-Cocchi's "employers" (France and Russia) was not to your satisfaction, your stand implying you really want another answer, ie you really ask if he belonged to Weishaupt's Illuminati all along (contary to my previous assertion that early 1783 Weishaupt defined his enemies to Zwack as Les Philalethes and Rosicrucians-ie defined "Saint Germain" as his enemy).

Well, he did not, is my opinion (Th.Jefferson finally disagreeing with him on "philosophy" matters prior to the french revolution, himself having to leave France afterwards to settle in Russia) but who can really tell?

Here is how http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn01-2 describes the Illuminati links to the French Revolution

The Illuminati, the Jacobins and the French Revolution (1787-1791)
The Illuminati had secretly spread to France by 1787 (five years after they had planned), through French orator and revolutionary leader Count Gabriel Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau (1749-1791, Order name 'Leonidas') who had been indoctrinated by Col. Jacob Mauvillon while he was in Berlin on a secret mission for King Louis XVI of France in 1786. Mirabeau introduced Illuminati principles at the Paris Masonic Lodge of the Amis Reunis (later renamed 'Philalethes'), and initiated Abbé Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838, a court cleric in the House of Bourbon).
The most trusted members were brought into the 'Secret Committee of United Friends' (it is interesting to note that a group of the same name originated in 1771 as an occult group). The initiations took place at the Illuminati's Grand Lodge, about 30 miles from Paris, in the Ermenonville mansion owned by the Marquis de Gerardin. The famous impostor Saint Germain (1710-1780, or 1785) presided over the initiation ceremonies.
Germain was believed to be a Portuguese Jew, who was a member of the Philalethes Lodge. He was a Mason, a Rosicrucian, and belonged to several other occult brotherhoods. He spoke Italian, German, English, Spanish, French, Greek, Sanskrit, Arabic, and Chinese. He was said to be the son of Prince Rakoczy of Transylvania; raised by the last Medici, Gian Gastone; and was educated at the University of Siena. He told people that he had lived for centuries and knew King Solomon. He was arrested in London in 1743 for being a Jacobite spy and he took credit for establishing Freemasonry in Germany. As an impostor he posed as Comte Bellamarre, Marquis de Montferrat, and Chevalier Schoening.
During the initiation, new members were sworn to:
"...reveal to thy new chief all thou shalt have heard, learned and discovered, and also to seek after and spy into things that might have otherwise escaped thy notice ... (and to) avoid all temptation to betray what thou has now heard. Lightning does not strike so quickly as the dagger which will reach thee wherever thou mayest be."
Count Alessandro de Cagliostro (also known as Giuseppe Balsamo), a Jew from Sicily, who was said to be one of the greatest occult practitioners of all time, was initiated into the Illuminati at Mitau (near Frankfurt) in 1780, in an underground room. He later said that an iron box filled with papers was opened, and a book taken out. From it, a member read the oath of secrecy, which began: "We, Grand Masters of Templars..." It was written in blood. The book was an outline of their plans which included an attack on Rome. He discovered that they had money at their disposal in banks at Amsterdam, Rotterdam, London, Genoa, and Venice. He found out that the Illuminati had 20,000 lodges throughout Europe and America, and that their members served in every European court. Cagliostro was instructed to go to Strasbourg, France, to make the initial contacts necessary for the instigation of the French Revolution. Identified as a Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion, it is believed that he was the liaison between them and the Illuminati. He was arrested in 1790 in Rome for revolutionary activities.
The French Masons had committed themselves to a plan for overthrowing the government, under the guise of liberty and equality, ending the autocratic regimes in order to have government by and for the people. Jeremy Bentham and William Petty (Earl of Shelburne) planned and directed the French Revolution, then later directed the [Illuminati] plot towards America.
In 1788, at the request of Mirabeau and Talleyrand, Johann Joachim Christoph Bode (1730-1793, 'Amelius'), a lawyer at Weimar and a Mason, was summoned to France. He had been initiated into the Illuminati at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad and later took over the Order in the absence of Weishaupt. Bode and Baron de Busche ('Bayard'), a Dutch military officer in the service of the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, in order to conceal the purpose of their presence in France said they were there to investigate the influence of the Jesuits on the secret societies. However, the real reason for them being there was to further the goals of the Illuminati in France. They operated out of the Lodge of the Amis Reunis, changing its name to 'Philalethes' which means 'searchers after the truth.'
The Marquis de Luchet, a friend of Mirabeau, wrote in his Essay on the Sect of the Illuminati in January, 1789:
"Deluded people. You must understand that there exists a conspiracy in favor of despotism, and against liberty, of incapacity against talent, of vice against virtue, of ignorance against light! ... Every species of error which afflicts the earth, every half-baked idea, every invention serves to fit the doctrines of the Illuminati ... The aim is universal domination."
Intellectuals known as 'encyclopedists' were instrumental in spreading Illuminati doctrine. Soon other lodges become aligned with the Philalethes, such as the 'Nine Sisters'; the Lodge of Candor, which included members like Laclos, Sillery, d'Aiguillon, the Lameth Brothers, Dr. Guillotine, and Lafayette; and the 'Propaganda', which was established by Condorcet, Abbé Sieyes, and Rochenfoucault.
[Many] revolutionary leaders in France joined the Illuminati who had eventually infiltrated all 266 Masonic lodges by 1789, even though the Masons weren't aware of it.
• Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-1794), who was made head of the Revolution by Weishaupt
• Marquis Antoine Nicholas Condorcet (1743-1794), philosopher and politician
• Duke de la Rochenfoucault
• George Jacques Danton (1759-1794)
• Marquis Marie Joseph de Lafayette (1757-1834), General and statesman
• Jerome Petion de Villeneuve (1756-1794), politician
• Philippe, Duke of Orleans, Grand Master of French Freemasonry
• de Leutre
• Fauchet
• Cammille Benoit Desmoulins (1760-1794)
• D´Alembert
• Denis Diderot (1713-1784), encyclopedist
• Jean-Francois de la Harpe (1739-1803), critic and playwright
The Illuminati created situations in order to create dissention among the people. For instance, the Duke of Orleans instructed his agents to buy up as much grain as they could, then the people were led to believe that the King intentionally caused the shortage and that the French people were starving. Fellow conspirators in the government helped create runaway inflation. Thus the people were manipulated into turning against a king whose reign had strengthened the middle class. The monarchy was to be destroyed and the middle class oppressed. God was to be replaced by the Illuminati's religion of reason that "man's mind would solve man's problems."
During the first two years of the French Revolution, which started in April, 1789, the Illuminati had infiltrated the Masonic Lodges to such an extent that they had ceased operation and instead rallied under the name "The French Revolutionary Club." When they needed a larger meeting place they used the hall of the Jacobin's Convent. This revolutionary group of 1300 people emerged on July 14, 1789 as the Jacobin Club. The Illuminati controlled the Club, and were directly responsible for fermenting the activities which developed into the French Revolution. Lord Acton wrote:
"The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult but the design. Through all the fire and smoke, we perceived the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first."
In the playing out of a plan which called for the population to be cut down by one-third to one-half, over 300,000 people died, including the execution of King Louis and his family. This was done to insure the stability of the new French Republic. In August, 1792, after the overthrow of the government, the tri-colored banner was replaced by the red flag of social revolution, while the cry of "Vive notre roi d´Orleans" gave way to the Masonic watchword "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" Those who responded with the proper Masonic handsigns had their lives spared. By November 1793 as the massacres had spread all over France the churches had been reorganized along the lines of Weishaupt's contention that "reason should be the only code of man."
Talleyrand, who became the bishop of Autin in 1788, because of his radical reorganization of the Church was excommunicated by the Pope. He became a deputy to the National Assembly. The Jacobins controlled the National Assembly and for all intents and purposes Mirabeau became France's leader. In true Democratic spirit he said:
"We must flatter the people by gratuitous justice, promise them a great diminution in taxes and a more equal division, more extension in fortunes, and less humiliation. These fantasies will fanaticize the people, who will flatten all resistance."
The Revolution was considered at an end on July 28, 1794, when Robespierre was guillotined.
Thomas Jefferson, who served as minister to France for three years (1785-89), described the events as "so beautiful a revolution" and said that he hoped it would sweep the world. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton said that Jefferson helped start the French Revolution, and wrote in a letter to a friend dated May 26, 1792 that
"[Jefferson] drank freely of the French philosophy, in religion, in science, in politics. He came from France in the moment of fermentation, which he had a share in inciting."
Jefferson wrote to Brissot de Warville in Philadelphia in a letter dated May 8, 1793 that he was "eternally attached to the principles of the French Revolution."

A lot is missing from above "study" (practicaly all british involvement, including the Regent's -prince of Wales-links to the Hanoverians and the french Jacobin club, Cagliostro's links and ties with Britain etc) but neverthelss, among other "stories", it is not the worst overall description of events, yet failing "dependable sources".

Having told you from the beginning that, following US independence, "Britain was not excluded when they partitioned their world", (and he, as well as the duc d'Orleans, were both in good terms with Britain after 1782-3), I now further disclose another "Saint Germain", ie Gioachino Cocchi, tentative alias: "Mirabeau (+1791)", whose origins and writings fit so well with Cocchi's other aliases and whose limited travel data and actions also fit my mastertimeline.

Thus "Mirabeau", alongside "marquis de Girardin" and "Comte de Saint Germain" in above article, does really implicate "them all" heavily in the French Revolution, the hideous execution of the Royal couple and the future candidacy of the duke d'Orlean line as King of France.

BUT

...my "Saint Germain" escaped to Russia and "his" duke d'Orlean (who supported "Saint Germain" and most of his aliases) was also executed later, was he not?

And most of his french relatives fled France(Caussin) while others were executed or imprisoned(Cochin, Cassini, Caussini), but some stayed and collaborated in printing the first french constitution among others (Causse).

And my "Saint Germain" was immensely rich while in France afterall, but was bankrupt, like France (and England) was, after the american independence war and had to pawn his estate, including his serfs, in Vyborg in 1786:

The first application was made in September 1786, when pomeshchiki of Kivennapa parish in the province of Vyborg General Fieldmarshal Count Ivan Petrovich Saltykov and his wife Dar'ia Petrovna Saltykova (neé Chernysheva) applied for permission to mortgage their peasants. http://www.lib.helsinki.fi/elektra/summary.html

And another equally or more dependable site on Strict Observance Rite http://www.oisot.com/Historique_SOT.php includes my hero (as Alexander Sergeyevich Stroganov-code name "ab Amiantho") but excludes Weishaupt and his Illuminati alltogether. (Includes Mozart too).

And yet another http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/robison-barruel.html absolves Mirabeau and Freemasonry from the French Revolution.

And no Royal House in their world at the time really wanted a democratic France, Britain included imo.

And he disaggreed with Necker

And "Mirabeau", whom I have myself accused early on in my research for complicity, did try to save the King and Queen of France but failed, didn' he?

And he ("G") had to "remove" his son, Paul I Tszar, for "modernising" ie siding with Rome and Napoleon ....

And introduced Capodistria to the Russian Court....

And Napoleon did then, 1812, attack his mentor's Russia....

And "G" is a Freemason symbol today....

So, "who was he working for?"

Winners write History, he never wrote his!

And lastly, do answer this rhetoric question: Who profited immensely from all 1774-1814 events (and from both sides), who was Weishaupt's true mentor in "philosophy" (or employer as you put it)?

Cheers.

(And btw Knigge decided to quit The Illuminati much earlier than the french revolution)

Musicology

01-29-2010, 12:38 PM

I focus exclusively on Mozart in the sense that he and the reality surrounding him is best studied by appreciating the social, political, religious, musical and other contexts of his times. Together with the motives and aims of his patrons. Mozart did not float dreamily through the late 18th century as a disembodied musical 'genius' in spite of the fairy story which says the opposite. The absurdities are obvious. Mozart's myth is the dumbing down of cultural/musical history adjusted to obtain control of music publishing and performance. To preside over the 'history of music' dominated by his cult and that of a few others, in the same way that corporations and vested interests preside over almost everything else within our society. And in Mozart's case this done in the name of 'his genius' by the trashing of musical and historical reality and repeated in the name of numerous other icons of our 'civilization'. Mozart's patrons were real people, heavily involved in inventing these reputations and in engineering and eventually controlling the fairy story of 'his' musical genius. As for reality, well, who would dare to question it ? The music is of such a quality that it tends to make such questions seem ridiculous. The Mozart project has certainly been extremely successful. But it succeeds because it seems unquestionable. Ask questions of its origins and start to examine the contexts which supposedly surrounded it and the whole story starts to crumble before you. Which is why 'experts' preside over it. Year after year. Without detailed criticism of the story or appreciation of the true origins of this music.

I haven't stopped talking of Mozart. I've tried to answer the questions you asked about the true context within which that reputation, that icon, was manufactured and propagated. Within which it came to dominate our 'education' in music. Involving as it did fraternities, empires, rulers and, of course, propagandists. So we are richer to have both sides to this story, and not just one. If that is not the case, and if that fact is not welcomed, then, 'Mozart studies' are the strangest variety of musicology that ever existed.

We live in an age where one thing, and only one thing, is unstoppable. Daylight. But nothing else is worth my time and talents or your own.

Regards

yanni

01-29-2010, 12:54 PM

To return to your Mozart and my Nissen then:

What year did Admiral Nelson bomb Copenhagen, do you recall?

And how was Danemark's (and later Sweden's) foreign policy affected thereby eversince, can you summarize?

Cheers!

Dinkleberry2010

01-29-2010, 01:12 PM

Everyone knows that Mozart was actually a red-haired, one-armed midget with one testicle who lived in the land of Nod. Nonsense, you say. Yes, I agree. It is nonsense.

Musicology

01-29-2010, 02:55 PM

I really didn't know that Jermac. And, unless I am mistaken, nobody has taught this for the last 200 years. Until you arrived, that is. It has not been conventionally taught and I am not aware of any evidence in support of it. Perhaps you can provide some and by this can convince us ? Nor do I see that 'everyone' believes it. Perhaps you are exaggerating, just a little ?

Is it possible that on these grounds alone you may be mistaken ?

As for nonsense, we wait to see your next post.

Regards

Everyone knows that Mozart was actually a red-haired, one-armed midget with one testicle who lived in the land of Nod. Nonsense, you say. Yes, I agree. It is nonsense.

Musicology

01-29-2010, 03:13 PM

The year was 1807, yes ? (Not 1801 as posted earlier).

As for policy etc. I do not know.

To return to your Mozart and my Nissen then:

What year did Admiral Nelson bomb Copenhagen, do you recall?

And how was Danemark's (and later Sweden's) foreign policy affected thereby eversince, can you summarize?

Cheers!

Musicology

01-29-2010, 05:09 PM

Yanni,

You may be interested to know that among the Illuminatists associated with Mozart’s last years was librettist and poet Karl Ludwig Metzler. Better known to posterity as geologist Gieseke. Who was born in Augsburg in 1761, the town of Leopold Mozart’s education. In fact some people credit Gieseke with writing the libretto for the opera ‘Die Zauberflote’ in 1791 and he had close association with theatre impressario and friend of Mozart in Vienna, Schickaneder before, in his later life, becoming a Professor of Geology at Dublin University in Ireland. He was also closely associated with the Vienna music publisher Hoffmeister. The true origins of Gieseke were unknown until the 20th century.

The reason Gieseke is significant is I’ve studied this person and his life and his almost unknown connection with Mozart‘s career. Part of which involves the following -

He certainly visited Copenhagen. In fact, he lived there in the first years of the 19th century. And was well connected there with leading Illuminatists and Freemasons.

During a visit to Greenland while on a search for commercial quantities of geological deposits came the news that his existing collections, books, records and belongings which had been left at the St. Petri’s Church vicarage in Copenhagen (where he had earlier stayed for some time) had been destroyed during the British bombardment of the Danish capital city (25th September 1807).

All the evidence strongly links Gieseke to fraternity groups across Europe (and in England). Including, of course, links to Born in Vienna in the 1890’s and others in Scotland, England, France and Germany. In fact,

http://www.uibk.ac.at/mineralogie/oemg/bd_146/146_451-479.pdf

So this must be the British bombardment of Copenhagen to which you are referring. Definitely linking us to Mozart, though in a strange way.

The attached painting by C. W. Eckersberg showing the spire of the Cathedral on fire during the British bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807. The Round Tower and the Trinitatis church complex to the left - survived the daily attacks on the city.

Rgds

Musicology

01-29-2010, 06:00 PM

J.S. Bach
Aria
Cantata 151

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJQt1f_5Nrw

yanni

01-30-2010, 04:12 AM

You are quite right: Danemark capitulated to Britain after the second bombardment (first against civilians) of Copenhagen of 1807* and not after Nelson's of 1801.

Which absolves “villain Mozart” (assuming he is Nissen, Danish consul in Tripoli who served until 1807 there) from eventual cooperation with Britain and confirms my previously expressed view that Mozart was “manufactured” , with "Gluck's" consent (and now iniative as well),to “hide” Cocchi's (+"Gluck's") work and identity ("Gluck", ie Gioachino Cocchi, served as French war minister by the title "comte de Saint Germain", 1777-8), and that Mozart (as both "Mozart,+1791" and "Nissen,+1826") cooperated in the process.

The same conclusion is actually reached through a more carefull study of Leroux’s 1910 Le Fantôme de l'Opéra (as I did yesterday, after googling for “Mozart alias" to be then guided again to the phantom: http://www.online-literature.com/leroux/)

Here is how, quoting from XII. Apollo's Lyre:

I am not an Angel, nor a genius, nor a ghost...I am Erik!'"

…a sofa in a simply furnished little bedroom, with an ordinary mahogany bedstead, lit by a lamp standing on the marble top of an old Louis-Philippe chest of drawers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Philippe_of_France strongly linking Louis Philippe, son of Louis d'Orlean (+1793), to “Gluck” and his family's history, and interpret then the symbolism: “lamp” on top of “chest of drawers”)

Erik said that he loved me, but that he would never tell me so except when I allowed him and that the rest of the time would be devoted to music. (Eric declaring he can now only communicate his love through music)

The walls were all hung with black, but, instead of the white trimmings that usually set off that funereal upholstery, there was an enormous stave of music with the notes of the dies irae, many times repeated.
(The symbolism here could not have been more clear: Why would Eric “hang” on the”darkness surrounding him”, ie curtains, his enormous stave of music, covered moreover by the notes of another man’s prayer???: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_(Mozart): A much debated "last piece", speaking for itself.Before jumping to conclusions however: France turned "reform Roman Catholic" AFTER Napoleon, ie it's Leroux's prayer for "G", not "G's" own. Very revealing neverthless. )

Then I saw the keyboard of an organ which filled one whole side of the walls. On the desk was a music-book covered with red notes. I asked leave to look at it and read, `Don Juan Triumphant.' `Yes,' he said, `I compose sometimes.' I began that work twenty years ago.
(1761: Christoph Willibald Gluck's and Gasparo Angiolini's ballet Don Juan
1787: Giovanni Bertati's opera Don Giovanni, music by Giuseppe Gazzaniga
1787: Lorenzo da Ponte's opera Don Giovanni, music by Mozart.
Leroux is telling his readers that “G” was forced to go “underground” as a musician because of his involvement in USA as “Chastellux”, 1781-1783 and, afterthat, Mozart "took over" .)

When I have finished, I shall take it away with me in that coffin and never wake up again.' `You must work at it as seldom as you can,' I said. He replied, `I sometimes work at it for fourteen days and nights together, during which I live on music only, and then I rest for years at a time.' `Will you play me something out of your Don Juan Triumphant?' I asked, thinking to please him. `You must never ask me that,' he said, in a gloomy voice. `I will play you Mozart, if you like, which will only make you weep; but my Don Juan, Christine, burns; and yet he is not struck by fire from Heaven.' Thereupon we returned to the drawing-room. I noticed that there was no mirror in the whole apartment. I was going to remark upon this, but Erik had already sat down to the piano. He said, `You see, Christine, there is some music that is so terrible that it consumes all those who approach it. Fortunately, you have not come to that music yet, for you would lose all your pretty coloring and nobody would know you when you returned to Paris. Let us sing something from the Opera, Christine Daae.' He spoke these last words as though he were flinging an insult at me."
We at once began the duet in Othello and already the catastrophe was upon us. I sang Desdemona with a despair, a terror which I had never displayed before. As for him, his voice thundered forth his revengeful soul at every note. Love, jealousy, hatred, burst out around us in harrowing cries. Erik's black mask made me think of the natural mask of the Moor of Venice. He was Othello himself. Suddenly, I felt a need to see beneath the mask. I wanted to know the face of the voice, and, with a movement which I was utterly unable to control, swiftly my fingers tore away the mask. Oh, horror, horror, horror!"

Notice the organ changing to piano, as above, and link the inflammatory power of Don Juan to opera in general and the Paris Opera in particular (the “barrels-barrels” of gunpowder in another part of Leroux’s work). There are more symbolisms allover (and have not even bothered studying the Othello-Desdemona story yet).

Gaston Leroux in fact confirms by his work another alias used by "G", ie "Bricaire de La Dixmerie" (ie "bricklayer of the tenth part"), orator of the Lodge Les Philalethes, already revealed by yourstruly elsewhere herein, as follows: Erik, tired of his nomadic life and wanting "live like everybody else", says that "for a time" he worked as a contractor, building "ordinary houses with ordinary bricks" to participate then in constructing the Palais Garnier, ie the Paris Opéra. LaDixmerie actually build with ordinary bricks but the "houses" he designed and constructed were not "ordinary" by nomeans, ie Leroux tactfully is not telling us the whole truth (and I follow in agreement).

Mozart first, and then Leroux and others, undertook to "immortalize" "Gluck's" music AND keep his identity secret (the phantom "remaining alive", ie "G's" secret hidden, as long as "Don Juan triumphant" is "unfinished" ie "not signed" by his creator)

There is more to follow on “Nissen”-Mozart, the task seeming superfluous however.

*The bombardment of Copenhagen came immediately after the treaty of Tilsit where Russia (Tszar Alexander I) promised eternal alliance with France and war against England.

The year was 1807, yes ? (Not 1801 as posted earlier).

As for policy etc. I do not know.

Musicology

01-30-2010, 11:08 AM

Yanni,

This theory of George Nissen (the second husband of W.A. Mozart) being Mozart himself in later life has a number of very interesting points in its favour. I've said so before and I encourage someone to research and write on this subject in more detail if they find conclusive evidence. But it remains my view that it does lack hard evidence. I first became aware of it around 5 years ago. The first I heard of it was from an American researcher, David R. Roell, who wrote to me on the subject.

http://www.astroamerica.com/mozart.html

That the entire career of Mozart involved diplomats, elite patrons, fraternal organisations, corrupt publishers and propagandists prepared to invent a fabulous story is itself a huge challenge so I have had no time to arrive at any detailed conclusion on this subject. It might be an idea for you to write to Mr Roell on it. As for myself, there are definitely some highly unusual aspects of the theory which strongly indicate that Nissen was part of the elaborate web of deceipt that surrounds the early biographies (so-called). Equally strange is the bogus biography by F.X. Niemetscheck of Prague (1797/8) a man who is proved to have lied about being acquainted with Mozart but who acted as a foster-father to one of Mozart's children after his death ! Niemetscheck's role in inventing the Mozart story is clear. As was the role of Prague as a whole. (The first edition of that 'biography' being bought up and destroyed by Constanze Mozart for some reason). The later collaboration between Nissen and Constanze on the second early biography (published just after Nissen's death) is another example of the same. In fact, in the early introduction to the 1st edition (which appeared in the early 1820's Constanze writes (and I paraphrase from memory) -

'To tell all the truth might do harm to his fame, to the success of his music'.

One of the great understatements of musical biography, for sure !

I can tell you for certain that of the nearly 800 works attributed to W.A. Mozart less than 144 were published in his lifetime. The vast majority of these being works credited to his childhood and youth, over which there is considerable evidence that he did not write them. And only around 40 works from the period (1782-1791) during the time of 'his' most creative period. Of the concertos published in his name only 4 of the 27 appeared. Of which we can see that none are by Mozart. Of the 50 or so symphonies only 4. And so on. Of the literally hundreds of other works, the vast majority appearing only after 1798. And so on. Not a single operatic score. etc. Despite the fact that, of course, the excellence of much of this music begs an explanation. So that was my priority, rather than further research on the identity of Nissen etc. After all, my own field is complex enough.

I believe there is evidence beyond fair and reasonable doubt that the operas of Mozart we know today were made by a series of talented composers who acted in tandem to make them what we know today. That without this network of 'patrons' and propagandists we would not have this music. And so, from this perspective there is no argument as to its extraordinary musical content. But plenty of argument on its origins and on how this was all achieved. And I think that when people see the evidence they will be able to arrive at the same conclusion.

It is the individualism of western culture which tends to create these icons of musical history. Removing (deliberately and also accidentally) the vital contexts of the times in which they lived. And giving the benefit of fair and reasonable doubts over and over again to the icons they have created. So that the rise of Mozart as a musical icon and the pantheon of 'great' composers is the result of a controlling hand within our culture. A sort of paganism, in fact, which poses as being 'scientific' but which, in fact, lacks any toleration for criticism.

To have studied this subject now for so many years (starting out as a firm believer in 'Mozart's genius' myself) and to have slowly arrived at these conclusions after detailed study of the 'source' documents was not easy. But you see for yourself the extent of academic 'control' on a whole series of Mozart questions. The Mozart industry is seen as virtually synonomous with 'musical expertise' although, in fact, it flounders whenever facts are pointed out. So we might say the rise of the modern music industry (from around 1800 onwards) was really the takeover of musicology itself, in the sense that from around that time rich elites and patrons virtually defined what was true and what was not. With minimal criticism. Writing and publishing fiction on a handful of their icons. And making us all ignorant of the social, political, religious, fraternal contexts of those times, the achievements of countless composers and all to control and preside over what appears in countless textbooks and publications. The clearest proof of this fact is found (as the founder of musicology, Forkel, said) in the ignorance, the amazing ignorance of the legacy of Bach, Vivaldi, and other composers by Vienna and Vienna music managers even as late as the time of Mozart.

But what is achieved to know this ? I suppose it achieves some understanding of the fact that great music is the product of a society, or of a group of people, rather than our pagan idea of individualistic idols and individual achievement. And it may be, that in some future time, this truth will become acceptable to those who study and write on music history. So that individualism and the cult of personality (which is subject to control, deception and exaggeration and which tends to dominate western culture more than anywhere else) will be laughed at and abandoned as we appreciate musical history with more honesty.

The input of others in the work of 'Mozart' (though flatly denied and concealed by a fairy story) may also be true of Bach himself. Since I for one would not rule out the possibility that his students (of which there were many) had a role in contributing to his own works. And why not ?

So that what is needed here is a fresh approach. And an end to mumbo jumbo, to mythology, and a return of integrity on this fascinating subject of music and its history.

Icons can be controlled. And have been. That is the Mozart story.

Musicology

01-30-2010, 11:30 AM

J.S. Bach
Cantata 177
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3VtZB-c3g

Musicology

01-30-2010, 12:34 PM

For sure, the alleged 'Mozart skull' is not that of Mozart. As is even agreed by the Mozarteum in Salzburg. So much for all the hyperbole !

An epitaph was published in 2 newspapers (The 'Wiener Zeitung', of Dec 31, 1791and the 'Grazer Burgerzeitung', Jan 3, 1792), translated from the original Latin which says -

TO MOZART
AN INSCRIPTION FOR HIS GRAVE
To Mozart, who rests here,
As a child, swelled the world's wonders
with the strings of his lyre;
As a man, he surpassed Orpheus himself.
Go hence! And pray earnestly for his soul!
[Signed] K.

But the mountain of evidence shows even the funeral story is a much later invention. There is no contemporary account of a funeral procession. There is only the documentary fact of a service held at the Vienna Cathedral on the day of the funeral, the tolling of bells, and the hire of a carriage. Not a single contemporary source speaks of the burial itself or of visiting the grave site. Indeed, many years later Constanze Mozart had still not visited the alleged site of her husband's grave at St Marx and was embarrased when this fact was pointed out to her. (She said she had no idea of its location). Which is strange, for sure. There were 10 funerals on that same day but the service at the Cathedral was not attended by her. The idea of the cortege turning back from the gates of the city because of inclement weather is itself an invention. That day (we know from weather records) was fine. As for the 'rehearsal' of the Requiem during the final days, that too is a 19th century fiction. As is the legend of the 'grey messenger'. It's all rather typical of the ability of people to believe in fiction. Had Mozart died suddenly of a 'fever' (which the official records show) his remains would not have been allowed into the cathedral in the first place. Since epidemics of the kind said to have killed him ruled out any such burial or burial service.

But there are many other lines of evidence showing that nothing is ever quite what it seems, even here. The cause of death is and has always been contradictory. But many people have said the same.

You are quite right: Danemark capitulated to Britain after the second bombardment (first against civilians) of Copenhagen of 1807* and not after Nelson's of 1801.

Which absolves “villain Mozart” (assuming he is Nissen, Danish consul in Tripoli who served until 1807 there) from eventual cooperation with Britain and confirms my previously expressed view that Mozart was “manufactured” , with "Gluck's" consent (and now iniative as well),to “hide” Cocchi's (+"Gluck's") work and identity ("Gluck", ie Gioachino Cocchi, served as French war minister by the title "comte de Saint Germain", 1777-8), and that Mozart (as both "Mozart,+1791" and "Nissen,+1826") cooperated in the process.

The same conclusion is actually reached through a more carefull study of Leroux’s 1910 Le Fantôme de l'Opéra (as I did yesterday, after googling for “Mozart alias" to be then guided again to the phantom: http://www.online-literature.com/leroux/)

Here is how, quoting from XII. Apollo's Lyre:

I am not an Angel, nor a genius, nor a ghost...I am Erik!'"

…a sofa in a simply furnished little bedroom, with an ordinary mahogany bedstead, lit by a lamp standing on the marble top of an old Louis-Philippe chest of drawers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Philippe_of_France strongly linking Louis Philippe, son of Louis d'Orlean (+1793), to “Gluck” and his family's history, and interpret then the symbolism: “lamp” on top of “chest of drawers”)

Erik said that he loved me, but that he would never tell me so except when I allowed him and that the rest of the time would be devoted to music. (Eric declaring he can now only communicate his love through music)

The walls were all hung with black, but, instead of the white trimmings that usually set off that funereal upholstery, there was an enormous stave of music with the notes of the dies irae, many times repeated.
(The symbolism here could not have been more clear: Why would Eric “hang” on the”darkness surrounding him”, ie curtains, his enormous stave of music, covered moreover by the notes of another man’s prayer???: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_(Mozart): A much debated "last piece", speaking for itself.Before jumping to conclusions however: France turned "reform Roman Catholic" AFTER Napoleon, ie it's Leroux's prayer for "G", not "G's" own. Very revealing neverthless. )

Then I saw the keyboard of an organ which filled one whole side of the walls. On the desk was a music-book covered with red notes. I asked leave to look at it and read, `Don Juan Triumphant.' `Yes,' he said, `I compose sometimes.' I began that work twenty years ago.
(1761: Christoph Willibald Gluck's and Gasparo Angiolini's ballet Don Juan
1787: Giovanni Bertati's opera Don Giovanni, music by Giuseppe Gazzaniga
1787: Lorenzo da Ponte's opera Don Giovanni, music by Mozart.
Leroux is telling his readers that “G” was forced to go “underground” as a musician because of his involvement in USA as “Chastellux”, 1781-1783 and, afterthat, Mozart "took over" .)

When I have finished, I shall take it away with me in that coffin and never wake up again.' `You must work at it as seldom as you can,' I said. He replied, `I sometimes work at it for fourteen days and nights together, during which I live on music only, and then I rest for years at a time.' `Will you play me something out of your Don Juan Triumphant?' I asked, thinking to please him. `You must never ask me that,' he said, in a gloomy voice. `I will play you Mozart, if you like, which will only make you weep; but my Don Juan, Christine, burns; and yet he is not struck by fire from Heaven.' Thereupon we returned to the drawing-room. I noticed that there was no mirror in the whole apartment. I was going to remark upon this, but Erik had already sat down to the piano. He said, `You see, Christine, there is some music that is so terrible that it consumes all those who approach it. Fortunately, you have not come to that music yet, for you would lose all your pretty coloring and nobody would know you when you returned to Paris. Let us sing something from the Opera, Christine Daae.' He spoke these last words as though he were flinging an insult at me."
We at once began the duet in Othello and already the catastrophe was upon us. I sang Desdemona with a despair, a terror which I had never displayed before. As for him, his voice thundered forth his revengeful soul at every note. Love, jealousy, hatred, burst out around us in harrowing cries. Erik's black mask made me think of the natural mask of the Moor of Venice. He was Othello himself. Suddenly, I felt a need to see beneath the mask. I wanted to know the face of the voice, and, with a movement which I was utterly unable to control, swiftly my fingers tore away the mask. Oh, horror, horror, horror!"

Notice the organ changing to piano, as above, and link the inflammatory power of Don Juan to opera in general and the Paris Opera in particular (the “barrels-barrels” of gunpowder in another part of Leroux’s work). There are more symbolisms allover (and have not even bothered studying the Othello-Desdemona story yet).

Gaston Leroux in fact confirms by his work another alias used by "G", ie "Bricaire de La Dixmerie" (ie "bricklayer of the tenth part"), orator of the Lodge Les Philalethes, already revealed by yourstruly elsewhere herein, as follows: Erik, tired of his nomadic life and wanting "live like everybody else", says that "for a time" he worked as a contractor, building "ordinary houses with ordinary bricks" to participate then in constructing the Palais Garnier, ie the Paris Opéra. LaDixmerie actually build with ordinary bricks but the "houses" he designed and constructed were not "ordinary" by nomeans, ie Leroux tactfully is not telling us the whole truth (and I follow in agreement).

Mozart first, and then Leroux and others, undertook to "immortalize" "Gluck's" music AND keep his identity secret (the phantom "remaining alive", ie "G's" secret hidden, as long as "Don Juan triumphant" is "unfinished" ie "not signed" by his creator)

There is more to follow on “Nissen”-Mozart, the task seeming superfluous however.

*The bombardment of Copenhagen came immediately after the treaty of Tilsit where Russia (Tszar Alexander I) promised eternal alliance with France and war against England.

yanni

01-30-2010, 02:07 PM

This theory of George Nissen (the second husband of W.A. Mozart) being Mozart himself in later life has a number of very interesting points in its favour. I've said so before and I encourage someone to research and write on this subject in more detail if they find conclusive evidence. But it remains my view that it does lack hard evidence. I first became aware of it around 5 years ago. The first I heard of it was from an American researcher, David R. Roell, who wrote to me on the subject.

http://www.astroamerica.com/mozart.html

You are referring to “The Life, Death and Life of Wolfgang Mozart”, David R. Roell (July 24, 2009,Minor edits, August 25, 2009)" aren't you?

I can but take your word for Mr Roell's "five year ago discovery", while noting in parallel his article came online some seven months after my first post on Leroux's phantom identity herein (January 2009).

It seems to me furthermore, Mr Roell did not exhaust himself (or all available "Nissen" online info) while writing it, concluding early on in his research...

Were there two Nicholas Nissens? Both Danish diplomats? Both serving in the first decade of the nineteenth century? One in Tripoli? One in Vienna?

…to then proceed on the "two Nissen" approach and compare Mozart and Nissen portraits for similarity (chosing however not the best of Mozart's portraits to compare with Nissen's) and to finally leave the matter "open" but for the title.

How did he anage to discover a second Nissen and mislead himself, his article and his readers?

Hard evidence is available proving that: The one and only Nissen actually served in Tripoli 1801 to first half of 1807 (and then returned to Vienna and his (Mozart's) wife, in 1809, as Mozart's story goes, ie indicating strongly that Mozart is Nissen!.

Let us so bypass Mr Roell and his worthy article:

"Hard evidence is needed" you write, to then let ago another burst of complaints on available "Mozart data" and their value as sources....

BUT

....not a word, not a comment , not a question (you tactic by now familiar to readers) on Leroux's view of Mozart, fully confirming my early views on the provenance of Mozart's music since the beginning of this thread as well as "Nissen's" true identity.

Well, I have news for you:

All along during my "Two works by Poe decoded" online research published herein, I have been "honouring" sources for their "trustworthiness" accordingly, coming to the conclusion, and publishing it too, that as concerns 18th-19th century, literature is a much more dependable source for today's research, provided the right interpretation of a work is done through parallel study of history.

You have not or could not follow it thru? Pitty, because my next "hard evidence presentation" on Mozart-Nissen strongly relates to this study and I have no intention to repeat the whole thing again, for your or Mozart's sake.
(A timeline is needed comparing the parallel diplomatic appointments of Nissen and Cocchi's "greek" and russian relatives-Caussin de Perceval and Stroganov- serving as Russia's consuls or Embassadors in Hydra and Constantinople- a long work proving hierarchy and comparing rank, covering the time of french-russian alliance, 1801-1807, including almost simultaneous decommisioning of all concerned post Tilsit. "Nissen" remained a francophile all along.While Nissen was in Tripoli, a hydrian boat belonging to "Anastasy Cocchini" was taken captive by Barbary's corsairs and was held for some six months, sailors included, in parallel to the similar capture of an american ship. Nissen tried his best for the americans and Decatur , then very friendly with Hydra as "Poe decoded" readers know. He surely did the same or more for the hydrians).

As such:

Leroux for me is more than enough and should be for you too, so do try blessing your readers with your own views on his "phantom" AND your;) manufactured Mozart.

Don't you ask yourself already " how silly of Yanni to leave out of his interpretation the phantom's mask covering "four eyes" and what they mean?"

I am sure you know already or can easily find the answer!

This is basicaly a literature site, perhaps not the right place for a parade of Mr Bins spilling their beans to the wrong customer, as "scholarly practice" demands.

Cheers.

Musicology

01-30-2010, 03:15 PM

Yanni,

I have given you my view and it's not based simply on what you have written, interesting though that is. In point of fact there are various books and publications of the early 19th century which say similar things. At least in respect of saying Mozart's career was one giant falsification. But neither you nor I would consider them, interesting as they are, as proof of anything. They are, at best, views which happen to have some merit. But the proof of it remains for you and others to provide. It is not my view that this theory is convincing.

If your view was to be judged by a fair and reasonable audience on the grounds you have so far argued would that jury find 'beyond reasonable doubt' that G. Nissen was the same person as W.A. Mozart ? I think not. In fact I am sure they would not. Which is all I am saying. I believe this issue deserves to be studied in more detail and have said so. The most recent time was earlier today. And I've posted an article (yesterday) connecting Gieseke with Denmark. On which you have so far said nothing.

I am open to being convinced on most things. This is no exception. But please do not assume you have proved anything merely by quoting lines from a publication intended for stage performance. In such a case one can 'prove' anything.

I have somewhere in my papers MANY better proofs (made around 2 years ago) in support of your own thesis on Nissen (and that of David Roell) although, even with them it would be necessary to secure samples of Nissen's handwriting and carefully examine the career of Nissen prior to 1807 before one can reasonably claim to have found convincing evidence. But these I will not produce or discuss here. Not because I am being unsociable but because my focus is on the musical career of Mozart before 1791 and not on the fascinating question of whether Nissen was one and the same person as Mozart.

It would be possible to share these notes with you in due course if you were interested in researching that subject in more detail. It's a fascinating theory. But my own work is controversial enough and is very time consuming and I doubt that what I have is conclusive. As already said.

Regards

yanni

01-30-2010, 03:30 PM

A "four eyed", yet still empty, answer.

Cheers!

Yanni,

I have given you my view and it's not based simply on what you have written, interesting though that is. In point of fact there are various books and publications of the early 19th century which say similar things. At least in respect of saying Mozart's career was one giant falsification. But neither you nor I would consider them, interesting as they are, as proof of anything. They are, at best, views which happen to have some merit. But the proof of it remains for you and others to provide. It is not my view that this theory is convincing.

If your view was to be judged by a fair and reasonable audience on the grounds you have so far argued would that jury find 'beyond reasonable doubt' that G. Nissen was the same person as W.A. Mozart ? I think not. In fact I am sure they would not. Which is all I am saying. I believe this issue deserves to be studied in more detail and have said so. The most recent time was earlier today. And I've posted an article (yesterday) connecting Gieseke with Denmark. On which you have so far said nothing.

I am open to being convinced on most things. This is no exception. But please do not assume you have proved anything merely by quoting lines from a publication intended for stage performance. In such a case one can 'prove' anything.

I have somewhere in my papers MANY better proofs (made around 2 years ago) in support of your own thesis on Nissen (and that of David Roell) although, even with them it would be necessary to secure samples of Nissen's handwriting and carefully examine the career of Nissen prior to 1807 before one can reasonably claim to have found convincing evidence. But these I will not produce or discuss here. Not because I am being unsociable but because my focus is on the musical career of Mozart before 1791 and not on the fascinating question of whether Nissen was one and the same person as Mozart.

It would be possible to share these notes with you in due course if you were interested in researching that subject in more detail. It's a fascinating theory. But my own work is controversial enough and is very time consuming and I doubt that what I have is conclusive. As already said.

Regards

Musicology

01-30-2010, 04:35 PM

Yanni,

All I mean is we don't need to be obscure with our evidence. We just need to see where reality breaks the surface. And it does.

An example. In February 1786 (a few months before the premiere of Le Nozze di Figaro) there was a music concert held outside Vienna where two new, one-act operas were performed. For a large overseas contingent of dignitaries/visitors. One of these works was attributed to Mozart and the other to Antonio Salieri.

That of Mozart was 'Die Schauspieldirekor' (The Impresario) and the other was Salieri's 'Prima la musica e poi le parole', also called Prima la musica, poi le parole' The libretto to the second was written by Giovanni Battista Casti.

In the Salieri opera what we see (and its text was by Italian librettist Casti) is nothing less than a mockery of Mozart. In fact, it's one big exposure of Mozart. Right on the stage. This same Casti is here satirising the common theft of music by composers. Even introducing a figure on stage who is described as an '***'. A mockery of Mozart. In fact. Those within the music profession in Vienna could not have failed to understand what Casti and Salieri were actually saying in that production. Casti's satire even continued in his later writings. (An Italian music friend of mine pointed this out - Luca Bianchini).

Alongside this event on the same day was the premiere there of 'Mozart's' 'Impresario'. Whose action is set in Salzburg. But that music is of very poor quality. The only worthwhile stuff is the overture and two arias, neither by Mozart. Amazing to believe this composer is said to be the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' of only a few months later. But there it is. (Count Zinzendorf, music diarist of the time said Mozart's music here was poor stuff. And so it is).

So, by all means, if there is convincing evidence for the Nissen theory, great. The problem is Mozart is a very major figure and your argument needs to be very strong if you are really going to argue in this way. I still think there is more to discover on this Nissen theory.

Regards

yanni

01-31-2010, 12:36 AM

What Mozart or Salieri did or did not do with "Gluck's" music archive matters no more, present day obscuritists are the issue from now on:

You wrote earlier that Roell came to the idea that Mozart was Nissen five yeares ago and you have been in contact with him eversince, your long colaboration resulting in producing two (hah-hah), instead of the one and only, Nissen/Mozart, having rushed to this literature site, almost simultaneously with Roell's publication, planning all along to implant doubt and contradiction through this highly suspect and hastily made "two Nissen" fabrication, both appearing however seven whole months after my Opera Phantom Thread was first introduced herein.

“The Life, Death and Life of Wolfgang Mozart”, David R. Roell (July 24, 2009,Minor edits, August 25, 2009)"

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"Keep walking"!

Musicology

01-31-2010, 09:30 AM

No I didn't say I've been in contact with Mr Roell 'ever since'. You are inventing things I never said. Please read more carefully what I wrote. I had two or three email exchanges with Mr Roell (as said before). I suggested he needed more evidence and that he needed to get samples of Nissen's handwriting. These should be easy to obtain. But, as for the theory itself, if you believe it has merits you should be busy finding more proofs in its support. Which I would encourage. Since the theory itself is interesting.

I am glad we sorted that out ! There has been no long-term contact and your imagination seems to be getting the better of you. But why not write to Roell yourself ?

Your 'opera phantom thread' came 7 months earlier than Roell's ? Great. You should collaborate. Since he is presenting very different but complementary arguments, isn't he ? You surely agree about that. What's the problem, exactly ? You both deserve credit for the very different things you have done on that theory. There are many other lines of evidence which indicate the same thing. But they remain undeveloped. And they will remain undeveloped if you do not see that much more work needs to be done on them. Don't look for credit. Look for answers. That's my considered view.

What Mozart or Salieri did or did not do with "Gluck's" music archive matters no more, present day obscuritists are the issue from now on:

You wrote earlier that Roell came to the idea that Mozart was Nissen five yeares ago and you have been in contact with him eversince, your long colaboration resulting in producing two (hah-hah), instead of the one and only, Nissen/Mozart, having rushed to this literature site, almost simultaneously with Roell's publication, planning all along to implant doubt and contradiction through this highly suspect and hastily made "two Nissen" fabrication, both appearing however seven whole months after my Opera Phantom Thread was first introduced herein.

“The Life, Death and Life of Wolfgang Mozart”, David R. Roell (July 24, 2009,Minor edits, August 25, 2009)"

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"Keep walking"!

yanni

01-31-2010, 11:35 AM

What Mozart or Salieri did or did not do with "Gluck's" music archive matters no more, present day obscuritists are the issue from now on:

You wrote earlier that Roell came to the idea that Mozart was Nissen five yeares ago and you have been exchanging email with him occasionaly eversince, your whatever colaboration resulting in producing two Nissens (hah-hah), instead of the one and only Nissen/Mozart, having rushed to this literature site, almost simultaneously with Roell's publication, planning all along to implant doubt and contradiction through this highly suspect and hastily made "two Nissen" fabrication, both appearing however seven whole months after my Opera Phantom Thread was first introduced herein.

“The Life, Death and Life of Wolfgang Mozart”, David R. Roell (July 24, 2009,Minor edits, August 25, 2009)"

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"U'Mosar haAdam min haBeheima ayin."

"Keep walking"!

yanni

01-31-2010, 12:00 PM

“Je crois vous avoir écrit quel le petit Mosar est ici, et qu’il est moins miracle, quoiqu’il soit toujours le même miracle, mais il ne sera jamais qu’un miracle, et puis voilà tout.”
http://www.fondazionepergolesispontini.com/italiano/content/view/1134/47/lang,italian/

Adieu encore. Je vous embrasse, en dépit du scandale de Panurge et de tous les envieux de notre tendre correspondance .

From Naples to Mme d'Epinay, 7th July 1770!

"keep walking"

:lol:

Musicology

01-31-2010, 01:33 PM

Yanni,

The Nissen theory deserves more work. If you want to work more on it, fine.

As for the 'Manufacture of Mozart', my own research began back in the mid 1990's. And in the last 10 years I've been specially busy on it. During which time I have corresponded with dozens and dozens of people. Archivists, librarians, musicologists and many, many other writers and others. Twice or three times to Mr Roell, who had mentioned my own research on his website. That is all.

In point of fact I have been posting on this subject of Mozart to many, many websites long before this one. Years before, in fact.

What matters ? Reality is what matters. Not obscurantism or anything else.

I do not know what you mean about 'Gluck's musical archive'. Why don't you tell us ? Because, so far, you have really told us nothing on that subject. And you've also told us nothing of Mozart and Salieri's supposed role in 'Gluck's musical archive'. As usual. Aren't you being, well, 'obscurantist' in your posts ?

You have the habit of refering to things which nobody (least of all myself) have ever heard of. Why not tell us. So that we can avoid obscurantism completely.

Regards

What Mozart or Salieri did or did not do with "Gluck's" music archive matters no more, present day obscuritists are the issue from now on:

You wrote earlier that Roell came to the idea that Mozart was Nissen five yeares ago and you have been exchanging email with him occasionaly eversince, your whatever colaboration resulting in producing two Nissens (hah-hah), instead of the one and only Nissen/Mozart, having rushed to this literature site, almost simultaneously with Roell's publication, planning all along to implant doubt and contradiction through this highly suspect and hastily made "two Nissen" fabrication, both appearing however seven whole months after my Opera Phantom Thread was first introduced herein.

“The Life, Death and Life of Wolfgang Mozart”, David R. Roell (July 24, 2009,Minor edits, August 25, 2009)"

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"U'Mosar haAdam min haBeheima ayin."

"Keep walking"!

Musicology

01-31-2010, 01:53 PM

This is much more interesting !

Yes, Mme d'Epinay, partner of Baron Grimm, and of Rousseau. Here in 1770 already closely associated with promoting the 'miracle' of Mozart. In this letter a private joke by repeating the word 'miracle' in connection with Mozart because that was the project they were involved in.

But what of Abbe Galiani of Naples ? What can you tell us of him ?

It's a fascinating letter, for sure.

“Je crois vous avoir écrit quel le petit Mosar est ici, et qu’il est moins miracle, quoiqu’il soit toujours le même miracle, mais il ne sera jamais qu’un miracle, et puis voilà tout.”
http://www.fondazionepergolesispontini.com/italiano/content/view/1134/47/lang,italian/

Adieu encore. Je vous embrasse, en dépit du scandale de Panurge et de tous les envieux de notre tendre correspondance .

From Naples to Mme d'Epinay, 7th July 1770!

"keep walking"

:lol:

Musicology

01-31-2010, 02:42 PM

Abbe Galiani, another part of the jigsaw puzzle of the 'Enlightenment'. Poet, librettist, economist. Closely associated with the Encyclopaedists of Paris. With Grimm, d'Epinay etc. etc. Most of his works were published in Naples. Connections with British East India Company in London and with the aristocracy of Britain via Paris and Venice. Interestingly -

Opera by -

Giovanni Paisiello (1740-1816) - (Jesuit educated composer and close associate of Mozart in Vienna etc).
'Socrate Immaginario' (1775) - Premiered Naples
Text partly by Abbe Galiani (1728-1787)

yanni

02-01-2010, 02:12 AM

Have been telling you all along, you just don't want to (or are not properly equipped to) hear:

The Opera phantom and Mozart!
________________________________________
Mozart in Paris (Timeline 1777-1779)

(To examine and interpret bearing in mind that “Augustin Henri Cochin, Louis Claude Dupin de Franceuil , Marquis de Girardin, Melchior Grimm, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Rousseau, Claude Louis comte de Saint Germain, Myslivecek, Pierre Michel Hennin, Alexandre Strogonoff, Nicolas Bricaire de La Dixmerie, Chevalier La Luzerne, Marquis de Chastellux, abbe Galiani, abbe Raynal ”, "Baron de Bache" or "Bagge" etc etc are all aliases of Gioachino Cocchi ie "the phantom" and that “Conrad Alexandre Gérard de Rayneval” was, most propably, a blood relative of his-See other relevant threads in this site).
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=669725
(Durazzo, Gleichen and de Magnaville are included in the etc's.)

Your "manufactured Mozart" can only be "unlocked" by this one and only "key" above.

I have given it to you from the beginning and have been furthermore demonstrating eversince how well it "functions"!

What you think or do with it is up to you, for me the "Manufactured Mosar" case has closed, my curiosity already long satisfied.

Your interpretation of Galiani and D'Epinay "promoting Mozart", is a half truth: "Galiani" writes that he does not believe in miracles and that the little "man" ("mosar" in hebrew) will never ever be "great", c'est tout.

By "pure coincidence", Comte de Saint Germain, the alchemist, as well as "Baron von Gleichen" were seen in Naples that very same summer of 1770:

Battle of Chesme (5 July – 7 July 1770) and the Battle of Kagul (21 July 1770).

SG, July 1770:

It would appear that he then travelled with the Graf von Lamberg, for in a paper published at Florence Le notizie del Mondo (July, 1770), under the heading "News of the World," we find the following paragraph:--p. 48 "TUNIS, July 1770."The Comte Maximilian de Lamberg, 1 Chamberlain of M.M.L.L. II. and RR. having paid a visit to the Island of Corsica to make various investigations, has been staying here since the end of June, in company with the Signor de St. Germain, celebrated in Europe for the vastness of his political and philosophical knowledge."

Gleichen…. am 13. Juli nach Neapel versetzt und damit unverkennbar ein paar Stufen tiefer in der diplomatischen Rangordnung gestellt worden. Gleichwol gefiel sich G. in Neapel in der Gesellschaft Galiani8 so gut, daß er eine Weile Vorhatte, sich dort anzukaufen;

Mme d’Épinay à Galiani, le 17 7bre 1770, dans Correspondance de Ferdinando Galiani et Louise d’Épinay, t. I, Iettre XXVII. D’Epinay introduces “locataire C-p-Savalette de Magnanville

As for "Gluck's" huge music archive: Find your misplaced imagination first, and then go back to my words on "Caccini-Cocchi-Gluck-Grimm-Rousseau- Hennin-Chastellux-Myskivecek-Durazzo" etc in this thread.

Adieu encore. Je vous embrasse, en dépit du scandale de Panurge et de tous les envieux de notre tendre correspondance .
(From Naples to Mme d'Epinay, 7th July 1770!)

Cheers.

,

This is much more interesting !

Yes, Mme d'Epinay, partner of Baron Grimm, and of Rousseau. Here in 1770 already closely associated with promoting the 'miracle' of Mozart. In this letter a private joke by repeating the word 'miracle' in connection with Mozart because that was the project they were involved in.

But what of Abbe Galiani of Naples ? What can you tell us of him ?

It's a fascinating letter, for sure.

Musicology

02-01-2010, 08:37 AM

Yanni,

You will, from time to time, come across people who know their subject as well, if not better than yourself. This is my experience, at least.

I don't think it's helpful to say I'm not interested in your view when pages of posts here prove the opposite. These persons you have mentioned in connection with your 'Phantom of the Opera' idea are all well known to me. They are, to you aliases of one man, Cocchi. But you must credit the fact that others besides you have examined these issues in detail whose views are of value besides your own. So what you know is useful, but not as useful as your ability to have a respectful conversation without accusing others of being obscure. More important is the fact that all these people you refer to in your article played a role in Mozart's career. And so, aliases to one side, I have no difficulty on this issue. We see, without a shadow of a doubt, the 'Enlightenment' consists of a network of people whose background and whose purpose was to serve the elites of Europe. Who had links with the British Empire, France, Italy etc.

Would it not be obvious arrogance to assume you are always right ?

Let me give you a simple proof of the dubiousness of your Cocchi theory, just on this issue of Abbe Galiani. One of his supposed 'aliases'.

There is an author named Gaetano Amalfi who can perhaps teach you something. In Turin in 1888 he published a book entitled. 'Dubbi sul Galiani'. You may be interested to know the sub-title of Amalfi's book is rather relevant to us, ' On the authorship of various works attributed to Abbe Galiani'. Which you may not like to know about although it calls in to question much of what this Abbe Galiani supposedly wrote and published. In fact, I have many proofs of the same view from other sources. Amalfi says Abbe Galiani wrote few of the works attributed to him. That various other authors were involved. If you get a copy of his book and read it you will see your countless aliases for the same person (Cocchi) cannot possibly be correct. Here in the one case of Abbe Galiani the facts simply do not support the view you are teaching. Is it not better you learn a little humility in what you are teaching so stridently ? Since you profit and I profit only by sharing evidence ?

Anyway, I say so because you have the habit of insisting you are right and that nobody knows of this subject but you. And because I think truth is between us on this issue and is available to be appreciated by us both. With a certain humility.

Regards

yanni

02-01-2010, 09:36 AM

....and Bob's your uncle!

The subject is for me closed.

Musicology

02-01-2010, 10:50 AM

The subject is not closed but your willingness to talk of it is. Let us not confuse the two things.

Here is a copy of Amalfi's book in the British Library -

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/P11A8NYI65AATURTG7ACT3YEQ85FPIN6JVKMCGRJBRYEA4G4MC-53782?func=full-set-set&set_number=119157&set_entry=000089&format=999

Regards

Musicology

02-01-2010, 02:28 PM

Yanni,

Since we've finished our conversation on the reality of the 'Englightement' network that surrounded Mozart (which I believe was not a network of one person but many) here are several other publication references showing clearly that Abbe Galiani was associated with Jacobin, Illuminatist, 'Englightenment' interests and associated with the mercantile Empire of Britain in various of 'his' publications dealing with economics and trade. This besides being linked with music via composers such as Giovanni Paisiello etc. Starting with reference to a book discussing his Illuminatist contacts.

Celesia, Pietro Paolo.: 'L'illuminismo a Genova' :lettere di P.P. Celesia a F. Galiani /[a cura di] Salvatore Rotta.. Firenze : La nuova Italia, [1973? -1975?].

//

PANAREO, Salvatore.: '' Giovanni Paisiello in Russia'. (Dalle sue lettere al Galiani.)..
pp. 44. Trani, 1910..

//

LUCCHESI-PALLI, Ferdinando, Count.: Principes du Droit public maritime, et histoire de plusieurs traités qui s'y rapportent ... Ouvrage traduit de l'Italien par J. A. de Galiani..Paris, 1842..

//

MORELLET, André. Title Réfutation de l’ouvrage [by F. Galiani] qui a pour titre Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds. [By A. Morellet.] Publisher/year Londres, 1770. Physical descr. pp. 8, 360. 8º. General note The imprint is false. Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds.][/U] Dialogues entre M. marquis de Roquemaure, et Ms. le chevalier Zanobi. The autograph manuscript of the Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds, diplomatically edited with introduction, notes and appendices by Philip Koch.

///

GALEOTA, Onofrio, pseudonym. [i.e. Ferdinando Galiani.] Title Spaventosissima descrizione dello spaventoso spavento che ci spaventò tutti coll’eruzione del Vesuvio la sera delli otto d’Agosto del corrente anno ma ... durò poco. Di D. O. G. Poeta, e Filosofo all’Impronto. Publisher/year Napoli,

//

Torrice :dall'Epoca del Cardinal Mendoza a quella dell'Abate Galiani (secc. XVII-XVIII) : Convegno : Papers..Comune di Torrice Editore, 1989..

//
GALIANI, Aurelio.: Vincenzo Galiani nella congiura giacobina del 1794. Conferenza, etc..pp. 51. Montoro, 192

///

DIODATI, Luigi.: 'Vita dell'abate Ferdinando Galiani, regio consigliere, &c. &c. &c.. Napoli, 1788..

Regards

///

yanni

02-02-2010, 04:23 AM

Your "soup" (list of works by or on various Galianis) only proves your predetermination to reach "inescapable conclusions" .....and avoid historic facts not to your liking.

For Ferdinando Galiani's (and "his brother" Bernando's) attempts in establishing their "local" genealogy, see:

http://denatalesifola.altervista.org/index2.php#_ftn119

For the Kingdom of "Two Sicilies", their King Ferdinando IV, their primeminister Tanucci (Galianis' close "associate") and their foreign policy, see Wikipedia.

Mozart was never "surrounded" by anybody in his lifetime: Galiani and Grimm "both" rejected him as a suitable future opera composer, contrary to his father Leopold's hopes. How exactly he later came to "Gluck's'" archive is unknown, yet the logic behind it, to maintain Comte De Saint Germain's real life identity secret, points to the answer and so does my "Two works by Poe decoded".

Musicology

02-02-2010, 06:22 AM

Yanni,

You have done some remarkable research on a series of issues that are close to the reality of Mozart. The very fact you have examined the careers of people like Cocchi and Galiani is proof of that. These are names which hardly appear in Mozart material and I know how difficult it is to examine any such material in any detail. But the same is true of the patrons, publishers and propagandists of Mozart's life, career and status as a whole. Here in England there are a number of music journalists and writers who encourage deeper study of such things. One is Norman Lebrecht. In his, 'When the Music Stops' he writes -

'The history of music is usually studied from its creative aspect - how masterpieces of western culture came in to being, how composers advanced the state of the art, how major works were received. The underside is rarely discussed - who paid for the music, who profited, who organised it, and why. The history of the music business is a half-glimpsed enigma, unknown to modern managers and undiscussed in polite society. The term itself is impolite, invoking images of fat, ash-flecked agents in loud suits. The truth is necessarily more complex. Some of the most successful operators practiced an almost saintly devotion to artists and their art. Others were outright villains, in it for what they could get. Both types took the greatest care to cover their traces. The music business imposes a stringent vow of silence that is designed to protect the myth of the immaculate artist'.

('Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music - When the Music Stops' - Norman Lebrecht - 1996)

You say Mozart was never surrounded by anyone in his lifetime. I beg to differ. He was virtually never alone throughout his entire lifetime. And, as an example, in the last years of his life, his home was like a railway station, visited by men who suddenly appeared to dominate his life. The composer Sussmayr is one example. Abbe Maximilian Stadler (who went on to become Constanze's 'adviser' and the editor of various musical works) another. Both of whom play a prominent 'minding' role in those last few years'. The court case with Prince Lichnowsky near the end of his life is another case. There was, in fact, no time in Mozart's life when he was alone. He was very closely managed. The sheer number of names in the documents is amazing. Reading like a reference book of 18th century elitism. I do not know a single reference in all of Mozart's correspondence where he refers to nature. Not one. Not a single reference. And this from a person who spent a huge part of his short life travelling across Europe. And this, up until 1781, under the protection of his father. In Vienna he was surrounded by 'friends' who appear from almost nowhere. He lives as a 'celebrity' and yet he is not a celebrity at all. The contradictions and paradoxes are obvious. I think it is very clear that Mozart was surrounded by managers and minders virtually all the way through his life. He is, beyond doubt, the best documented composer of western musical history. And the sheer number of names, characters refered to and met, talked to, etc. is almost ludicrously long. With what does this correspondence compare ? Except, perhaps, the writings of a Casanova. A Casanova who, we learn, helped with the libretto to 'Don Giovanni' for Prague. etc.

No, I can't agree he was a free man. This is the life and career of an exploited individual. A candidate chosen virtually before his birth to play a role. Which he willingly did. Managed till 1787 by his father.

It is my view that these meetings, these tours, these relationships cannot reasonably be explained without the existence of a huge network across western Europe of the time. Into which Mozart was inducted. Aristocrats and fraternity members, the most improbable acclaim and achievement. His itineraries alone so improbable, the welcomes received so contrived, and the logistics of 18th century travel in this way so ridiculous that nobody would have made them or attempted to make them without considerable planning in advance. The name-dropping correspondence testifies to this. Names which, on closer study, tell a very different story about Herr Mozart's mythical talents. And yet, of course, the testimonies exist. The glowing references. The hyperbole. Written, in virtually every case, by his fraternal friends.

I have real respect for your work. We may, in the end, be saying the same thing. From different perspectives.

Your "soup" (list of works by or on various Galianis) only proves your predetermination to reach "inescapable conclusions" .....and avoid historic facts not to your liking.

For Ferdinando Galiani's (and "his brother" Bernando's) attempts in establishing their "local" genealogy, see:

http://denatalesifola.altervista.org/index2.php#_ftn119

For the Kingdom of "Two Sicilies", their King Ferdinando IV, their primeminister Tanucci (Galianis' close "associate") and their foreign policy, see Wikipedia.

Mozart was never "surrounded" by anybody in his lifetime: Galiani and Grimm "both" rejected him as a suitable future opera composer, contrary to his father Leopold's hopes. How exactly he later came to "Gluck's'" archive is unknown, yet the logic behind it, to maintain Comte De Saint Germain's real life identity secret, points to the answer and so does my "Two works by Poe decoded".

yanni

02-02-2010, 07:09 AM

Never said Mozart was a free man: He was hard pressed, from early childhood, like most "child miracles" still are and, as far as his life as an adult is concerned, the "surrounding" you are referring to must be attributed both to his introduction to Freemasonry, as well as to his inheriting of "Gluck's" archive and, most propably, his "reform opera composer" ring as well (with "Gluck" desperately seeking to get rid not just of his "Gluck" identity but also of his real one,Cocchi, linking him to Concino Concini and putting in danger the "secret" of the french royal bloodline. Propably he was blackmailed and had to "trade").

Mozart's "death" is linked to Austria's loss of Marie Antoinette and was propably arranged with assistance from french diplomatic agencies. His appointment in (bottom of the barrel for diplomats) Tripoli, as "Nissen", is a measure of their esteem at the time to his person.

Cheers.

Musicology

02-02-2010, 08:20 AM

If we examine the musical autographs of 'Mozart's' music (which, after all, has its own story to tell) we begin to find things as strange as those we are now discussing in biography.

It's not just the fact that the first few dozen symphonies lack any evidence of being attributable to Mozart. Massive a fact though that is. It's not even that the first 7 concertos are actually arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and others. Or that entire operas were falsely attributed to him. And that his Vienna reputation as a famous virtuoso and performer is an invention. All of these are able to shown without much difficulty. The problem is to know where, if at all, this record of fakery, exaggeration and wholesale musical fraud ended, if at all. Since the musical 'autographs' each have their own story. The discrepancies are massive. They extend in to the works of 'his' last decade. In fact, they are almost predictable. Detailed study of the actual music score of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' used for the premiere, in Vienna, in May 1786, for example. Now, surely, surely, this 'has' to be by Mozart, yes ? But, amazingly, there is not a single published study of that score. And never has been. The first ever made (by Bianchini/Trombetta a few years ago and made with the help of a very expensive microfiche bought from the Austrian National Library) shows the most crude errors, almost impossible parts, the whole work being virtually unperformable. But this score (just to illustrate) is not rubbish. It is a special kind of document. It exists in 2 parts for some strange reason at that library. And, when we examine it very closely from a musical point of view we find it to be an arrangement of music which already existed. This we are able to know because there are various other early scores of the time that lead us to this conclusion. The text (attributed to Lorenzo da Ponte) is in Italian. But it is an Italian which, in this Vienna score, does not fit well in to the music. It is a clumsy translation. So that what we are seeing here is a musical adaption of a work which already existed. In German. Which da Ponte has made for Vienna performance. Corresponding with proof (found in Frankfurt) that this opera existed before 'Mozart' composed it. That what we are seeing here from 'Kapellmeister Mozart' is really an arrangement made of already existing music that was premiered in his name in Vienna and so poor in text and arrangement that it was hissed off the stage after a few performances. The truth of this buried under the fact that it was rapidly revised and re-edited in Prague soon afterwards. And released again. But this is not the end of the story. This theatre score from Vienna can be compared with the so-called 'Mozart autograph' which is on sale online. Now, this 'autograph' of the same opera contains the text in both Italian and in German. And, significantly, that version of the German text cannot be earlier than 1790. At Donaueschingen in Germany is a score of the first two acts of the same 'Figaro' of early date. But it too has a German text, not Italian.

The more these things are examined the more obvious it becomes that Mozart was receiving extraordinary music which, for some reason, was being credited to him. Concertos, masses, operas, symphonies etc. although in most cases this was never published in his name until well after the time of his death. The scale of this is massive. But the patient research in music archives by men such as Taboga, Bianchini, and women such as Trombetta etc. has shown the same thing. That Mozart was trapped into this amazing situation seems beyond reasonable doubt. His poverty (the subject of those amazing begging letters) explained by the fact that this status of his required his income to be shared with others who were helping his career. And that, even at the time of 'his greatest fame' (e.g. 1786) he is still writing begging letters. One exists to the Vienna music publisher Hoffmeister, for example, which was answered with the note 'Sent him 2 Ducats'. Now this is the real situation of the Vienna Mozart. We also have a document in Mozart's handwriting in which he divides his annual income into 4 equal parts. Why ? And so on. So that the illusion of him being a hugely successful and famous personality is simply untrue.

To unravel all of this, and to go back to how it could possibly have been achieved requires us to look away from the cult of personality and of individualism into the elite nature of musical patronage as it really existed in those times. To consider that Mozart, from the start, was a candidate for glory in one sense but exploitation in the other. And this from a very early age. Proving this beyond reasonable doubt is time consuming and flies against convention, of course. But that's the job in hand.

And all of this extends as far as the last works, the Requiem, etc etc. and the posthumous publication in Mozart's name of a mass of extraordinary music, whose story, whose manufacture in 'his' name has hardly been told.

You suggest Mozart had enemies. I think the constraints within which Mozart lived told in the end. That he took liberties with his patrons. And that he was considered to be uncouth, loud mouthed, boastful, even arrogant to a degree which worked against the project intended by his patrons. So that Mozart reached a point (around 1789) where he began to speak of enemies. Then there was the court case against him, which surfaced again only a few months before his death. That strange court case. With Prince Lichnowsky.

That Mozart's mature operas involved the input of various composers and musicians is, to me, true beyond fair and reasonable doubt.

But that this career of his, this reputation, should tower over music as it does, and should be seen as unchallengeable, this, to me, is absurd. The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

An amazing story, for sure. But hidden, often invented. And only able to be seen with difficulty. Flying in the face of tradition, convention and 'accepted wisdom'.

Regards

Never said Mozart was a free man: He was hard pressed, from early childhood, like most "child miracles" still are and, as far as his life as an adult is concerned, the "surrounding" you are referring to must be attributed both to his introduction to Freemasonry, as well as to his inheriting of "Gluck's" archive and, most propably, his "reform opera composer" ring as well (with "Gluck" desperately seeking to get rid not just of his "Gluck" identity but also of his real one,Cocchi, linking him to Concino Concini and putting in danger the "secret" of the french royal bloodline. Propably he was blackmailed and had to "trade").

Mozart's "death" is linked to Austria's loss of Marie Antoinette and was propably arranged with assistance from french diplomatic agencies. His appointment in (bottom of the barrel for diplomats) Tripoli, as "Nissen", is a measure of their esteem at the time to his person.

Cheers.

yanni

02-03-2010, 01:43 AM

Robert,

You write:

The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

.....after 1791? ?

How so?

As we saw earlier on, Mozart's manufacturing commenced by Nissen's "Mozart" biography, 1826-1829, ie long after Napoleon's fall.

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period?

Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

I am your angel of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPMUd5uhVY&feature=related

Musicology

02-03-2010, 06:35 AM

Yanni,

Why have you written as you just did ? If a person doesn't understand something and seeks to know of it they don't call it a 'falsehood' ? You wrote -

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period? Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

But it was simply Yanni being controversial again, yes ?

In answer to your question -

Contary to popular opinion Mozart was NOT a well known composer, performer and teacher. Not even in the Viennese capital. At the time of his death in 1791 his funeral went almost un-noticed by the Viennese, for example. Published in his name during Mozart's entire lifetime were less than 145 works, over 100 of which are attributed to the time of his childhood and youth but not to the period of his last 9 years in Vienna. More than 700 other works (the vast majority of 'his' works) were first published decades after 1791. Furthermore, notices of Mozart's death received a few lines in newspapers there, some days later, but nobody (not a single person) has said they were present at the funeral service. We invent the idea that it was a public event. The opposite is true. And, of course, myths have arisen around the cortege, the procession to the cemetery, etc etc. The fabulous story makers were keen to tell us of a Requiem being commissioned and a dramatic picture is given of its rehearsal in his final days from his death bed. Not a single member of Mozart's family or next of kin were present at his funeral. And, as for a memorial service that was arranged in Vienna (this separate from the funeral) this was hastily arranged by the theatre group who had staged 'The Magic Flute'. Once again, no member of Mozart's circle was present there.

The funeral procession is fiction. So too the dramatic commission to compose a Requiem. The story of the Requiem being rehearsed by Mozart from his death bed. The 'grey messenger' commissioning him. Etc. etc.

Well, there is a limit for all this fiction. The rise of his iconic status occurred AFTER 1791. Of course it did. For all the reasons just stated. And many more.

You see, a career can be 'stage managed' as a child. I mean, a child can play a few pieces and be dressed with a wig and a sword and one can describe him sympathetically as a 'young genius'. One can learn a few 'plinkety-plonk' works and be on the road on tour for years, if one wishes to exploit a child in this way. Which is what really happened. Thousands of miles around the dusty roads of Europe by coach, no less ! (With a reputation protected of course by those patrons, publishers, 'friends' etc. who were party to the emerging myth. Aided and abetted by the various fraternities etc). Such things are really not too difficult. Are they ? Every court had its musicians. There were no televisions, were there ? So, why should anyone be especially interested.

Consider this too. If we believe Mozart to have been a wonder-child, a musical 'genius', how would a person in an obscure town know of it in advance of his arrival ? There is no record of this being published in local newspapers prior to his arrival in those places. Now, ask any touring musician what response his tour will have if it is not advertised in advance when he is travelling. With few exceptions these 'tours' were not advertised. In fact, they were 'stage managed' with the collaboration of those who were party to them. This is not difficult to consider.

But we have this fairy story of the gates opening, of enthusiastic crowds of startled dignitaries, of music lovers filled with applause, etc etc. Imagine the scenario -

'You must excuse me, I've been travelling for 8 hours and around 7 years on tours around Europe. I've had virtually no time to compose anything, much less to become a brilliant keyboard player, and yet I will astound you with my skills'.

This is plain silly, yes ?

In London Mozart was inaccessible to the general public. His legendary status was published in papers. By Leopold Mozart. The charge to see him was far too high for ordinary people to take advantage of. When he played in a public concert (a benefit concert) near Chelsea the Rotunda (a great building where he came with his father) was filled with people who saw visiting musicians all the time. People did not usually sit there. They walked around its floor, talking. Those who sat usually ordered something to eat, and drank. The idea that this vast space (known as the Rotunda) was where Mozart on one of the early pianos astounded England is ludicrous. Tried listening to an 18th century piano in the open air amongst hundreds of people walking around and talking ?

But it doesn't matter. The legend is taught and we consume it.

In 1768 (by the age of 12) this nonsense was finally exposed, in Vienna, with the opera commission business of 'La Finta Semplice'. But the project continued.

After Mozart's death in late 1791 it took a further 8 years before 'his' works became available for publication ! So that's part of your answer. Indeed, the first publication of a Mozart opera (a whole score able to be performed, that is) occurred nearer to 1800. The same is true of many, many works. It is in this sense that his iconic status was massively and posthumously manufactured. The evidence of this is irrefutable. There is no point in Mozart's life, even during the days of his final years, where he tries to sell 'his' masterpieces for publication. A strange fact, yes ? I mean, if a man is desperately poor and wants to improve his situation, would he not try to sell his stuff ? But that never happened too. Imagine a baker who makes bread starving to death while he produces a warehouse of bread ! Or a writer who writes many books but makes little attempt to publish them when he is facing ruin ?

Anyway, I think you see the picture. The realities and the stories are very, very different. The publication of those works took a lot of editing, control, manufacture and promotion. Almost all of this after Mozart's death. So that the Mozart few had ever heard of could become, in the hands of the emerging music industry, a towering icon of music history, virtually unchallenged by anyone, even the editors of biographies and reference books. We want to believe in this legend. So we do. And although everything else in life is filled with exaggerations etc we do not readily accept reality in the cultural area. Which is precisely the power and influence of it within our society. The legendary Mozart. And our stupendous ignorance of his times and of the music of those who were his contemporaries. As for the composition of 'his' music, that too, buried away and hardly appreciated.

So, where did this stuff come from ? How was it done ? And what proofs are there and can there be if such things were hidden ? We need to examine all these issues. We need, in fact, to look closely at the lives and careers of his own contemporaries, his publishers, his patrons, and others. We need to look again at the sources and where they come from. And at the careers of men we have hardly heard of. Only then does the story begin to unravel. In short, we must challenge the disembodied 'genius' idea and get back to reality - the kind which we use for the study of any other composer.

Regards

Robert,

You write:

The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

.....after 1791? ?

How so?

As we saw earlier on, Mozart's manufacturing commenced by Nissen's "Mozart" biography, 1826-1829, ie long after Napoleon's fall.

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period?

Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

I am your angel of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPMUd5uhVY&feature=related

yanni

02-03-2010, 07:49 AM

Robert,

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

You have managed to prove your other point however: Mozart's manufacture still continues today!

LOL!

Musicology

02-03-2010, 10:54 AM

Yanni,

You will be even more amazed to learn there are great gaps in your education. You write -

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

LOL ! Here are a few basic facts. I hope they help you not make such statements in the future -

1. The earliest Mozart biography is not that of Nissen/Constanze Mozart as you seem to suppose but dates from far, far earlier. It's that of FX Niemetscheck and dates from 1797 and 1798. Published in Prague. The same Prague where Jesuit priest Abbe Noe arranged for its author to adopt one of the Mozart children. With the permission of Constanze Mozart, of course. (One of those 'coincidences') you understand ? So, so much for your date of 1825/6.

2. In addition to this early biography of 1797/8 by Niemetscheck (which, I must assume you've never heard of nor read or you would not have written as you did in your last post) we have the 'Nekrology' published in 1793 by Friedrich Schlichtegroll (1765-1822) who was himself dead 4 years before Nissen's 'biography' appeared.

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

3. On page 15 of this long thread you can even find my reference to this work by Niemetscheck. Perhaps you were having a busy day ?

4. In addition to these works was publication in Vienna of a series of anecdotes on Mozart in various newspapers, especially in the late 1790's (around a decade after his death) with the assistance of one Constanze Mozart. This through the editor Rochlitz. I wrote a short article on Rochlitz for the Italian Opera website on the subject of the 'Mozart' quintet, KV452, which you might care to look at - (since it involved the usual deception).

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:YHIWg8Lh2QgJ:www.italianopera.org/articoli/newmanK452.html+rochlitz+mozart&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk

Just for the record, you understand ?

Hopefully this will help to clarify the picture.

Regards

Robert

Robert,

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

You have managed to prove your other point however: Mozart's manufacture still continues today!

LOL!

yanni

02-03-2010, 01:10 PM

Nissen's is considered today as the first serious attempt to a Mozart biography, "serious" in as much as letters were purchased and/or collected and claims to "musical greatness" were propably (never read it) phrased by the compilers (Nissen and Constanze) and, following Nissen's death, Feuerstein then came along to help Constanze complete the mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_Mozart

Was this "author-compiler" Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his 1791 death*? (You neither answered nor commented this one).

All this has been already discussed Robert and you still have not answered my previous question, to provide any evidence that the myth of "Mozart the great reform opera composer" began before 1826.
(1826-1828 being a very crucial year in my research on "family matters" in Zante and Paris)

What you list above are all alibi providers for Mozart, at the time very much alive and kicking Tripoli's dust 1801-1807 at least. (To then do his best, not much I dare say, to provide cover for "Gluck" and his music as ordered, the question is "WHEN" was he ordered?)

Unfortunately for you they fall in the category I prudently exempted in my previous: "Manufactured"...."in music, not in playing dead", I wrote!

Too much to ask? Pehaps!

BTW: Do try providing dates when possible: WHEN did Constanze give away her child for adoption to the Jesuits? It's definitely another alibi provider but the time is important if conclusions are to be drawn!

* a relative of Dresden physician Dr Johann Feuerstein diagnosed consumption as the cause of Mozart's death perhaps?

Musicology

02-03-2010, 01:18 PM

Yanni,

I will shortly be too busy to post here much. But, since you do not acknowledge your own errors let me repeat that what is 'considered today as the first serious attempt' at a Mozart biography was one put together by Niemetsheck. A man whom (you may not know) collaborated closely with Constanze Mozart. And who was sent (according to Constanze Mozart herself) many letters and documents. This speaks for itself, does it not ? Indeed, Constanze Mozart destroyed the 1st edition of this book in 1797, buying up the entire first printing and destroying the plates. Another ('sanitised') version made the year following.

And, what was Niemetsheck's profession ? He was a teacher at a college and was employed as a Censor for the Empire. And the profession of Constanze Mozart's second husband Georg Nissen included being a Censor also. Just a coincidence, of course. Weren't the Jesuit Order employed as censors of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries ?

Niemetscheck's full name is only coincidentally of Jesuit fame. 'F.X. Niemetschek'. So too the fact the adoption of the Mozart child was arranged by Jesuit Abbe Noe of Prague. And it's sheer coincidence the 'student' of Mozart's last years in Vienna was one F.X. Sussmayr. As was the name of one of the Mozart children himself. This too is sheer coincidence, of course !

As for your other questions I will post on these later today.

Regards

Nissen's is considered today as the first serious attempt to a Mozart biography, "serious" in as much as letters were purchased and/or collected and claims to "musical greatness" were propably (never read it) phrased by the compilers (Nissen and Constanze) and, following Nissen's death, Feuerstein then came along to help Constanze complete the mess.

Was this "author-compiler" Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death*? (You neither answered nor commented this one).

All this has been already discussed Robert and you still have not answered my previous question, to provide any evidence that the myth of "Mozart the great reform opera composer" began before 1826.

What you list above are all alibi providers for Mozart, very much alive at the time and kicking Tripoli's dust 1801-1807 at least.

Unfortunately for you they fall in the category I prudently exempted in my previous: Manufactured in music, not in playing dead, I wrote!

BTW: Do try providing dates when possible: WHEN did Constanze give away her child for adoption to the Jesuits? It's definitely another alibi provider but the time is important if conclusions are to be drawn!

* a relative of Dresden physician Dr Johann Feuerstein diagnosed consumption as the cause of Mozart's death perhaps?

Musicology

02-03-2010, 05:38 PM

Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death ? I neither answered nor commented on this because it's one of dozens of questions which I have been unable to confirm. The official 'cause of Mozart's death' is of course nonsense. Mozart did not die from 'miliary fever'. This 'official' version has no evidence in its support. Nor will you be surprised there was no such 'epidemic' in Vienna at the time (1791) contrary to popular belief.

As for 'Mozart, great reform opera composer', I do not know what you mean. Have you heard operatic music of that time by composers such as Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Salieri, Paisiello, Wranitsky, Cimarosa, Y Soler or various others - which has been massively suppressed ?

Two children of the Mozart family were adopted in Prague at the time his widow visited there on a tour in 1794. (This is the same year Napoleonic troops occupied areas of Germany including Bonn). These children remained in Niemetscheck's care (i.e. in the area) until, I believe, around late 1797, after which time their story changes again. An interesting (though not entirely accurate) account of Constanze and her movements of this period 1791-1805 is found in Agnes Selby, 'After the Requiem' and various others by others. There is, for sure, considerable confusion and contradiction about her movements and locations during the decade after Mozart's death in late 1791. A period which involved various tours of Germany for 'promotional' reasons. One of the sons went to Italy, leaving for there around the same time as Italian Viennese major Mozart publisher Artaria (1798) since he had just retired from Vienna around this same time and (as it happens) he worked there and lived near the Artaria area near Lake Como in Italy and also in Milan. (Josef Haydn ('Papa' Haydn) wrote to the head of the newly founded Milan music Conservatory to get the Mozart son a place there as a music scholar). But of Haydn (well, the less said the better).

Regards

//

yanni

02-04-2010, 01:42 AM

Niemetscheck's disputed "first Mozart biography" of 1797-8, is the first to grant him the title "Kappelmeister", a title allegedly used by Mozart himself even if he never became a Kappelmeister (ie music master or church choir director) in his life, Salieri replacing Gluck as Kappelmeister in Vienna with Mozart barely reaching Kammercompositeur in 1787.

Bohemia's music history starts with "Gluck-Myslivecek-Roessler" who, by all indications, did not leave behind just "music" but an unknown number of children and wives as well and (I have a strong hunch that) the whole "Bertramka court" was founded (purchased allegedly by Dusek in 1784) to include some of them at least, possibly Leopold Kozeluch and Niemtscheck himself, and to provide a safehouse for "persecuted reform composers", their offsprings and their collaborators, such as Mozart.

(1784 is the year that "G" decided to go underground as "composer" and as "Saint Germain" war minister and as "Augustin Henry Cochin". )

Niemetscheck thus supports Mozart's own lifelong ambitions at the time, which however did not include "great reform opera composer" per se, as the etymology of "Kappelmeister" excludes "reform"*....
...so I would be very interested to know how, if at all, Niemtscheck stakes Mozart's claim to "Don Giovanni" in 1798.

Our cooperation has beyond doubt proven that Mozart's "creation" is directly and exclusively linked to "G" and his need to "disassociate" himself from his music, his "reform" music in particular ("His" 1787 Don Giovanni, who seems to fly around ,as hot potato of the revolutionary era, long after 1784, with Gluck leaving it "unfinished" en permanence following his own 1787 "death"!)

My "Gluck" however dies 1819 as Nikolai and the task to safeguard his secret (coinciding with blood purity of the french royla line) then passes on to his french relatives who reestablish themselves in France,in positions of authority,and "somehow" inherit more than just "Gluck's music"-their problem to solve , AFTER 1826. They had then the motive and the means to do so.

It's from this point onwards that Mozart's true fabrication beginns and still continues today bypassing Leroux's own revelations of the early 20th century.

To aggravate your "Jesuit" fixation:

Upon their return to anglophile France,the notion of a "mildly reformed" Roman Catholicism returns with them (look for: Augustin Dennis Cochin, historian and Baron Dennis Cochin, diplomat, covering the "eastern matter" and sponsoring Leroux and my own grandfather most propably as well).

Post Napoleon "Rome" was reinstated, the Pope's reach somehow "constrained".

But "G" had left "all that" behind already by 1801 ....

(Cocchi's own "Tuscany castle" (renovated in 1784) in Terrarosa, was confiscated Nel 1787, (Palazzo Cocchi) con la morte senza eredi di Manfredi, il feudo tornς alla corona granducale. http://www.lunigianastorica.it/terrarossa.asp...
and
...his family's tombs and monuments were destroyed in Florence to house those of countess D'Albany, 1806-1808, ("la d’Albany fece rimuovere le antiche tombe dei Cocchi e dei Nardini con l’intervento della nuova granduchessa Elisa Baciocchi. I lavori per l’installazione iniziarono nel 1809; nel novembre era già collocato il basamento; nel giugno 1810 furono spedite le casse coi marmi. ))

...to continue his life, to 1819, in Russia.

As collector of his biographic data , you see, I was fortunate to discover something rare in our days: If not a "purity" then definitely, a "consistency of character".

Now you know (and I do too) why, how, when and by who was Mozart manufactured!

Cheers.

*
In April 1791, Mozart did apply to become the Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral, and was in fact designated by the City Council to take over this job following the death of the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hofmann. However, this never took place, since Mozart died (December 1791) before Hofmann did (1793).[4]

Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death ? I neither answered nor commented on this because it's one of dozens of questions which I have been unable to confirm. The official 'cause of Mozart's death' is of course nonsense. Mozart did not die from 'miliary fever'. This 'official' version has no evidence in its support. Nor will you be surprised there was no such 'epidemic' in Vienna at the time (1791) contrary to popular belief.

As for 'Mozart, great reform opera composer', I do not know what you mean. Have you heard operatic music of that time by composers such as Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Salieri, Paisiello, Wranitsky, Cimarosa, Y Soler or various others - which has been massively suppressed ?

Two children of the Mozart family were adopted in Prague at the time his widow visited there on a tour in 1794. (This is the same year Napoleonic troops occupied areas of Germany including Bonn). These children remained in Niemetscheck's care (i.e. in the area) until, I believe, around late 1797, after which time their story changes again. An interesting (though not entirely accurate) account of Constanze and her movements of this period 1791-1805 is found in Agnes Selby, 'After the Requiem' and various others by others. There is, for sure, considerable confusion and contradiction about her movements and locations during the decade after Mozart's death in late 1791. A period which involved various tours of Germany for 'promotional' reasons. One of the sons went to Italy, leaving for there around the same time as Italian Viennese major Mozart publisher Artaria (1798) since he had just retired from Vienna around this same time and (as it happens) he worked there and lived near the Artaria area near Lake Como in Italy and also in Milan. (Josef Haydn ('Papa' Haydn) wrote to the head of the newly founded Milan music Conservatory to get the Mozart son a place there as a music scholar). But of Haydn (well, the less said the better).

Regards

//

Musicology

02-04-2010, 07:55 AM

Yanni,

I will write on this later today.

Regards

Yanni,

When Niemetscheck published his biography in 1797-8 he did so with the full collaboration of Constanze Mozart. The title of 'Kapellmeister' was W.A. Mozart copying the same lie told by Leopold Mozart himself, who had, years before toured Europe for years declaring himself to be a 'Kapellmeister'. Wolfgang did so because the 'promise' of becoming Kapellmeister at Bonn was made to him by the younger brother of the Austrian emperor. Max Franz. On this nonsense he started to call himself one. Who knew, of course, he would never become one. The same Max Fraz who in 1784, finally became Elector at Bonn. But the actual post of Kapellmeister there in Bonn was never open to Mozart. It was nothing but an illusion. The post was already occupied there by Andrea Luchesi. And had been since 1774. So this highly publicised promise was an empty one from the start.

2 years later, with Mozart still unemployed in Vienna, he continued to use the title of 'Kapellmeister' at the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and is described as such on the playbill of its disastrous Vienna premiere. In 1787, with this falsehood becoming more and more obvious to anyone a token post was finally manufactured for him by the same Max Franz - this time on the grounds that he would serve him as 'Chamber Music Composer'. But this, as before, was a meaningless and utterly absurd position. For example, Mozart wrote nothing for that post and there is no record of 'his' work (chamber music or any other kind) ever being performed there. So much for the post of Chamber composer. We have not a single reference of his 'work' there. (That token post was to the musical establishment in Vienna of the same Max Franz). Yet another illusion. Mozart did not work there daily. As said. A salary was however paid to him. Thus, once again, Mozart was proud to call himself a 'Kapellmeister'. And, as before, he was known by supporters as a Kapellmeister. There are in fact numerous references to 'Kapellmeister' Mozart during his lifetime, both before and after 1787. Just to keep the illusion going, you understand ?

Baron Bagge was a freemason and belonged to two of the Parisian lodges with the most active music programmes: the celebrated Loge Olympique and particularly Les Neuf Soeurs, where he was director of concerts and where he organized the musical side of Voltaire's initiation. It is with Bagge, for sure, that so many threads of this riddle converge. Even with respect to augmenting Haydn and Mozart's careers. Roessler (another career dogged by false trails) was himself in Paris from around 1781 for some time.

As for the Bertramka estate it was a notorious centre of prostitution and high life from the aristocracy and merchants of that region. The idea of Mozart composing 'Don Giovanni' there is almost laughable. Whose libretto, in fact, owes as much to Venice as it does to Lorenzo da Ponte.

I cannot agree Mozart's creation is 'directly and exlusively linked to 'Gluck' since there is a ton of evidence showing the input of various composers. Gluck's background rules him as a person out as a major composer. Are we to seriously believe the 'Mozart' piano concertos come from Gluck ? Nor do I see much evidence of Gluck leaving an 'unfinished' Don Giovanni. If you are prepared to see your 'Gluck' as more than one person (as was undoubtedly 'Roessler') we would have less of a headache.

I have no fixation with Jesuits. But they just keep turning up, over, and over again. Have you examined the Jesuit aspects of this same Roessler, for example ? Music of which is attributed to 'him' at the memorial for Mozart in Prague during late 1791. And which works are amazingly 'Mozartean'. Just a coincidence, of course ! How about Paul Wranitsky ? Or JM Kraus ? Or Leopold Mozart, or....... and so it goes on. As for Russia, that of course was a centre of Jesuit activity after 1773 as you surely know. And it continued to be so into the early 19th century.

We are talking here not of slabs of meat, or kilos of potatoes, but of the origins of a whole series of musical masterpieces. And this, to me, means (and I see lots of reasons for believing in it) in the input over years of an entire network, consisting of patrons, composers (plural), publicists, editors, fraternity members (plural), aristocrats (plural) and publishers, biographers etc. Many of whom we have not even mentioned. I am certain of it. As certain as I can be. This subject goes beyond 1791 and it began far earlier than the time of Mozart's birth.

As for Mozart's appointment in 1791 at the cathedral, this is more tokenism. Since it was an unpaid post, he produced nothing musical for it, and it was not for the post of Kapellmeister. It was, as usual, more 'smoke and mirrors'. Like all the rest.

Regards

yanni

02-05-2010, 01:19 AM

I see you have not picked up the suggested "glove" ....how, if at all, Niemtscheck stakes Mozart's claim to "Don Giovanni" in 1798.*, selecting instead to answer with generalities to finally throw back potatoes and meat at me for overturning your world theories and releasing you, "over cofee", of your 15 year old problematic .

Never said the music attributed to Mozart today was all composed by "Gluck" himself but have instead always spoken of Gluck's "huge music archive", hinting all along how he (Cocchi, with his own long family background in music) collected it, paid for it, used it as he pleased, as France's "incharge", topman, of all arts alongside- or rather in control of- his cousin, Charles Nicholas Cochin, as well.

As for Gluck's own "unfinished" Don Giovanni, see my previous interpretation of the phantom's words to Christine Daae: "Unfinished" means "not signed" by composer (who, coincidentaly, after 1784, was also very busy "elsewhere" to have his Don Giovanni completed and thus "triumph".)

Save your "food" Robert,by all means, but first your credibility!

My sympathies.

*A verbatim quotation of Niemtschek's views on "Mozart's" Don Giovanni would be the right answer, ONLY!

Musicology

02-05-2010, 08:06 AM

Yanni,

First of all what of the existence of still another biography of Mozart published before 1826 ? Stendhal's of (1814). I can even name you a fourth if you like. But I think the point has surely been made.

Of Niemetscheck's biography - made with the input of Constanze Mozart and riddled, as it is, with falsehoods, not least that Niemetscheck (contrary to his own published statements) never met Mozart and never saw him, nor even lived in Prague during the entire lifetime of Mozart. Such are the foundations on which the Mozart story is constructed . Supported by the exaggerations and inventions of Leopold Mozart et al. And those of Constanze Mozart and the usual fantoccini.

“In 1966, Tomislav Volek undertook to examine the question [of Niemetsheck's personal relationship with Mozart came to the conclusion that Niemetscheck probably had never had any personal contact with Mozart - Source - Tomislav Volek, Meznama tvar F.X. Nemecka / Das unbekannte Angesicht von F.X. Niemetschek, in: Hudebni rozhledy 19.Praha 1966, Nr.14, S.427ff

As for Niemetscheck adopting the two Mozart children -

“Following Mozart's death Niemetscheck took Karl Thomas Mozart (1784-1858), the composer's older son, under his wing, housing him in Prague between 1794 and 1797; he also looked after the younger son FX (Franz Xaver) Wolfgang Mozart (1791-1844) for six months in 1795-6, while Constanze Mozart was on a concert tour in Germany.”

Which is, for sure, bizzare. Under what circumstances would a perfect stranger in Bohemia adopt two children of the Mozart family (formerly of Vienna) ? When Niemetscheck was not married but a single man (not marrying until 1798). And yet there is indisputable evidence Constanze Mozart worked closely with Niemetscheck in the creation and publication of that biography.

Is it not plain, therefore, Yanni, that every area of Mozart's iconic status was being managed, manufactured ? As we see here in this biography ?

And, as for the overdue implications of this obvious fact - an article by W. Brauneis -

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Brauneis%20--%20Niemetschek.rev.Index.pdf

As for who was doing all of this 'management' we read in Brauneis -

February 1794 - Mozart’s widow brings Carl Thomas (9 years old) to
Prague to live with Niemetschek, apparently at the suggestion of Canon Franz Xaver Noe, a friend of the Mozarts from earlier days. Carl Thomas remains with Niemetschek until 1797.

(The same Jesuit educated priest who was 'a friend of the Mozarts from earlier days').

Thus, every aspect of the mythical career of Mozart was being arranged, including these early biographies. Indeed, these are only a further stage in the construction of his myth. Including these earliest biographies such as that of Niemetscheck, the Nekrology of Schlichtegroll (1793) etc. etc.

But I won't stay on that subject Yanni. It's just another coincidence, right ?

As for Noe -

25 August 1796 - Niemetschek’s mentor, Canon Franz Xaver Noe, dies.

//

So Niemetscheck had a 'mentor' who just happened to be a Jesuit priest who arranged things for Constanze Mozart during the time that biography was being written. This same 'friendly' Noe, this ‘mentor’ of earlier years is never actually mentioned before this date in any Mozart correspondence.

//

Welcome to the world of Mozartean 'stage management'. Of invention, exaggeration and downright untruth. Foisted on the world as biography.

//

Yes, you’ve spoken of 'Gluck's huge music archive'. Why can't you tell us if that archive included 'Mozart' piano concertos ? And, if it did, may we have some details ?

That Cocchi was deeply involved in the manufacture of Mozart's career cannot be seriously doubted. But you surely agree all of this music came from more than one composer. That ‘Gluck’ was not its single composer. Don't you ? It did. Whether 'Gluck' was a pseudonym or not.

It would be great if you could provide us some details of 'Gluck's' unfinished 'Don Giovanni'. But, as usual, this request is not answered. Where can we see this document ?

I promise you Yanni, if you were to examine the career of W.A. Mozart up until the year he allegedly wrote 'Don Giovanni' you would laugh that anyone can believe he wrote it. Because you would see the track record of falsehood and know in advance he did not. But since the true composer/s of this music are a different issue than establishing the fact that he did not let us first agree he (Mozart) did not. Iif we do this, we are able to focus on the role of such charlatans as 'Gluck' and others. Who, to me, are names of convenience, warehouses, in fact, for the accumulation of music from various composers. These works later edited, revised, altered, improved, and often published long, long after the death of Mozart. As we see in the case of every single one of ‘Mozart's’ stage operas. So that if you are prepared to consider ‘Gluck’ as a musical warehouse (as were various others, such as ) then we are close to saying the same thing.

The piano concertos of Mozart have little to do with 'Gluck'. Their story is very different from that of the operas. It too involves various composers. Why, the first 7 of these 27 concertos (as said) are already acknowledged to be mere hack arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and other Paris-based German composers. As for the others, their story most certainly takes us to Salzburg, and to Offenbach and to Paris and other places. With the input of various composers, arrangers, editors etc. Only 3 (possibly 4) of which appeared in print in Mozart’s name during his lifetime.

The scale of this deception is not explained by your Cocchi/'Gluck'/Rousseau/etc theory despite the fact that you are, to your credit. correctly identifying a major component of the network.

As for what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8 I must check like you (?) although I know in advance he falsely attributes that opera to Mozart.

Regards

Fugue
BWV 889

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PhUIKS1wk&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=81D26D4A47388279

yanni

02-05-2010, 10:22 AM

I neither can nor need to check "what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8": A lie is a lie and my only interest was to see how it was served at the time, ie how did Niemetscheck-Constanze carry out "Gluck's" wish to have Mozart appear as the "hot potato's composer.

Leroux's overwhelmingly persuading words, so well fitting to my timeline and long established views, are more than enough for me!

What "Gluck's music archive included" is anybody's guess today, it has been dispersed to the four winds eversince>

I very much doubt furthermore your methodology, trying to find who wrote what music concerto, who copied what partiture, who faked another's handwriting, whose music resembles who's etc while ignoring at the same time events at the center of their world then, music included, Paris, thus not allowing you to understand the "scale of the deception" or even "Gluck" as a "musical ware house" as you wrongly put it (he had the means and the interest to buy only music) and thus dispute me.

cheers!

Musicology

02-05-2010, 11:07 AM

Yanni,

You neither can nor need to check what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8. And yet you repeatedly ask me to. Is it not fair to ask people to do things you are willing and prepared to do yourself ?

You say 'Leroux's overwhelmingly persauding words, so well fitting to (your) timeline and long established views are more than enough for me'. Yanni, that is fine. But you might forgive others who want rather more than these. And who do not have long established views. I think it fairest to say your views of Leroux are based on things more solid than that.

There is, in German literature, a strange book attributed to one August Klingemann (1777-1831) entitled 'Die Nachtwachen des Bonaventura' (1804) which was published in the early 19th century with various allusions to the music of Mozart and to other individuals whose great reputations were, shall we say (?), 'manufactured'. Whose authorship has long been mysterious and whose true author is still a matter of controversy. I recommend its contents for you to study on this subject although I'm not aware of anyone reading it in any other sense than a vivid series of strange stories. One of a number of other sources of the same kind as Leroux. Another would be the satirical writings of the librettist Casti. And even the Tales of Hoffmann, etc. There are in fact a series of unusual references to the manufactured career of Mozart in early 19th century literature. The Frankenstein myth of Mary Shelley is another. None of them in themselves proof of anything. But, when added to other information, they are consistent with the idea of manufactured phenomenon being a major part in human affairs. So that the 19th century, within a few decades, had a fashion for the bizzare which we see in theatre and publications generally.

Thanks for saying Gluck's music archive has been dispersed.

There were many individuals capable of buying music and amassing vast quantities of it. As you will agree. But in the case of Mozart we are not dealing with grand and haphazard project of arbitrarily buying music from countless sources. But of a specific project whose real aim was to draw together music and to create by the input of a series of talented composers and editors (this with the aid of publishers and propagandists) a body of music identifiable (we think) to only one composer. W.A. Mozart. Thus requiring music editors, sympathetic publishers, propagandists, early biographers, exaggerated testimonials and the usual editing out of virtually all of Mozart's musical contemporaries. So that editorial control of what was published in textbooks on the subject of music and musical achievement could be and was slowly achieved in terms of 18th century 'musical history'. To achieve this, virtually without criticism control on what is taught and believed on music as a whole during that period. Even involving (as we see) the suppression of the careers of countless composers and their works and the marginalisation of the work of others. To ignore, in fact, music as it really existed in Mozart's time. To create, in fact, a character (or small group of musical characters) who would be members of a musical 'pantheon', this towering over all others. To consider oneself educated in these matters by reference to a handful of composers from the hundreds and thousands who have lived. They and their music. All of this to obtain the desired effect. Of a Mozart who would literally dominate the musical landscape of western Europe and of our education in that area. An industry, in fact, patronised by the successors of those who were party to it in the first place and virtually a counterfeit of fact and reality. The negation of musicology and of musical biography in its critical sense. Since the Mozart myth exists most successfully when it fails to accept or ever to examine its own inherent contradictions.

How shall we describe a body of teachings which is rarely subjected to criticism in any detail ? As we see here in the inflated life, career and 'genius' status of one W.A. Mozart ? Though that body of teachings is revered as being a product of our western culture and of 'experts' patronised and admired which enjoys high status in textbooks, journal articles, music publications and so on ? A paradigm, in fact. No more subject to detailed criticism of its publications than the dogmas of pagan Greece or Rome. For, as says the movie 'Amadeus', 'all you have heard is true'.

The important thing here is not to believe one must be 'right'. But to make available a contrary view and to let others form their own judgement having had the chance to examine it for themselves from both sides.

Regards

Fugue
BWV 849

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLoMsi54-nI&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=81D26D4A47388279

yanni

02-06-2010, 08:06 AM

"Fair" as "right" or "fair" as "white coloured-blue eyed-blonde"?

The particular adjective should be removed from the english language!

Cheers!

Musicology

02-06-2010, 09:28 AM

You have a good point Yanni. But, to me, every word can be well used or abused and it's a question of using them appropriately, within their right context, and understanding them in the same.

We must each reserve the right to judge them, for sure.

p.s. England is sunny today for the first time in many weeks. I have planted some potatoes this morning. lol !

Cheers

"Fair" as "right" or "fair" as "white coloured-blue eyed-blonde"?

The particular adjective should be removed from the english language!

Cheers!

Orchestral Suite No. 1
Opening Overture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIvjUd4ip6Y&feature=related

G.F. Handel
'Arrival of the Queen of Sheba'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkx2F0iHLVE&feature=related

yanni

02-06-2010, 11:37 AM

Funny thing how such silly words pop up to make any serious post read like another joke on blondes!

Thus returning to "Bagge's baguette":

Have you had the chance ever to read Mirabeau's letters from Berlin?

Mirabeau was in Berlin, till late 1786 reporting to Calonne in Paris, and noone really knows the return route he next took.

What is sure however is
-he had "inside knowledge" on "Baron Bagge" and his Berlin theatrical performances at the time (before December the 5th),
-included "ridiculous" Bagge in his correspondence to the French General Controler of Finance and that...
-some 34 years later, ie around 1820 or so, someone went to great lenghts to have this correspondence translated and published in London.

Correct me if I am wrong but,this same December, "Mozart's" Figaro was staged in Prague while Mozart himself was still in Vienna. (Figaro was staged 11th December by Bondini, while Mozart left Vienna for Prague January 8th).

Mirabeau-Bagge returned Paris last days of January (Louis Barthou, p126, to then decide going to Brunswick May 1787, p129 but went instead, as Raynal, to Russia for a while)

Lastly: Whenever I mention the title of a book or article, I always accompany it with a quotation of the specific part or parts of relevance to my subject which, may I remind you, never was Mozart, but my own genealogy.

Based in Athens, I have no chance of finding in a public library highly specialised and rare books on Mozart.

It's only reasonable for me to assume that you, with Mozart in your focus for the past fifteen years, have already a long database on him with clippings from various books as well, thus I asked you to provide the specific Niemetcheck reference to Mozart's Don Giovanni but you refused.

But then, you always mention booktitles but never quote parts therefrom in you posts here, don't you?

As I said, your methodology leads nowhere!

Cheers!

Musicology

02-06-2010, 11:49 AM

Yanni,

I will try to obtain a translated text of Niemetscheck and will let you know when I do. But your claim that I never quote from the books I refer to is contradicted by my posts. Take for example those of the past few days -

“In 1966, Tomislav Volek undertook to examine the question [of Niemetsheck's personal relationship with Mozart came to the conclusion that Niemetscheck probably had never had any personal contact with Mozart - Source - Tomislav Volek, Meznama tvar F.X. Nemecka / Das unbekannte Angesicht von F.X. Niemetschek, in: Hudebni rozhledy 19.Praha 1966, Nr.14, S.427ff

and again -

'The history of music is usually studied from its creative aspect - how masterpieces of western culture came in to being, how composers advanced the state of the art, how major works were received. The underside is rarely discussed - who paid for the music, who profited, who organised it, and why. The history of the music business is a half-glimpsed enigma, unknown to modern managers and undiscussed in polite society. The term itself is impolite, invoking images of fat, ash-flecked agents in loud suits. The truth is necessarily more complex. Some of the most successful operators practiced an almost saintly devotion to artists and their art. Others were outright villains, in it for what they could get. Both types took the greatest care to cover their traces. The music business imposes a stringent vow of silence that is designed to protect the myth of the immaculate artist'.

('Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music - When the Music Stops' - Norman Lebrecht - 1996)

and, again -

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Braunei....rev.Index.pdf

These are just a few examples.

Thanks for your comments which I will examine closely later.

Robert

Here is a spring morning !

Prelude and Fugue in C Sharp Major
BWV 848

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-c8WG2GTaI&feature=related

The Prague performances of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' date from December 1786. (That is, some 7 months after their disastrous premiere in Vienna). And, between the premiere in Vienna in May of that year and these performances in Prague the opera score was massively edited, by others. Being restored, in fact, to the work from which Mozart and da Ponte had first adapted it earlier. With the disastrous Italian text/music relationship of the Vienna ‘premiere’ improved.

//

Here is an article on Bagge from the 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians' which may be of interest. We may both agree it is hugely inaccurate in many parts and says little of Bagge's real life. But it at least offers a list of interesting, known relationships and some dates.

Bagge [Bach], Baron de [Ennal, Charles-Ernest

(b Fockenhof, Kurland, 14 Feb 1722; d Paris, 24 March 1791). French dilettante, amateur violinist and composer, patron of the arts and instrument collector. A magnificent and very wealthy nobleman, he both amused and astounded his contemporaries. M. Audinot in his comic opera La musicomanie (1779), and possibly E.T.A. Hoffmann in his tale Die Serapionsbrüder (1819), attempted to evoke his strange personality, emphasizing its ridiculous nature. At the death of his father, a landed nobleman, in 1747, Bagge inherited a large fortune which enabled him to study the violin in Italy with Tartini. (1) By 1750 he had settled in Paris; in the following year he was awarded the title chambellan du Roi de Prusse (then Frederick II) and married the daughter of the Swiss banker Jacob Maudry. With Maudry's death in 1762 the very large inheritance proved a source of contention to the ill-matched couple and they soon separated. Bagge later attempted to gain possession of the inheritance of Mme Maudry, who had died in 1767, and the resulting lawsuits scandalized Paris until the Parlement decided in his wife's favour in 1773.

After the separation Bagge devoted himself entirely to music, and exercised considerable influence on Parisian musical life as concert organizer, patron, performer, composer and teacher. Every Friday in his hotel on the Rue de La Feuillade he held a concert at which his protégés performed; on one of these occasions in 1783 Kreutzer gave the first performance of one of Bagge's violin concertos. He travelled in 1778 to England and in 1784 to Vienna, where he performed before Mozart. In 1790, having left France at the outbreak of the Revolution, he was appointed Kammerherr to Friedrich Wilhelm II in Berlin. His death in the following year was accompanied by rumours that he had been poisoned by his mistress, though several public disclaimers later that year discredit the accusation.

Bagge was a freemason and belonged to two of the Parisian lodges with the most active music programmes: the celebrated Loge Olympique and particularly Les Neuf Soeurs, where he was director of concerts and organized the musical side of Voltaire's initiation. His talent as a violinist and particularly his technical capabilities were perhaps not so negligible as earlier writers have maintained. He showed special skill in performing ascending and descending scales on a single string using only one finger of the left hand. His compositions, though hardly original, reveal sureness of taste and irreproachable workmanship. He was criticized for his nervous twitches and strange attitudes while performing; the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (iii, 1800, col.841) recalled of his playing that

No Baron can ever have made such horrible grimaces the moment he took violin and bow in hand. His face, his muscles, the whole of his body underwent most painful contortions, and, as his playing increased in animation, the sounds that proceeded could only be likened to the wailing of a cat.

This doubtless gave rise to the ambiguous compliment paid by the Emperor Joseph II (‘My dear Baron, I have never heard anyone play the violin quite like you’), and the quatrain under one of his portraits:

Du Dieu de l'harmonie adorateur fidèle,
Son zèle impetueux ne saurait s'arrêter;
Dans l'art du violon il n'a point de modèle
Et personne jamais n’osera l’imiter.

As a patron Bagge was extraordinarily generous. Although he favoured artists who were also freemasons (Kreutzer, Viotti, Duport, Capron and Gossec), or who were closely linked with the order (Gaviniès and Boccherini), he nevertheless helped only deserving musicians. He insisted, however, on giving lessons to the violinists among them, paying them to accept his tuition, and was thus able to boast of himself as leader of the French violin school. His private collection of violins was prodigious, and included instruments by Stradivari, Amati and Gasparo da Salò, which he generously conferred on his ‘pupils’. This collection, as well as his large music library which he freely extended to other musicians, reverted at his death to his wife together with the rest of his largely depleted estate, and has since been untraced.
Several portraits of Bagge are known, one of them engraved by Nicolas Cochin (reproduced in Terry) and another portraying him with a violin ‘comme un ménétrier’.

WORKS

all printed works published in Paris

Orch: 3 sinfonie (1788); 4 vn concs., all (n.d.); vn conc., F-Pn; 2 symphonies concertantes, D-Bsb
Chbr: 6 quatuors concertants, str qt, op.1 (1773); 6 trio, 2 vn, b (n.d.); Airs de Marlborough variés, hpd, vn (n.d.); 2 str qts, 4 str qnts, collab. ?F. Fiorillo, destroyed
Cantata, 1786, for accession of Friedrich Wilhelm II, D-Bsb

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FétisB
GerberL

L. Petit de Bachaumont and others: Mémoires secrets, xx (London, 1783), 83–4
F. Marpurg: Legende einiger Musikheiligen (Cologne [recte Breslau], 1786), 224–5, 277ff
P. Smith: ‘Les élèves du Baron de Bagge’, RGMP, xii (1845)
G. Cucuel: ‘Le Baron de Bagge et son temps’, Année musicale, i (1911), 145–86
C.S. Terry: ‘Baron Bach’, ML, xii (1931), 130–39
C.M. Carroll: ‘A Beneficent Poseur: Charles Ernest, Baron de Bagge’, RMFC, xvi (1976), 24–36
R.J.V. Cotte: Les musiciens franc-maçons à la cour de Versailles et à Paris sous l'ancien régime (doctorat d'Etat, diss., 1982, F-Pn)
R.J.V. Cotte: La musique maçonnique et ses musiciens (Paris, 2/1987), 72–4

/

R

yanni

02-06-2010, 01:13 PM

Awfully sorry for not specifying "relevant" quotations supporting your-eager but unfounded-"scholarly" conclusions such as:

There were many individuals capable of buying music and amassing vast quantities of it. As you will agree. But in the case of Mozart we are not dealing with grand and haphazard project of arbitrarily buying music from countless sources. But of a specific project whose real aim was to draw together music and to create by the input of a series of talented composers and editors (this with the aid of publishers and propagandists) a body of music identifiable (we think) to only one composer. W.A. Mozart.

You have to first identify the "many individuals", then compare their "ammassing" capacity to France's, Napoli's and Vienna's to then come to "Gluck-Rousseau-Grimm-Myslivecek-Cocchi etc" and the "specific project..." AT THE TIME(before 1780), FIND THE REASON THEN WHY IT (REFORM OPERA basically) was thrown on Mozart's lap around 1785-6, TO THEN proceed to post 1815 political events and explain thereby the "universal accord" to pass the whole inexplicable, highly distorted already and out of all proportions, very hot potato, to Mozart thereafter.

Alternatively, you should plant onions and garlic alongside your potatoes. It might prove more usefull and certainly more healthy.

BTW The whole thing on Bagge you quote from Grove is only a very minor part of the post 1815 fiction (based on post 1783-Chastellux's return from USA-"inputs" from Paris. Gossec and Gavinier where aliases of "Bagge" etc etc)

Cheers

Musicology

02-06-2010, 02:25 PM

Yanni,

My knowledge of what you mean by 'reform opera' has not changed over the past few days. Maybe you can tell me what you mean ? But it may be quicker if you listen to some of the operas of Myslievececk, Sarti, Gazzaniga, and so on during the time of this supposed 'reform' - as already suggested last time we spoke of it. You believe 'Gluck' was the spearhead of a 'reform' of opera. In fact, 'Gluck's' music was not a reform. It was simply an expansion of an increasingly controlled music industry into Paris. An industry which was increasingly under the control of the 'enlightenment' philosophy of Voltaire and Rousseau. Whose aim was to obtain control across Europe of the performing arts across most of Europe. Including music. You should examine the history of opera in England at this time. The role of operatic ballet under Noverre, also the careers of Gallini, Viotti, Cowper and others. Who used Paris and Italy as a recruiting base. The 'enlightenment', Yanni, was as much due to the control of the British Empire and the merchants of the East India Company and the Dutch East India Company as the Holy Roman Empire. Since these two things were merging at this time. The patrons of opera and music at this time were already working towards the control of the performing arts.

As for collectors of large volumes of music, these included the chapels of many princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Such as Bonn, Regensburg, Esterhazy and so on.

Yes, as said, the Grove Dictionary provides only a standard account of Bagge. Bagge was certainly as important as Grimm in a musical sense.

What is hidden from appreciation in standard biographies of music and musician is the role of the fraternities (religious and occultist) and the way they merged during the late 18th century. Plus the role of those who patronised the arts. Many of them aristocrats and princes themselves. These things all fusing with the 'enlightenment' and with the union of these different fraternal strands under the Illuminatists etc. Culminating in the Council of Vienna (1815 onwards) and the restoration of the Jesuit Order. So that, eventually, all these things merged. And the music industry (which emerged in the early 19th century) began to control the writing of textbooks, omitting inconvenient biographical and musical facts, elevating a handful of composers to god-like status in a 'pantheon', as we see in pagan times. And, as for the facts of history, well, these were conveniently 'altered' and revised. So that we end more ignorant of reality than if we knew nothing at all. One result of which is the destruction of musicology, as such, and the rise of sheer commercialism.

Awfully sorry for not specifying "relevant" quotations supporting your-eager but unfounded-"scholarly" conclusions such as:

There were many individuals capable of buying music and amassing vast quantities of it. As you will agree. But in the case of Mozart we are not dealing with grand and haphazard project of arbitrarily buying music from countless sources. But of a specific project whose real aim was to draw together music and to create by the input of a series of talented composers and editors (this with the aid of publishers and propagandists) a body of music identifiable (we think) to only one composer. W.A. Mozart.

You have to first identify the "many individuals", then compare their "ammassing" capacity to France's, Napoli's and Vienna's to then come to "Gluck-Rousseau-Grimm-Myslivecek-Cocchi etc" and the "specific project..." AT THE TIME(before 1780), FIND THE REASON THEN WHY IT (REFORM OPERA basically) was thrown on Mozart's lap around 1785-6, TO THEN proceed to post 1815 political events and explain thereby the "universal accord" to pass the whole inexplicable, highly distorted already and out of all proportions, very hot potato, to Mozart thereafter.

Alternatively, you should plant onions and garlic alongside your potatoes. It might prove more usefull and certainly more healthy.

BTW The whole thing on Bagge you quote from Grove is only a very minor part of the post 1815 fiction (based on post 1783-Chastellux's return from USA-"inputs" from Paris. Gossec and Gavinier where aliases of "Bagge" etc etc)

Cheers

yanni

02-06-2010, 03:58 PM

I don't need to explain(In fact I already did herein) what reform opera was meant to be (music serving the lyrics, don't you rmember, for a specific message to get through) and the mere fact you suggest "listen to the music" demonstrates you are indeed still unaware of the difference.

The enlightment became a common goal AFTER Britain lost their West Indies but the "established commercial interests" existed before that and collaborated to the fact.

For the minor role of the Holy Roman Empire" I have already spoken. The same for fraternities.

Chapels indeed employed famous musiciens (who nevertheless may have had their own ideas at the time, serving other, non religious patrons as well) but had little or nothing to do with opera or even chamber music, their task being to praise the Lord exclusively.

My previous guide to your road to fame, or at least to truth, stands as is.

Cheers.

Musicology

02-06-2010, 05:20 PM

Thank you Yanni,

I understand what you mean by 'reform opera' although the 'reform' that it represents was more advertising and hyperbole than substance. Still, yes, I do understand what you mean.

On the 'enlightenment' we differ. I agree completely with you in certain respects. The commercial interests of Europe are a major factor. And the British Empire was itself a major factor. As already said. The Northern Venice of London, in fact. But this secular movement was a new method of uniting people. A new tool of propaganda, in fact. The end of direct church control of society and the beginnings of what SEEMED to be secularised society. A secularised society which was run more by fraternities and hidden interests of the ruling elite than theologians and bishops. At least, on the surface. The secularised society of the Encyclopaedists, of Voltaire, Rousseau etc. Whose relationship with the British elites, with the mercantile power that was England cannot be ignored.

A letter of Mozart (28th December 1782, to his father in Salzburg. "I was working on a very difficult task--a Bardic song by Denis on Gibraltar. It is a secret, for a Hungarian lady wants thus to honor Denis." "Yes, I have heard of England's triumph at Gibraltar, and, indeed, with great joy (for you know well that I am an arch-Englishman)."

There is, Yanni, absolutely no doubt that Mozart's contacts in England were extensive. They included the Prime Minister of England, the Prince of Wales, numerous high ranking land owners, archbishops etc. Most of them connected with the Catholic nobility. And with the fraternities which, in the mid-18th century onwards were supporters of Jacobinism and of an attempt to restore England to the papacy. Indeed, that movement was close to success and it had been a major factor within the British establishment since the time when the Venetians founded the British mercantile empire. The occultist/fraternity infiltration of the British government was very real. They literally controlled the Royal Society from the time of its foundation, for example. The formation of Freemasony in England (itself another form of occultism seen earlier in Venice), and its export to Germany, Italy and elsewhere was a growing movement itself. Secularism had many attractions to the elites of England. Whose slave trading companies and whose quest for imperial control of other nations is a plain fact of history. Unlike yourself I believe that fraternities had a very major role in this movement. That it was, from the start, part of the counter-reformation. Exportable, as we see here in England. So that it would be absurd to study the history of the period without being aware of both the Holy Roman Empire and also the 'Englightenment'. They both merged, after all. At least, they did so in this vital area of culture. Of which music was a vital part.

We might one day discuss the life and career of your Cocchi. A career, I think, which is part of this same British Empire/Venetian idea. Occultism, in fact. Thinly veiled, of course. Since Cocchi was a definite link for Mozart's career and nothing I have found contradicts that fact.

You describe the role of the Holy Roman Empire as being 'minor'. Well, what about Earl Cowper ? The Englishman who lived for decades in Florence and who was a major musical impresario and patron, knighted as a baron of the Holy Roman Empire, although he was English. Or various ambassadors of Britain including the Ambassador to Vienna, Keith. These were vitally important in the Mozart story. And in the propagation of Mozart. Again, the idea of Vienna as 'city of music'. This cannot be separated from the Holy Roman Empire, whose capital city it was. And then we have the affair of the Requiem, announced as proof positive that Mozart had died as a loyal son of the Roman Catholic Church. And an employee of the Cathedral.

No, you believe the role of the 'Holy Roman Empire' in the career of Mozart was minor. When, we see, his association from the start was organised by a Prince Archbishop of Salzburg. And, decades later, in the 19th century, when the Mozarteum (the centre for the study of Mozart was opened in Salzburg) it was patronised by the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg. The ecclesiastical links with Mozart are indisputable. And they included his award of the Order of the Golden Spur in Rome, by the Pope himself. But you believe the Role of the Holy Roman Empire was minor.

As for fraternities, are you suggesting these had no place in the life and career of Mozart ? Surely not. Since, in truth, we see countless proofs of the opposite in Rosicrucianism (a belief very strongly based in Salzburg), plus Freemasonry, and, of course, in many, many illuminatist publishers, managers and propagandists of his time and beyond. How you can say these things are 'minor' has escaped me.

Unless I am mistaken Mr Cocchi was an occulist himself. But perhaps I am mistaken ?

It can be no coincidence, Yanni, that the move to unite Europe, and to unite entire nations, (which everyone knows has been spoken of as a goal of globalism and particularly of the illuminatists since the 18th century) are strikingly similar to those of empires themselves. So that, once again, we cannot ignore these things and can only observe that they involve the unification of disparate fraternities, of which Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Illuminatism etc. are obvious examples. These 'secularised' movements uniting with the net effect being to control, to rule from within, to remain, officially, of minor significance, but, in reality, to have a clear and obvious tendency to maintain the power of the elites, to expand them, rather, and to serve the 'status quo'. Whether this is acknowledged by general members of the fraternties at the lower levels of these organisations or not. Since, again, we see evidence of it everywhere and especially in this vital area of culture - the control of what is taught and believed of musical achievement in particular. It is precisely because textbooks tell us nonsense in matters of biography and achievement etc. that we are able to say that some other explanation for these omissions exists. And it does. Since the 'fairy story' must be maintained at all costs. The one invented by those whose control of the music industry has made them in the first place.

It seems to me obvious that banking, commerce, and politics are not the only areas of corruption within our society. Since that of music and the performing arts are and have always been subject to the same corporate and often blatant examples of control and fiction.

Regards

Thanks Yanni. I will post here from time to time. Nice to discuss these things with you.

Best wishes

Robert N.

Aria
'Mache dich, mein Herze, rein'
Matthäus-Passion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF6xVtLL-l8

yanni

02-07-2010, 02:59 AM

"Unless I am mistaken Mr Cocchi was an occulist himself. But perhaps I am mistaken ?"

He was much more than that and to assign him just the "occulist" attribute, is in fact a distortion of truth (coming furthermore from the one who has promised to ask his italian friends on "their Cocchis and why they hide them" never to return on the subject).

He was a highly talented, exceptionaly intelligent, extremely hardworking, perfectly balanced, wonderfully disciplined, deeply self motivated and amazingly successfull, civil servant of France, their top "secret agent", who had to wear many hats and associate himself with all sorts, to control and influence them, as his duties demanded.

I have absolutely no doubt that every national archive in every country he "passed through" in his time, still maintains a room full of files on his person where, an army of researchers has been employed in the past to crosscheck and "establish" his multiple aliases as separate individuals (maintaining them from now on is however questionable).

He was well trusted as a diplomat in all "courts" at least till 1786, including USA's but his identity and the controversy in his many aliases had been partly uncovered. He was thereby threatened and propably blackmailed at the time (thus concented to deliver his music archive to Mozart but never mentioned him in his "Koch" music dictionary of 1792) but kept on serving Royal France, totally "drained" already, under yet more aliases, until "Terror" decapitated the Royal couple when he decided to quit and permanently settle in Russia. He was already around 70 at the time.

For the "common good" (his concept) it was decided to "bury" him in a myth, a rather favourable myth at that, "Le comte de Saint Germain", still described as a likeable "good sort", his "charlatan" personality, a professional hazard, suppressed by other comments, all to his favour.

He definitely was a pacifist and definitely proposed "make trade, not war" and practiced "make love instead" in his private life too (rather excessively and indiscriminatly, I might add) !

In short, he was "Flying-throughout his life but was not really a-Dutchman" even if he was a "Heinault" or a "Hennin" for a while!

But did he favour "dreadnought diplomacy to promote trade and conquer" as it then developed (to still apply, wherever possible, today)?

Having studied him "a while", I answer "no, he did not" and challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Did he apply his "common good" rule on his own person?

He certainly did, perhaps masterminding and certainly silently approving the "removal" of his own son Pavel, to honour previous pacts and avoid another war, but failed , to witness it and die soon after, an unhappy Mathusala, as I believe.

Do return here by all means: Your answer on Cocchi may be the first, but is certainly not the last "promised answer yet to come".

My regards.

As a farewell gift, a little something freshly "forged":

Mozart’s seven great operas, his brilliant contribution
to music theatre and world culture, are unequalled in
their depth of human characterisation and musical
expression.
Through happy coincidence, all seven opera scores
have survived almost complete in Mozart’s manuscript.
The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI, Los Altos, Ca.)
has embarked on producing a facsimile edition
of the seven autograph scores. Mozart scholars,
libraries and of course all lovers of Mozart’s stage
works now have the opportunity of acquiring these
priceless manuscripts in flawless reproductions.
At the same time, all risks about preserving Mozart’s
legacy for the world of music are taken care of.
The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) charitable
foundation, known for its philanthropic programmes in
the arts and sciences, has forged an ideal cooperation
for the Mozart project. Under the scholarly direction of
an editorial board (Ulrich Konrad, David Packard,
Wolfgang Rehm, Christoph Wolff; General editor
Dietrich Berke) the International Mozarteum
Foundation Salzburg and the libraries where Mozart’s
manuscripts are held are working together with the
Packard Humanities Institute.
The production of the volumes is exquisite
for the digitalization of the manuscripts
has been undertaken using the latest
technology, which allows for an astounding
level of authenticity and precision in detail.
The printing follows the uncompromisingly
high standards demanded by the edition

Musicology

02-07-2010, 09:02 AM

Yanni,

In answer to the question of whether Cocchi was an occultist your answer (as a student of Cocchi and his life) is that he, 'was much more than that'. Is it difficult for you to understand this reply of yours is, shall we say, a classic example of obscurantism ?

So please allow me ask it another way. Is it true Cocchi was an inducted member of various secret societies whose members existed across the lands where Cocchi travelled, all of whom were bound by oaths, whose teachings and whose beliefs were not accessible to ordinary members of the public, and which connected him, Cocchi, to a network of similarly inducted people ? Many of whose members were of direct and indirect influence and importance in his career ?

As to whether Cocchi was 'highly talented, intelligent, extremely hard working, perfectly balanced, wonderfully disciplined' etc. is, you will surely agree, another matter.

Will you please tell us some details of Cocchi's occultism and of the societies and beliefs to which he subscribed ? If you know such things, of course. I mean, over 200 years later these may be a questions you are happy to answer frankly and honestly. So when you say, 'he was much more than that' this is, you may agree, almost meaningless.

Now, regarding the other contents of your post, on 'Mozart's 7 great operas' which, you say, are 'his' brilliant contribution to music theatre and world culture' and, which you also say, 'are unequalled in their depth of human characterisation and musical expression' you join the ranks of the credulous in writing as you do - (though I doubt whether the words are of your own invention) -

'Through happy coincidence, all 7 opera scores have survived almost complete in Mozart's manuscript. The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI, Los Altos, Calif) has embarked on producing a facsimile edition of the 7 autograph scores. Mozart scholars, libraries and of course all lovers of Mozart's stage works now have the opportunity of aquiring these priceless manuscripts in flawless reproductions. At the same time, all risks about preserving Mozart’s legacy for the world of music are taken care of. The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) charitable foundation, known for its philanthropic programmes in the arts and sciences, has forged an ideal cooperation for the Mozart project. Under the scholarly direction of an editorial board (Ulrich Konrad, David Packard,Wolfgang Rehm, Christoph Wolff; General editor Dietrich Berke) the International Mozarteum Foundation Salzburg and the libraries where Mozart’s manuscripts are held are working together with the Packard Humanities Institute.The production of the volumes is exquisite for the digitalization of the manuscripts has been undertaken using the latest technology, which allows for an astounding level of authenticity and precision in detail. The printing follows the uncompromisingly high standards demanded by the edition’.

Such is your view, Yanni, and such (to be fair) is of course the view of the Packard Humanities Institute, the Mozarteum in Salzburg, the Mozart industry, and (not surprisingly) the music loving consumers of this music. Since they have no reason to suspect differently.

But, since you’ve posted this glowing advertisement for Mozart’s 7 operatic scores (and since I’ve taken the trouble to repeat your post here) and since I am aware of their existence may I ask you one or two questions on these Mozart ‘autograph’ scores ? I promise not to confuse you with many, many questions. In fact, in deference to your expertise, I will ask you only one or two simple ones. Is that OK ?

You see, Yanni, I am aware that I am writing to a student of the life and career of Cocchi. I assume you have not studied this subject of the autograph scores of Mozart’s 7 operas. I assume too that you are impressed by them being reproduced and sold in ‘authenticity and precision’. And I assume, Yanni, this advertisement which you have brought to our attention has persuaded you.

Fine. I will go easy on you. I promise I will burden you with no hard questions. You, Yanni, will have no difficulty in answering only three questions from me. These so simple I have confidence you will be able to reply to them without difficulty. And here they are -

1. Yanni, of these 7 Mozart operatic autographs, would you object if I focus on only one of them ? Just for the sake of discussing them, their reproduction and their commercial sale generally ? Yes or No ?

2. If the answer is yes may I choose for the sake of illustration the autograph of ‘The Marriage of Figaro’ (‘Le Nozze di Figaro’) ? One of these 7. This autograph, as you have just said, is being sold today in a wonderfully accurate edition, etc. Have you any objection to me choosing Figaro as one of these 7 ? Yes or No ?

3. Yanni, this autograph now being sold commercially in wonderful detail of Mozart’s opera ‘The Marriage of Figaro’. You may be aware the premiere of that famous opera was (so all the textbooks say) 1st May 1786 in Vienna. Will you please tell us whether this 'Figaro' operatic autograph now being sold in high precision edition existed then, at the time of its Vienna premiere ? A simple yes or no will be enough to start the ball rolling.

Regards (and without frivolity, obscurantism, any artificial flavouring or colouring, and free from any genetically modified contents) - LOL !

Robert

yanni

02-07-2010, 11:23 AM

Is that so?

Accepting he was indeed a member of many "secret societies", I then proceeded to explain at length in my previous post that he was as well a top diplomat, serving France as a secret agent and that he employed his "occultism" in this capacity.

You chose to ignore it (as you did other parts of my post concerning your "input" or lack of) to then comment on the quote on Mozart's operas in small print taken from http://www.mozart.gr/PHI_Mozart_eng as if I had something to do with it.

Well, I did not and the only reason I posted it as a farewell gift, was to have your own "musicologist's" comments on the piece, originating from a greek site, a totally false piece, in my opinion.

We agreed, from the beginning of this thread, that Mozart was manufactured, remember?

And it was me who insisted we focus on "opera" with you looking the other way, remember that too?

You selected to "pass" once again and to return the last package to the sender, labelling your own intent furthermore as without frivolity, obscurantism, any artificial flavouring or colouring, and free from any genetically modified contents.

Well, your own actions dispute you....AGAIN!

A true climax of "fairness", hah-hah!

(The floor is yours whenever you are ready).

Cheers.

Musicology

02-07-2010, 11:41 AM

Yanni,

I am not asking you to 'accept' anything. But I am asking you once more, as an honest student of Cocchi, to provide if you will some details of the occultism with which Cocchi was associated. If you have details, that is. But, since you even choose to italicise the term 'secret societies' (which implies this term is not one to which you subcribe to in respect of Cocchi) will you edit your post and describe them instead as 'public societies' ? Or shall we end this obscurantism and finally share what we know ?

Thank you for your farewell gift. Time will tell whether you will kindly answer my 3 easy questions on the 'autograph' score of 'Figaro' - one of the 7 'Mozart' scores which are (as you have correctly noted) being advertised and commercially sold as such.

The problem is (and it seems you are not aware of it) this 'Figaro' score and the 6 other operatic 'autographs' are really NOT Mozart 'autographs'. Indeed, the proofs of this are able to be shown. Which I offer to do here if you wish to discuss the subject. I was (and still am) hopeful of you answering my 3 simple questions in your reply. But, if not, thank you for your parting gift and please accept mine. My offer to discuss that subject. Subject, of course, to receiving your reply to these 3 questions.

Regards

BWV 191/1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jouo1gndiLs

Is that so?

Accepting he was indeed a member of many "secret societies", I then proceeded to explain at length in my previous post that he was as well a top diplomat, serving France as a secret agent and that he employed his "occultism" in this capacity.

You chose to ignore it (as you did other parts concerning your "input" or lack of) to then comment on the quote on Mozart's operas in small print taken from http://www.mozart.gr/PHI_Mozart_eng as if I had something to do with it.

Well, I did not and the only reason I posted it as a farewell gift, was to have your own "musicologist's" comments on the piece, originating from a greek site, a totally false piece, in my opinion.

You selected to "pass" and to return the package to the sender, labelling your own intent furthermore as without frivolity, obscurantism, any artificial flavouring or colouring, and free from any genetically modified contents.

Well, your own actions dispute you, once again!

A true climax of "fairness", hah-hah!

Cheers.

yanni

02-07-2010, 11:53 AM

I have covered, up to a point, Cocchi's "occultism" in this thread already, have also labelled "secret societies" and their usefullness in governance at the time as well and, should you wish to read more on the subject, my thread on Poe contains many more details for anyone interested.

Now you!

Musicology

02-07-2010, 12:02 PM

Yes, Yanni, you have 'covered' Cocchi's occultism to the point of obscurantism. I will ask you no more of it.

And, as for a reply to my three easy questions on the autograph of 'Figaro', do you think I should ask no more of them also ?

:willy_nilly:

Regards

I have covered, up to a point, Cocchi's "occultism" in this thread already, have also labelled "secret societies" and their usefullness in governance at the time as well and, should you wish to read more on the subject, my thread on Poe contains many more details for anyone interested.

Now you!

yanni

02-07-2010, 12:06 PM

Stop wasting your GM potatoes (you never did read my "Poe decoded" thread) and by all means dispute the "Seven operas by Mozart".

Cheers.

Musicology

02-07-2010, 12:50 PM

Fortunately I don't use GM potatoes ! But we still have this year to get some real seeds, right ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94d-KVorSHM&feature=PlayList&p=8CEFCEA15019F61B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=19

As for the 'autograph' scores of 7 operas of Mozart (a subject inspired by your gift of information on their commercial publication) I will resist the temptation of discussing them here unless/until I have evidence of the interest of a certain Yanni.

Regards

Stop wasting your GM potatoes (you never did read my "Poe decoded" thread) and by all means dispute the "Seven operas by Mozart".

Cheers.

yanni

02-07-2010, 12:57 PM

Your resistance to the powers of evil is legendary already.:leaving:

Musicology

02-07-2010, 01:06 PM

Thank you Yanni. Your resistance to answering straight questions is becoming even more legendary !

But, as for the first, the truth is all power worthy of our attention is an antidote to its counterfeits.

:blush2:

yanni

02-07-2010, 01:10 PM

"Fair" enough!
:leaving:

Musicology

02-07-2010, 01:18 PM

Many thanks

:leaving:

"Fair" enough!
:leaving:

Sergi Prokofiev
Piano Concerto 3
3rd Movement
Live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030GVK3Glo&feature=related

yanni

02-11-2010, 03:26 AM

The famous french chess player and opera composer, a friend of "Rousseau" ,"Philidor", has just been included in the list of Gioachino Cocchi aliases.

Philidor's London presences confirm

a)That "Chastellux" travelled to London from USA the summer of 1782 (to return there again at fall)
b)That the "comte de Saint Germain" was very well connected to the british upper class as from 1777, including Lord Shelbourne* (irish prime minister of Britain as from 1782).
c)That before finally settling in Russia, Cocchi arranged "Philidor's London death" in 1795.

*See list of contributors to his chess periodical at "Chess History and Reminiscences by Henry Edward Bird"

Cheers.

Musicology

02-11-2010, 12:48 PM

Ah, yes, Yanni !

Lord Shelbourne. With his links to the British East India Company, to the Gordon Riots. To Jacobinism and even to the smooth transition period of 'Mozart's genius'. Not to mention their involvement in controlling the later stages of the French Revolution.

You have to hand it to those guys. In place of fugue they gave us candyfloss.

Regards

BWV 543/2

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

The famous french chess player and opera composer, a friend of "Rousseau" ,"Philidor", has just been included in the list of Gioachino Cocchi aliases.

Philidor's London presences confirm

a)That "Chastellux" travelled to London from USA the summer of 1782 (to return there again at fall)
b)That the "comte de Saint Germain" was very well connected to the british upper class as from 1777, including Lord Shelbourne* (irish prime minister of Britain as from 1782).
c)That before finally settling in Russia, Cocchi arranged "Philidor's London death" in 1795.

*See list of contributors to his chess periodical at "Chess History and Reminiscences by Henry Edward Bird"

Cheers.

yanni

02-12-2010, 02:03 AM

The Gordon riots of 1778-1780 were against Roman Catholics in general and the British-Austria alliance (promoted by hardliners who were against American Independence) in particular

Cotton candy was invented in 1897.

"fugue" originates from grk φυγή ie getaway, escape.

"Keep walking"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyYvkqAeJV0&feature=related

Musicology

02-12-2010, 07:13 AM

Well, the Gordon Riots (1778-1780) were acts of violence that were 'stage managed' by the occultists of the British East India Company in London to coincide with similar events in France whose influence (through fraternities etc), by this time, had become enormous within the government of that time. (The end result of this Venetian import of occultism and the mercantile formation of the British Empire). They were what we might call an early 'false flag operation'. Which is why I wrote as I did. The 'rioters' were imported into London from elsewhere. By them. A fact not refered to in textbooks these days, of course ! Which is why I refered to Shelburne. In point of fact religious toleration was a great feature of English society for centuries and there was never a time when Roman Catholics could not be Roman Catholics in England. The only issue that prevented them sitting in the British government was if they refused to acknowledge the lawful government of Britain and its laws in preference to their obedience to the Bishop of Rome and his dogmas. (This was, you may remember, the same papacy who had taken the step of excommunicating ALL British people at the time of Elizabeth 1st. Who had even excommunicated her. Who had ordered all British Catholics to disobey the laws of England. In writing). The same papacy who had at that time ordered all British people to ignore the laws of England and the leadership of the British state. Just before the Spanish Armada of 1588). An excommunication which was never reversed. Which is why the 'Act of Settlement' was made at Parliament - which makes it clear that leaders of government in Britain must give their first allegiance to the government of our nation and its laws and not to a foreign power. A fair and reasonable requirement, you surely agree ? But it was one which Roman Catholics continued to reject up until the 'Act of Settlement' and beyond. Which was partly the reason for arranging these stage-managed 'Gordon Riots'. So much for Cocchi and Shelburne etc. Yes ? For the truth of these things (the Gordon Riots and their 'stage management' here, for example) -

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/bentham.htm

As for 'candy floss' (also known as 'cotton candy') it's very ancient -In ancient Persia, 'Pashmak', and known in Turkey as 'Pişmaniye'.

I smile at your use of 'Fugue' (the DNA of musical composition) but of course happily surrender to your Greek meanings. To 'escape' from the music industry is no bad thing !

Speaking of which - for your delicate ears, Yanni - this Bach/Vivaldi concerto -

BWV 1065

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sdaVX-K5j8&feature=PlayList&p=1C7D6FAF7C4691B0&index=1

Still walking !

Regards

The Gordon riots of 1778-1780 were against Roman Catholics in general and the British-Austria alliance (promoted by hardliners who were against American Independence) in particular

Cotton candy was invented in 1897.

"fugue" originates from grk φυγή ie getaway, escape.

"Keep walking"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyYvkqAeJV0&feature=related

yanni

02-12-2010, 09:06 AM

"So much for Cocchi and Shelburne etc. Yes ? For the truth of these things (the Gordon Riots and their 'stage management' here, for example) - "

If you r e a l l y want an answer to that one, I suggest(for the nth time) you ask your italian associates (recollet occultists, I imagine) on Cocchi's 1778 whereabouts.

All sources (but me), Grove included, want him in Naples at the time, composing church music.

Escaping from the music industry?

A parallel comes to mind of those wonderfully obedient Titanic violinists accompanying with their fugues people perishing in the black sea, patiently waiting their turn.

Cheers.

Musicology

02-12-2010, 09:51 AM

Yes Yanni,

You refered to Shelburne and I've explained (and shown) the nature of Shelburne's career. And of the East India Company. Which you ignore. Although you can read the article for yourself. Which I recommend since Cocchi, Rousseau and Voltaire were all part of the same network. The Gordon Riots were another attempt to show, clearly, the role of the mercantile empire of the occultists, stage managing the political world of the late 18th century. Since you may have missed reading about this here it is again - (it may help put the career of your Cocchi into better focus) -

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/bentham.htm

By this time also, King George III had declared himself wholly subservient to the Shelburne-led East India Company faction--the Venetian Party.

and also -

The Jacobin insurrection in Paris during 1791-93 was a replay on grander scale of the earlier Shelburne-instigated Gordon Riots, down to the storming of the Bastille prison and the unleashing of the criminals.

Not forgetting -

At the very moment of his taking up with Bentham, Lord Shelburne was in the process of launching his most daring political intrigues.
In June 1780, weary of the failed prosecution of the war in North America, and convinced that the ministry of Lord George North would bring eternal ruin to his dreams of permanent empire, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, bankrolled a Jacobin mob to descend upon London, ostensibly in protest over the granting of Irish reforms. The so-called Irish reforms amounted to little more than forced conscription of Irishmen into the British Army to fight in North America--a move Shelburne hoped would also defeat the pro-American republican movement inside Ireland that had nearly launched its own revolt against Britain in 1779.

Led by Lord George Gordon, the Protestant rabble stormed Westminster, sending parliamentarians and lords alike down flights of stairs, out windows, and to the hospitals. For eight days, London was ransacked, culminating in the storming of the Newgate Prison and the freeing of all the prisoners, who joined in the assault on the Parliament building.

Lord Shelburne, as head of the interior committee of the House of Lords, personally ensured the maximum terror by delaying the reading of the Riot Act (which would have called out the Home Guard) until violence had spread to every corner of the city. When the flames subsided, the ministry of Lord North was in ashes as well. North resigned as prime minister, and within months, Shelburne was himself in the new Rockingham cabinet as foreign secretary for the Northern District, subsuming the North American colonies. From that post, he would be the principal negotiator in Paris across the table from Benjamin Franklin.

As for Titanic violinists 'playing fugues', no, they did not.

"So much for Cocchi and Shelburne etc. Yes ? For the truth of these things (the Gordon Riots and their 'stage management' here, for example) - "

If you r e a l l y want an answer to that one, I suggest(for the nth time) you ask your italian associates (recollet occultists, I imagine) on Cocchi's 1778 whereabouts.

All sources (but me), Grove included, want him in Naples at the time, composing church music.

Escaping from the music industry?

A parallel comes to mind of those wonderfully obedient Titanic violinists accompanying with their fugues people perishing in the black sea, patiently waiting their turn.

Cheers.

Musicology

02-12-2010, 10:55 AM

Yanni,

I do not know Cocchi's whereabouts in 1778 although I know for sure from around early 1772 he was based again in Venice. He did not, as has been alleged, resume his post at the Incurabili. That was now held by the composer Galuppi until the hospital’s reorganization in 1776, when the musical staff was dismissed. The choir, however, continued its concerts, and Cocchi is known to have still written for it as late as 1784. It is possible (I suggest) he visited Paris and England in early 1778 (visiting London, Bath and several estates in England that year) although I base this opinion only on the fact that during that year in England there were several important musical events involving others of his network in England.

Rgds

yanni

02-12-2010, 11:00 AM

In other words, Robert, your "Venetian occultists" at the time were staging a counterattack against your previous "jesuit culprits", making "your" Britain a battling ground where those "blame for all" foreigners were settling their disputes, huh?

Make up your mind, will you?

BTW Cocchi was serving as war minister of France 1776-1778!

Cheers!

Musicology

02-12-2010, 11:41 AM

I think you are a little confused. I do not subsribe to your Cocchi alias theory. But you seem determined to impose it on me all the same.

I am saying Goacchino Cocchi (1712-1796) who died in Venice in 1796, may have been in Paris and in England in the year you are asking about, 1778. But you may believe as you like, of course.

Here are details of the sale of a Gainsborough painting made of Tenducci. With some notes of the kind of musical contacts G. Cocchi would have had in England during the time he was there. (Cocchi is refered to here as you see).

As for your misunderstanding on the events of this period, it is simple to understand we are dealing here not with one power (The Holy Roman Empire) but two, the second being the occultist Venetian fraternities which had been transplanted into England at the time of Henry 8th (as previously said) and which, by the 18th century, through the growing British mercantile empire, took over the nation. By means of controlling the East India Company and, in Holland, through the Dutch East India Company) as a way to expand their influence internationally. This Venetian 'invasion' of England began from the time when the Jesuit Order were first created. Supported by Venice. Since the Jesuit support of occultism is plain in many, many ways. As in, for example, the Illuminatists, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons etc. And successfully infiltrating the British government and society through these occultist fraternities. By the time of Cocchi and Mozart this occultism had become deeply rooted in England and across most of Europe. Bypassing the old theological emnities between Catholics and Protestants. But the aim of these occultists was the same. A continuing counter-reformation. Now waged in the secular sense. Whose aim was ultimately to restore to the control of Rome their rule over the nations. The 'Gordon Riots' in England were an example of 'divide and rule'. Managed by Shelburne and others. As said.

England could not be conquered by theology. It was, however, conquered through the greed of its merchant classes and its ruling aristocracy. Which is how the legal system of England (a newly invented system known as 'English Common Law') was slowly invented and imposed on its colonies as their empire expanded. That hybrid legal system which was now imposed on England and the legal industry and elsewhere was really a mixture of Admiralty Law, canon law, Roman civil law, and many other things. Which slowly bypassed the real law of England, the Common Law. And still does today.

The British Empire thus became an occultist centre. With the City of London, its banking system, its Freemasonry (this widely exported from the early 18th century) and its government and intelligence services now inflitrated by these same occultists. Including organisations such as the Royal Society etc. Creating an established class which supports and depends on the monarchy to this day. Since all monarchies of England had, from the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066, pledged their allegiance and that of their successors to the Papacy. Indeed, the British monarchy is the product of the papacy. This unwelcome fact is still true today. Explaining the rise of corporate government, of feudalism, and of empires ever since.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx%3FintObjectID%3D5157394&ei=2m51S7OyI4iM0gSOxJ2pCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcocchi%2Bbath%2B1778%26hl%3Den%26rlz% 3D1G1ACEWCENUK313

In other words, Robert, your "Venetian occultists" at the time were staging a counterattack against your previous "jesuit culprits", making "your" Britain a battling ground where those "blame for all" foreigners were settling their disputes, huh?

Make up your mind, will you?

BTW Cocchi was serving as war minister of France 1776-1778!

Cheers!

Musicology

02-12-2010, 11:57 AM

Here are some musical publications of G. Cocchi at the British Library from that decade (1770-1780), published in London -

1. 'Duettini 12 per canto'. G. Cocchi
London : Printed by Welcker, [c. 1770].

2. Miller, Edward, 1735-1807 - 'Institutes of Music, or easy Instructions for the Harpsichord' ... To which are added ... Lessons for Practice, etc.
Published in London : Longman and Broderip, [1771]
Containing compositions by Miller, Rameau, Corelli, Handel, Stamitz, Agrell, Van Maldere, Lully, Avison, Burton, Edelmann, Dietz, Paradies, Just, Arne, [J. C.] Bach, Vanhall, Cocchi, Shroeter, Schobert and the King of Prussia.

3. 'Le Delizie dell’Opere'. Being a Collection of all the Favourite Songs in Score, collected from the Operas compos’d by Bach, Perez, Cocchi, Ciampi, Jomelli, Giardini, Galuppi, Vinci, Pergolesi, Leo, Lampugnani, Terradellas, Hasse, Porpora, C. St Germain, Pescetti, Veracini, Bononcini.
Publisher/year London : Printed for I. Walsh, [1776]

4. 'The Maid of the Mill' - for the Voice, Harpsichord, or Violin. [The words by I. Bickerstaffe.] London : R. Bremner, [1770?] - The composers named in this pasticcio are: the Earl of Kelly, Rinaldo di Capua, Abos, the Elector of Saxony, Ciampi, Laschi and Philidor, Picini, Gallupi, Pergolese, Monsignier, Vinci, Scarlatti, Arnold, Cocchi, Bach, Hasse, Duny, Giardini, Jomelli and Martini.

You will surely agree from these publications that even during the 1770's G. Cocchi, composer, had association with the musical scene in London. (As he had for decades before this).

Rgds

yanni

02-12-2010, 12:26 PM

"I do not know Cocchi's whereabouts in 1778 although I know for sure from around early 1772 he was based again in Venice."

Assuming your "certainty" is based on your own- or your silent italian associates- research , do supply evidence of Cocchi's continuous Napoli presence after 1772 by all means!

Personaly I don't have a single trustworthy reference documenting the presence of Cocchi or any of his aliases in Napoli, 1772.

Cheers.

Musicology

02-12-2010, 12:40 PM

Yanni,

I might also add the publication by G. Cocchi, in London, of 6 Quintets also published, c1780.

In answer to your question of proof that Cocchi was based in Venice from the time he returned there from Venice (1772), I have the following -

About 1772 Cocchi, now well off, returned to Venice. He did not (as already said) resume his musical post at the Incurabili. That was now held by Galuppi until that hospital’s reorganization in 1776, when the musical staff were dismissed. The choir, however, continued its concerts, and Cocchi still wrote for it in 1784. He is said by Piero Wiess (who wrote the article on Cocchi for the 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians') to have composed a Requiem Mass for his wife in 1786 as requested in her will, and there is a manuscript 'Dixit Dominus' (A-Wn 19084) dated 1788. An inscription marks the place in the church of S Giovanni Grisostomo in Venice where he and his wife are buried, close to the theatre where he made his Venetian début.

And I've suggested he travelled after returning to Venice in 1772. But, for sure, from that time onwards, (1772) his musical works (or, works attributed to him) are far fewer. There is no new opera, for example. Depite this, during the 1770's his influence in England as a composer was still real as we see from those London publications.

This is the same G. Cocchi whom Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart met on their stay in London in 1764/5.

//

yanni

02-12-2010, 01:03 PM

Your "evidence" compares to Rousseau's own Confessions, hah-hah!

Any music historian or musicologist who cares to examine Cocchi's lame "biography" (Grove, huh?) or timetable of works can but wonder why and how this hugely productive (his repertorio a mystery by itself) composer suddenly stopped producing operas in 1762(he had two staged in London 1762, not 1772 as you write) to withdraw in silence in Naples (almost simultaneously to Gluck's rising "reformist" star eversince).

BTW Philidor (Rousseau's associate and/or copyist!!!) appears in London 1772 and you do have evidence of his permanent settlement there , don't you?

My respect to the science of musicology is growing by the minute!

Cheers!

Musicology

02-12-2010, 01:57 PM

Yanni,

Unless you have evidence to the contrary isn't it worth accepting what we have ?

As far as Cocchi is concerned, you may be interested to know of the career of another composer of that same name. Probably an ancestor of G. Cocchi and related in a number of ways to the circle that was around Mozart in the century later.

Claudio Cocchi (b. late 16th century in Genoa, d. after 1631). Who was a Franciscan who worked in 3 countries during a short space of time. In 1626 he became (and this is where it gets interesting) Chaplain and Kapellmeister to Cardinal Franz Dietrichstein, Bishop of Olomouc and Governor of Moravia. A patron of Italian style music. He was also employed at Trieste Cathedral and superintedant of the monastery there. His masses were published at Venice. And in Milan.

Mozart and his father visited and stayed in this same town of Olomouc (1767) when he was a boy of 11 (almost 12) although, in fact, the official story of his visit was he was escaping from an epidemic in Vienna. They stayed for weeks in this area including Brno. Olomouc was a part of the musical/cultural network into which Mozart's career was invented. This I will show in some detail in the book. But of course, demonstrating his 'genius' there, of course !!! (LOL).

It seems to me your interest in Cocchi should include the life of Claudio Cocchi, whose employment, whose role in music, is worthy of your attention. As for linking G. Cocchi with Gluck etc, and your aliases of various others, this too is interesting but it really lacks any firm evidence. So I will continue to believe in G. Cocchi, composer, and in the earlier Claudio Cocchi. And perhaps you can discover if these two musicians were of the same family. Which I think is very probable. Even consisting of the fact they both had links with Venice.

I don't know if I can help further in Cocchi from a Mozart point of view, except to hope you will acknowledge G. Cocchi, composer, was based for years in England, and was there at the time of Mozart's arrival, was also closely associated with the Venetian occultism and its fraternities which were then so popular within many branches of the English aristocracy.

And since you yourself are talking of Shelburne (himself associated with the British East India Company) we keep coming back to the fact that the British Empire were deeply involved in the art and culture of that century and beyond through these fraternities.

Philidor may be more interesting for your thesis.

Regards

Musicology

02-12-2010, 02:24 PM

Bishop Maximilian Reichsgraf von Hamilton (1761 – 1776). Of Olomouc. Bishop of Olomouc at the time of Mozart’s visit there in 1767, you understand ? The place where, a century earlier, Sig. Cocchi had been Kapellmeister. That name, Hamilton, is not especially Bohemian, or German, is it ?

And not forgetting, of course, Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803) who entertained the boy Mozart and his father during their Italian visit, to Naples, at the time he, Hamilton, was British Ambassador there. Sheer coincidence, of course ! Why, the English 'composition pupil' of Mozart in Vienna would confirm this ! Mr Attwood (whose own family were of course, aristocrats dating back to the papally approved invasion of England in 1066). Just a coincidence, of course.

To say nothing of the British Ambassador to Vienna during Mozart’s final decade. Sir Robert Murray Keith (1730-1795)

The career of Mozart, as said, involved the British Empire. Who were deeply associated (through the fraternities and their huge trading empire) with events in European culture and music. The later Cocchi 'befriending' the Mozart's in London. (Because G. Cocchi was already on Leopold Mozart's list of people to see in London).

As Mozart said himself, 'I am an arch-Englishman'. Which may partly explain the donation to the British Library of 'Mozart's musical catalogue' there. (That is, the list of 'his' works begun in 1784 up to 1791).

LOL !

yanni

02-13-2010, 01:47 AM

"What we have" is a series of myths covering the true creation of the current "system" with "Rousseau" (and his "corner cutting" philosophy) holding hands with "Le comte de Saint Germain" and all other aliases* of Cocchi in their center and everybody else covering up in harmony eversince.

"What we have" is my many unanswered letters to various italian and french "sources" (I would add "british" and "dutch" as well but they did answer back, only to stop corresponding later on realising the size of "THE story") and my subsequent and direct online reference and finger pointing at various "Cocchi-Cochin" names, around the world, equally unanswered as well, their descendants included.

"What we have" is NOTHING AT ALL or rather a "manufactured truth" much larger than "midget" Mozart on whom you select to focus, to isolate and protect, thus sanitizing the rest of the "big lie" to be then administered along with your convenient "hang it on the dearly departed" theories.

I need no further evidence, my well documented "theory" has already solved your "puzzle" to the letter (including Mozart's "Nissen" alias" AND his "cooperation"-he was faking it to cover Saint Germain/Bache- starting 1784 as below) and it really makes no difference to me if you dispute it to perpetuate your unfinished "poem" to eternity. (There are two "pillars" supporting western culture, remember?)

It's your own deliberate choice!

Claudio Cocchi and his links to both Genoa and Brno btw is indeed an interesting bit of info that fits the Cocchi huge family tree very nicely. (It confirms in fact the "Cocchi" roots of an italian genealogist friend from Livorno-with Brno ancestors of a similar family name- with whom I exchanged some emails last year on his initiative. He asked me for more info on my "greek" data for his own family tree but on second thoughts decided to stop corresponding later on).

Friar Cocchi's "Stilo moderno" and biography (http://kosiv.info/ed/grove/Entries/S06013.htm) links him to "Giulio Caccini's" Novella Musica and to "Concino Concini's" star- disappearing at the time but leaving a long tail behind- links him also to Giorgio "Magnifico" Cochini, the Dorias and Lepanto**, thus reconfirming a very basic part of my "theory" as well.

My regards to professors Tromboni, Canoni and Baloni for their valuable contribution to the science of Musicology as forcibly applied on "italian opera".

Cheers.

*Add "Giacomo Casanova" to the list btw: His own "biography"-a very reputable source indeed- talents and travels fit my hero like a glove!
** See post 69 at http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15023&page=5

Yanni,

Unless you have evidence to the contrary isn't it worth accepting what we have ?

As far as Cocchi is concerned, you may be interested to know of the career of another composer of that same name. Probably an ancestor of G. Cocchi and related in a number of ways to the circle that was around Mozart in the century later.

Claudio Cocchi (b. late 16th century in Genoa, d. after 1631). Who was a Franciscan who worked in 3 countries during a short space of time. In 1626 he became (and this is where it gets interesting) Chaplain and Kapellmeister to Cardinal Franz Dietrichstein, Bishop of Olomouc and Governor of Moravia. A patron of Italian style music. He was also employed at Trieste Cathedral and superintedant of the monastery there. His masses were published at Venice. And in Milan.

Mozart and his father visited and stayed in this same town of Olomouc (1767) when he was a boy of 11 (almost 12) although, in fact, the official story of his visit was he was escaping from an epidemic in Vienna. They stayed for weeks in this area including Brno. Olomouc was a part of the musical/cultural network into which Mozart's career was invented. This I will show in some detail in the book. But of course, demonstrating his 'genius' there, of course !!! (LOL).

It seems to me your interest in Cocchi should include the life of Claudio Cocchi, whose employment, whose role in music, is worthy of your attention. As for linking G. Cocchi with Gluck etc, and your aliases of various others, this too is interesting but it really lacks any firm evidence. So I will continue to believe in G. Cocchi, composer, and in the earlier Claudio Cocchi. And perhaps you can discover if these two musicians were of the same family. Which I think is very probable. Even consisting of the fact they both had links with Venice.

I don't know if I can help further in Cocchi from a Mozart point of view, except to hope you will acknowledge G. Cocchi, composer, was based for years in England, and was there at the time of Mozart's arrival, was also closely associated with the Venetian occultism and its fraternities which were then so popular within many branches of the English aristocracy.

And since you yourself are talking of Shelburne (himself associated with the British East India Company) we keep coming back to the fact that the British Empire were deeply involved in the art and culture of that century and beyond through these fraternities.

Philidor may be more interesting for your thesis.

Regards

Musicology

02-13-2010, 08:04 AM

Yanni,

We must get to the root of a thing, and especially in this area of research. Since the individual players are linked by their allegiance to dynastic rule, to hereditary privileges, to elite families, to vested interests over centuries and so on. A vitally important part of which is to realise the interests of the Holy Roman Empire included an alliance with occultists who emerged as a force from Venice at the time when the Jesuit Order were formed. That is, as agents of the counter-reformation. And that the role of Venice and of the emerging British Empire are areas that make sense of what is otherwise beyond explanation.

But my subject is Mozart. And yours is Cocchi.

I hope you can confirm here, at some time, that Cocchi, Kapellmeister at Olomouc was indeed related to G. Cocchi of the 18th century. Since this is strongly indicated by various lines of evidence. As for its implications, I leave these for you to consider.

Regards

Musicology

02-13-2010, 08:15 AM

Further to the above on Claudio Cocchi - (and obtained from the following sources) -

1. G. Radole: ‘Antiche stampe della cappella di S. Giusto’, Pagine istriane (1954)
2. G. Radole: ‘Musicisti a Trieste sul finire del Cinquecento e nei primi del Seicento’, Archeografo triestino, 4th ser., xxii (1959), 133–61

3. J. Sehnal: ‘Hudba na dvoře Olomouckých biskupů od 13. do poloviny 17. stol.’ Music at the courts of the bishops of Olomouc from the 13th to the mid-17th centuries', Časopis vlastivědné společnosti muzejní v Olomouci (1970), 73–86

4. C. Desimoni: ‘Saggio storico sulla musica in Liguria e sulla storia musicale genovese’, NA, new ser., v (1987), suppl.

5. D. Calcagno: ‘Cocchi, Claudio’, Dizionario biografico dei liguri (Genoa, 1990)

6. G. Vecchi - short article on C. Cocchi in 'Grove'

In 1626 Claudio Cocchi was a chaplain and musician (and shortly afterwards perhaps maestro di cappella: see below) to the music-loving Cardinal Franz Dietrichstein, Bishop of Olomouc and Governor of Moravia, who fostered the Italian style and who employed several Italian musicians. From 1627 to 1630 Cocchi was also maestro di cappella of Trieste Cathedral and superintendent of the friars minor there. He was appointed maestro of S Francesco, Milan, in 1632, when, in the dedication of his op.10, he mentioned he had worked in a similar capacity not only at Trieste but also at Olomouc too and also at S Severino Marche, at Avignon and also at the Sacro Convento, Assisi (also in 1632). It is unclear whether he was at these last three places entirely between 1630 and 1632 or before 1626 as well. He is known to have been a member of an academy known as ‘Accademico Arrischiato detto l’Allegro’. If his work op.10 is correctly designated, at least seven volumes of music by him must be lost. Those that survive, consist wholly of music in the concertato style, are 'Armonici concentus … stilo moderno' (published in Venice, 1626), 'Messe concertate' (Venice, 1627), both for five voices and organ, and 'Ghirlanda sacra de salmi concertati … libro secondo' op.10, for four voices and continuo (Milan, 1632), which also includes an 'Ave maris stella'.

//

Rgds

also -

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://badigit.comune.bologna.it/cmbm/scripts/gaspari/scheda.asp%3Fid%3D4690&ei=apl2S4WhNYTw0wSM5sWmCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E2%2580%2598Accademico%2BArrischia to%2Bdetto%2Bl%25E2%2580%2599Allegro%25E2%2580%259 9%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1G1ACEWCENUK313%26sa%3 DG

/

Musicology

02-13-2010, 10:39 AM

And here is a short excerpt from 'The Manufacture of Mozart' (taken from the first chapter, entitled 'The Mozart Empire') -

In a major musical reference work of 11 volumes, (‘The New Oxford History of Music’) - (1973) - may be seen the following comments in its 5th volume (which focuses on music during the second half of the 18th century) - the period when Mozart lived, and whose cover is ominously entitled, ‘Age of Enlightenment‘ -

‘The scope of the work is sufficiently indicated by the titles of the several volumes. Our subject throughout has been to present music, not as an isolated phenomenon or the work of outstanding composers, but as an art developing in constant association with every forum of human activity and creativity. The biographies of individuals are therefore incidental to the main plan of the history…’

(Editors E. Wellesz and F. Sternfeld, in their introduction to Volume 5, ‘Age of Enlightenment’- ‘New Oxford History of Music’ (1973).

Such was the highly commendable aim of those two editors as they attempted to guide readers through music of this period. In view of their much welcomed approach we can expect this 724 page section to provide a fresh, more holistic approach to music and musical achievement over this vital and highly creative period. And we will return to this publication and its results in a moment. But first, consider Mozart in Vienna.

By the time of his death in Vienna in late 1791 Mozart, married and resident in the Austrian capital for around 9 years, is credited with having composed around 700 musical works, around half of these before his arrival in the city and the other half (which include some of the finest music of the 18th or any other century) within that same city. This amazing list of compositional achievements includes, so we are told, some 27 piano concertos, close to 50 symphonies, over 20 church works, over a dozen operas, numerous wind concertos, no less than 5 violin concertos, dozens of chamber works (including string quintets and quartets) and hundreds of others in virtually every musical form. The same W.A. Mozart was also celebrated as a teacher of composition and harmony to numerous pupils, was an equally celebrated genius across much of Europe, was envied for his prodigious abilities by at least some of his own musical associates (this according to his father and himself) and was the celebrated composer of the famous Singspiel, ‘Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail’ (this being performed widely across German speaking lands within his Vienna period ) and also of a series of remarkable operas such as ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’, ‘Don Giovanni’ and ‘Cosi Fan Tutte’. This man was even more celebrated for these things in Prague. So that if we can imagine ourselves in the Austrian capital in the year of 1790 this prodigy of western music still has ahead of him the writing of ‘Die Zauberflote’, ‘La Clemenza di Tito’, the Clarinet Concerto, and, of course, the Requiem. To complete our thumbnail sketch of the mercurial Mozart we must also record his famed abilities as a keyboard virtuoso, this demonstrated many times to much profit before hundreds of aristocrats and music lovers over those Vienna years, and the fact he was a private tutor to literally dozens of pupils, some of whom became leading virtuosos and composers themselves. The celebrity of Mozart within this ‘city of music’ and this list of his talents and achievements has been built upon that already obtained from his many tours of his childhood and youth. Or so, at least, says convention. It is this Mozart, the Mozart of convention, whom we must now examine more closely.

(You will pardon me retaining a sense of humour throughout this difficult publication so that this act of criticism against one of the great icons of western civilization remains readable. Please believe I want its findings to be of value and for them to be judged in the light of the available evidence. No attempt will be made to convince you of things which may sound too strange or to change your mind if you choose to disagree. Nor will there be any attempt over the following chapters to impress you with pages of footnotes scribbled down from countless obscure publications or to provide you with dreamy eulogies. But, to the extent that satire is (and was in Mozart’s time) a form of criticism, so satire will feature here in a fair and honest attempt to examine and convey to you the Mozart phenomenon and its formation during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. So if you find yourself unimpressed by the picture that emerges from this work you may remember its humour and goodwill and may even, eventually, forgive the fool who first brought these things to your attention.

//

R.E. Newman

yanni

02-13-2010, 12:20 PM

Don't let the fact of the specific "dynasty", with their specific reasons and interests, going against the "Holy Roman Empire" as they did, disturb your recital Robert.

Definitely, Mozart and his jesuit counterreformers took over the world eversince as agents of the Venetian occultists acting for the Vatican who, in turn, still are agents of the Holy Roman Empire, who in fact are today the main shareholders of the Church of England, Pzifer, Akla Setzler, Coca Loca and the Fed.

Great story!

Cheers!

Yanni,

We must get to the root of a thing, and especially in this area of research. Since the individual players are linked by their allegiance to dynastic rule, to hereditary privileges, to elite families, to vested interests over centuries and so on. A vitally important part of which is to realise the interests of the Holy Roman Empire included an alliance with occultists who emerged as a force from Venice at the time when the Jesuit Order were formed. That is, as agents of the counter-reformation. And that the role of Venice and of the emerging British Empire are areas that make sense of what is otherwise beyond explanation.

But my subject is Mozart. And yours is Cocchi.

I hope you can confirm here, at some time, that Cocchi, Kapellmeister at Olomouc was indeed related to G. Cocchi of the 18th century. Since this is strongly indicated by various lines of evidence. As for its implications, I leave these for you to consider.

Regards

Musicology

02-13-2010, 02:38 PM

Thank you for your description of the corporate world. You must dare to believe there is a real one. Even to know it.

yanni

02-14-2010, 04:26 AM

Count Ferdinand Ernst Gabriel von Waldstein to young Beethoven leaving for Vienna from Bonn, November 1792:

Dear Beethoven! You go to realise a long-desired wish : the genius of Mozart is still in mourning and weeps for the death of its disciple. (...) By incessant application, receive Mozart's spirit from Haydn's hands.

The count's alleged brother at the time, a "Joseph Karl von Waldstein", was hosting "Giacomo Casanova" in the castle of Dux (also "Duchcov"-rings a bell, Robert?) where Casanova allegedly died June 1798.

Googling for "Joseph Karl von Waldstein" however one comes back to Casanova who propably created "Joseph Karl" to fit his own biography, written there....

....while Joseph Karl's brother, Count Ferdinand von Waldstein.....

...On 3 June 1795, Ferdinand sealed a contract with England on creating a "Mergentheim regiment". From 1796, he was in London. On 23 July 1797, the elector wrote, "For over a year neither the order nor his creditors have heard anything from Ferdinand von Waldstein, I wish him much money and intelligence". Evidence shows Ferdinand was occasionally with his regiment in west India. In 1807, he left the British army.

From 1809, Ferdinand lived in Vienna or on his Bohemian estates. He withdrew from the order in 1811. On 9 May 1812, Ferdinand married Countess Isabella Rzewuska. After unfortunate financial transactions, he became impoverished, and died in 1823 in Vienna. Wikipedia!

Those bohemian jesuits pop up all over, don't they?

LOL!!

Of great relative interest to true musicologists:
http://www.giusepperausa.it/mozart_e_da_ponte__il_misterio.html

Altri indizi si aggiungono se si pensa che un altro Waldstein, Jan Vincenc Ferrerius von Waldstein (1731-1797), “scopre” intorno al 1760 il talento del praghese Josef Myslivecek e lo manda a studiare, nel 1763, da Giovanni Battista Pescetti, ovvero proprio nella Venezia di Galuppi, Bertoni e Luchesi, città dalla quale inizia l’ascesa italiana e quindi europea del “divino boemo”.

Jan Vincenc Ferrerius or Vincent von Waldstein only exists today thanks to the creative powers of "Myslivecek", ie "Casanova" who also created Jan's cousin "Joseph Karl von Waldstein" as above.

How right about the brits was Cocchi, saying "They only appreciate what they have dearly paid for". He was a true lover of nature, afterall, just like his "Rousseau"!

To conclude:

Gioachino Cocchi's late 17th roots in Bohemia may be traced to http://aleph.vkol.cz/pub/svk01/00055/27/000552706.htm, (Katalog Vědecké knihovny v Olomouci, báze SVK01, záznam 000552706):

Jan Antonín Cassinis de "Bugella" (De Mugella obviously), 1659-1719, Rector of Karls-Universität Prague in 1694.

Musicology

02-14-2010, 09:05 AM

Yanni,

Thanks for this stuff about Waldstein and Beethoven etc. But by 1792 the career of Beethoven was already under the control of the same elites who had manufactured Mozart and who now oversaw the career of Beethoven. The Illuminatists (who were first to publicise the 13 year old Beethoven in Bonn in their 'Cramer's Magazine' of 1783) were a powerful force in Bonn. Including this same Waldstein you mentioned, also local music publisher Simrock (himself deeply involved in 'Mozart' publications) who had been a member of the Bonn chapel orchestra. And yes, their occultist links to Dux are well known. By 1783, Yanni, the music publishing industry of Germany and Austria was virtually all in the hands of the Illuminatists. In Bonn the 'Bonn Reading Society' was an Illuminatist organisation. In Vienna there were amongst the illuminatist/fraternity publishers Hoffmeister, for example. And Artaria. Both had close association with the career of Mozart in Vienna during his lifetime. So the control once exercised by the Jesuits in publishing and censorship throughout Germany and Austria was now (here in the musical sphere) and especially after the ban of 1773 (actually as early as 1762 in France) in the hands of these fraternities associated with the illuminatists. Through the 'Reading Societies' etc. And yes, Count Waldstein's brother was closely associated with Casanova at Dux. And, as for the first performance of 'Figaro' (at Frankfurt) in the year before the 'premiere' which company staged it there ? Other than the Grossmann theatrical group, themselves (until 1783) based at Bonn.

And who was the real patron of Casanova ? In the 'Memoirs' of Casanova (the volume entitled 'The Eternal Quest' p.231 he writes -

'Shortly after, the pope died and he was succeeded by the Venetian Rezzonico (1758) who created my own patron, the Abbe de Bernis, a Cardinal'.

And, on the next page -

'Cardinal de Bernis passed 10 years in exile, procul negotiis, but he was not happy as he told me himself when I knew him in Rome 15 years afterwards.... Cardinal de Bernis was never recalled - there is no instance of King Louis 14th having ever recalled a minister whom he had disgraced. But on the death of Rezzonico he had to go to Rome to be present at the papal conclave, and there he remained (in Rome) as the French Ambassador'.

Clear proof, Yanni, of who was Casanova's patron. Cardinal de Bernis, who became French Ambassador at Rome and formerly minister of King Louis 14th of France.

So this 'illuminatist' movement was controlled from the start by the same elites. The secularisation known as the 'enlightenment'. Who soon controlled the music business as we see an example here of at the time of Waldstein and Beethoven.

(Incidentally, the musical score of 'The Magic Flute' was sent to Bonn by Mozart before it was ever performed (according to the surviving correspondence of this same Simrock). Where it was 'worked on'. He admits this fact in a letter to the German music editor Gottfried Weber. Refered to in a book published in Paris in the 1930's called 'La Jeunesse de Beethoven' by J.D. Prod'homme.

And here is an article on Cardinal Bernis (Francois Joachim de Pierre de Bernis 1715-94).

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:JNRoI3ANXEcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-Joachim_de_Pierre_de_Bernis+cardinal+de+bernis&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Regards

yanni

02-14-2010, 11:46 AM

Certainly the more "scholars" use Casanova as a source, the more trustworthy he becomes.

Did you have to wait in line?

LOL!!!

While you'll be assembling such "pearls" for your next masterpiece, I'll be eagerly awaiting Mr Giuseppe Rausa's next article on Cocchi-Gluck-Myslivecek-Casanova etc.

'E molto particulare,' said Cocchi, the Composer; 'ma quei Inglesi non fanno conto d'alcuna cosa se non ben pagata'

Cheers!

Musicology

02-14-2010, 12:06 PM

Don't want to read Casanova's own memoirs ?. No problem. It tells us clearly who his patron was. Doesn't it ?

Here are the details of Rezzonico becoming pope in 1758.

http://timelines.com/1758/7/6/carlo-rezzonico-clement-xiii-elected-pope

And here are more details of Cardinal Bernis -

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:GrDnkvlKkQMJ:chestofbooks.com/reference/American-Cyclopaedia-5/Francois-Joachim-De-Pierre-De-Bernis.html+cardinal+bernis&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Certainly the more "scholars" use Casanova as a source, the more trustworthy he becomes.

Did you have to wait in line?

LOL!!!

While you'll be assembling such "pearls" for your next masterpiece, I'll be eagerly awaiting Mr Giuseppe Rausa's next article on Cocchi-Gluck-Myslivecek-Casanova etc.

Cheers!

yanni

02-14-2010, 01:21 PM

Last time you trusted "Casanova" (ie "Chastellux"), if I rightly remember, you had to say farewell to your "West Indies"!

Your reluctance to share is well understood!

Enjoy you Valentine day!

Musicology

02-14-2010, 01:39 PM

Yanni,

Since you (and not I) were the person who started off today with Waldstein -this in association with Beethoven you will of course agree that Simrock, Waldstein and others were Illuminati members at Bonn. Which makes it difficult for you, I realise. Since there is Casanova living with Waldstein's brother at Dux. LOL !

And when it is pointed out that Casanova (in his own writings) identifies his own patron as a Cardinal at Rome this is too much for you. You cannot see the wood for the trees again !

Can you confirm that these persons at Bonn (closely associated with Beethoven) were members of the Bonn Reading Society and were Illuminati members in Bonn ? Or shall I provide you with evidence for it ? Including Waldstein himself ?

And will you confirm that Casanova did have a patron who became a Cardinal at Rome and who was formerly the Foreign Minister of France under Louis, King of France. Again, if you need more proof I am happy to oblige.

LOL

Last time you trusted "Casanova" (ie "Chastellux"), if I rightly remember, you had to say farewell to your "West Indies"!

Your reluctance to share is well understood!

Enjoy you Valentine day!

yanni

02-14-2010, 05:13 PM

Cocchi as "Myslivecek" first and as "Casanova" next, created two "Waldsteins", and it's you who select to see the tree but miss the wood:

The main point of my post was the discovery of Doctor Jan Antonin Cassinis "Mugellano" of Karl University in Prague, certainly Antonio Cocchi's father and Gioachino's grandfather, both from Mugello.

His presence there explains and confirms some "open parts" of my research as anybody who has carefully followed it will certainly realize.

You may forever go on linking Cocchi to Rome, Weishaupt, Cagliostro etc but, as France's top agent, it was his duty to infiltrate and control all "fraternities" and also to plant decoys to misguide his enemies.

Some of his aliases were betrayed and had to destroy them but this happened after he secured "the wood" of West Indies as "marquis de Chastellux".

"Casanova" btw not only testifies in his "memoirs" he is closely related to maestro Cocchi and Le comte de Saint Germain, but also wishes to advise us that he was present at "Mozart's" Don Giovanni or Don Juan in Vienna of 1787, the year he had "Gluck" dying.He also advises his readers that Cagliostro (who had gone to the other side in the meantime) was a skilled forgerer.

As for the one and only real Waldstein giving Mozart spirit's blessing to Beethoven, l can but guess it's another part of re "fiction" (with Beethoven participating), his long service in the British army and his bankruptcy on retirement speaking for themselves as to who really owned the Waldstein properties in Prague, till 1797 at least.

Cheers!

Musicology

02-14-2010, 06:28 PM

Yanni,

It seems you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the Waldstein of Bonn was a member of the Illuminati there - the one associated with Beethoven in 1792. As was the Bonn music publishers. This is the Waldstein whose brother owned the house in Dux where Casanova (whose patron was a Cardinal lived) - even although you have the name of the cardinal, the details of his career, and the reference to him by Casanova. There can be no association between Rome and the 'Englightenment' yes ?

As a plain matter of fact Casanova (and others) were linked to the Venetian intelligence services. For which there is a ton of evidence. The same Venetians who had made England into an empire (as already said).

But, since my subject is music and the legendary career of Mozart I will focus on that subject here. This same place (Dux) where Casanova lived was, in the 19th century, also residence to the biographer Anton Schindler, who spent over 65 years in the service of the same Waldstein family. And whose manufacture of Beethoven diaries etc has been known since at least 1970. The same Anton Schindler whose work on Beethoven is full of inventions. Just another coincidence, of course !

You wish to define the careers of Cocchi and others as those of the French government ! What 'government' of France are you refering to ? Did one exist at this time ? It was an aristocracy serving nobody but themselves. Yanni, the Illuminatists were larger than the government of France. They were active in Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Holland, England, France and elsewhere. But you have Cocchi merely as an agent of the French government ! Really, this is contradicted by all we know. The Illuminatists did not care for any nation. Cocchi was involved in much bigger things. As were all empires. What did he achieve for the 'French government' as an agent ? Writing operas ? Really, this makes no sense.

No, Cocchi (and the libertine agents of the Englightenment, such as Casanova and Cagliostro) were agents of an occultist network. The secularisation of Europe after the collapse of all credibility for the Holy Roman Empire. As were Voltaire, Rousseau and others. This had nothing to do with the 'French government' and everything to do, as writers of the time knew, with the overthrow of national governments. A part of which was the cultural side. As we see here with Waldstein etc. And that's precisely why here with Waldstein/Beethoven/Dux etc. we find Casanova at Dux. It's why we find Schindler at Dux. It's why Waldstein, the Bonn music publisher Simrock and many others (including Hoffmeister and major German music publishers and managers were Illuminatists). Because the control they sought was far greater than that of the music of France. It was the control of the music industry and what was taught and believed of it. Not the only subject in which they sought control, but the one which I am focused on.

Therefore, whether there were several Waldsteins, several Schindlers, or several Cocchi's the aim is the very same. To secure the control of art and culture internationally and to eventually take control of its dissemination and propagation, in the same way that banking, commerce and all other areas of influence were also the targets of control. The mass media, in fact. And control of what is believed as 'history'. It is in the musical sense that I am interested and where, I think, you really should acknowledge this fact. Since G. Cocchi was part of that aspect. As were so many others.

As for your other posts on Cocchi ancestry etc, yes, this is interesting and thanks for this. And, yes, again, Casanova's proven links with 'Don Giovanni' in Prague (1787) are still another proof of that aspect of the Illuminatist movement.

Regards

Cocchi created two "Waldsteins", the first as "Myslivecek", the second as "Casanova" and it's you who select to see the tree but miss the woods:

The main point of my post was the discovery of Jan Antonin Cassinis "Mugellano" of Karl University in Prague, certainly Antonio Cocchi's father and Gioachino's grandfather.

His presence there explains and confirms some "open parts" of my research as anybody who has carefully followed my research will certainly realize.

You may forever go on linking him to Rome, Weishaupt, Cagliostro etc but, as France's top agent, it was his duty to infiltrate and control all "fraternities" and also to plant decoys to misguide his enemies.

Some of his aliases were betrayed and had to destroy them but this happened after he secured "the woods" of West Indies as "marquis de Chastellux".

"Casanova" btw not only testifies in his "memoirs" he is closely related to maestro Cocchi and Le comte de Saint Germain, but also wishes to advise us that he was present at "Mozart's" Don Giovanni in Vienna of 1787, the year he had "Gluck" dying.He also advises his readers that Cagliostro (who had gone to the other side in the meantime) was a skilled forgerer.

Cheers!

yanni

02-15-2010, 01:03 AM

Bonn's Waldstein was propably associated with Weishaupt's (Rothchild's) Illuminati (they were against Cocchi as shown in previous) and certainly served the British army soon after to fight Napoleon unsuccessfully, serve in India, to then retire and die broke in Vienna as per Wikipedia.

However, as there is no other reference or source online concerning the other two "Waldsteins" but Cocchi's (his aliases, "Myslivecek" and "Casanova"), you will allow me I am sure to draw the conclusion that Dux castle (Schloss Duchcov), owned by these "fake" Waldsteins (and not by Bonn's broke Waldstein) is somehow connected with Mozart's and "Casanova's" mysterious bohemian music associates and hosts, the "Duschecs" of Duchcov castle (owners propably of Niemtcheck's Bertramka too, as assumed earlier), ie Cocchi as Duschek -harpischord player, composer-and wife Josefa Dushkova, singer (one of his countless "wives"-assistants in his clandestine operations, possibly the same as "russian princess Dashkova"*, often mentioned in his correspondence with Tsarina Catherine-as "Grimm"-ie Dashkova, Ben Franklin's friend, resident of Scotland some years later (1796-7), donated some russian imperial medals there through a Morisson).

Beethoven, Schindler and the later efforts of Hanover or post 1814, congress of Vienna, "Germany", to create their "ethnic" music is of no real interest to me (having found particularly amusing previously the words of Bonn's Waldstein to Beethoven, hence the re quote in post titled "Singspiel..." ) and neither are your unfounded "conclusions" on history and music, already and repeatedly labelled, among others, a "soup" (the label also fitting the former).

While you continue it -not forgetting to stir it, every now and then btw- you will allow me to enjoy my "Casanova" in peace:

His manuscript in fact ends in 1774 http://www.hot.ee/memoirs/casanova/casanova_at_dux.htm (the rest of the text of his "Memoirs" is a "creative piece" by Brockhaus's "scholars"**) yet the many interesting manuscripts later discovered at Dux, along with Casanova's other data already in my mastertimeline now fully confirm my own views and revelations on "G", his aliases and his unique character.

Such as for instance "Casanova's" reference and correspondence to Bernardin de Saint Pierre, a long time associate and correspondent of "Pierre Michel Hennin", his correspondence and friendship with Prince de Ligne-Hainault, Carlo Angiolini's curious (to anyone but me and perhaps you :nopity:) possession of the Casanova manuscripts in 1820, ie following G's death in Vyborg, his huge collection of "eastern pottery" etc etc.

Cheers!

* For her relations to some of "G"'s russian aliases and her memoirs see http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35779&page=2

**As Arthur Symmons writes:

This manuscript, in its original state, has never been printed. Herr
Brockhaus, on obtaining possession of the manuscript, had it
translated into German by Wilhelm Schutz, but with many omissions and
alterations, and published this translation, volume by volume, from
1822 to 1828, under the title, 'Aus den Memoiren des Venetianers
Jacob Casanova de Seingalt.' While the German edition was in course
of publication, Herr Brockhaus employed a certain Jean Laforgue, a
professor of the French language at Dresden, to revise the original
manuscript, correcting Casanova's vigorous, but at times incorrect,
and often somewhat Italian, French according to his own notions of
elegant writing, suppressing passages which seemed too free-spoken
from the point of view of morals and of politics, and altering the
names of some of the persons referred to, or replacing those names by
initials. This revised text was published in twelve volumes, the
first two in 1826, the third and fourth in 1828, the fifth to the
eighth in 1832, and the ninth to the twelfth in 1837 ; the first four
bearing the imprint of Brockhaus at Leipzig and Ponthieu et Cie at
Paris; the next four the imprint of Heideloff et Campe at Paris; and
the last four nothing but 'A Bruxelles.' The volumes are all
uniform, and were all really printed for the firm of Brockhaus.
This, however far from representing the real text, is the only
authoritative edition, and my references throughout this article will
always be to this edition.

"Carl Ludwig Cocceji" must have left quite a soar to post 1814 german "national" scholars apparently.

Yanni,

It seems you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the Waldstein of Bonn was a member of the Illuminati there - the one associated with Beethoven in 1792. As was the Bonn music publishers. This is the Waldstein whose brother owned the house in Dux where Casanova (whose patron was a Cardinal lived) - even although you have the name of the cardinal, the details of his career, and the reference to him by Casanova. There can be no association between Rome and the 'Englightenment' yes ?

As a plain matter of fact Casanova (and others) were linked to the Venetian intelligence services. For which there is a ton of evidence. The same Venetians who had made England into an empire (as already said).

But, since my subject is music and the legendary career of Mozart I will focus on that subject here. This same place (Dux) where Casanova lived was, in the 19th century, also residence to the biographer Anton Schindler, who spent over 65 years in the service of the same Waldstein family. And whose manufacture of Beethoven diaries etc has been known since at least 1970. The same Anton Schindler whose work on Beethoven is full of inventions. Just another coincidence, of course !

You wish to define the careers of Cocchi and others as those of the French government ! What 'government' of France are you refering to ? Did one exist at this time ? It was an aristocracy serving nobody but themselves. Yanni, the Illuminatists were larger than the government of France. They were active in Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Holland, England, France and elsewhere. But you have Cocchi merely as an agent of the French government ! Really, this is contradicted by all we know. The Illuminatists did not care for any nation. Cocchi was involved in much bigger things. As were all empires. What did he achieve for the 'French government' as an agent ? Writing operas ? Really, this makes no sense.

No, Cocchi (and the libertine agents of the Englightenment, such as Casanova and Cagliostro) were agents of an occultist network. The secularisation of Europe after the collapse of all credibility for the Holy Roman Empire. As were Voltaire, Rousseau and others. This had nothing to do with the 'French government' and everything to do, as writers of the time knew, with the overthrow of national governments. A part of which was the cultural side. As we see here with Waldstein etc. And that's precisely why here with Waldstein/Beethoven/Dux etc. we find Casanova at Dux. It's why we find Schindler at Dux. It's why Waldstein, the Bonn music publisher Simrock and many others (including Hoffmeister and major German music publishers and managers were Illuminatists). Because the control they sought was far greater than that of the music of France. It was the control of the music industry and what was taught and believed of it. Not the only subject in which they sought control, but the one which I am focused on.

Therefore, whether there were several Waldsteins, several Schindlers, or several Cocchi's the aim is the very same. To secure the control of art and culture internationally and to eventually take control of its dissemination and propagation, in the same way that banking, commerce and all other areas of influence were also the targets of control. The mass media, in fact. And control of what is believed as 'history'. It is in the musical sense that I am interested and where, I think, you really should acknowledge this fact. Since G. Cocchi was part of that aspect. As were so many others.

As for your other posts on Cocchi ancestry etc, yes, this is interesting and thanks for this. And, yes, again, Casanova's proven links with 'Don Giovanni' in Prague (1787) are still another proof of that aspect of the Illuminatist movement.

Regards

Musicology

02-15-2010, 07:36 AM

Yanni,

I want to simplify this (for the sake of those who may be reading). You say the llluminati were 'against Cocchi'. And you refer to the fact that Waldstein, patron of Beethoven, served in the British army and died broke in Vienna.

Let me start by saying that none of this changes the fact that Casanova was living with his brother in Dux. That the career of Casanova (together with other libertine figures of the Englightenment) were working for a movement that spanned entire countries. This is a plain fact and we might begin with this.

Now, here are the Illuminatists of Bonn (in the figure of Waldstein) patronising Beethoven, 'successor to Mozart'. And you agree that he was a member of the huge illuminatist movement which, at that time, was virtually controlling the publishing and performance industry of music. Across Germany. And here they are with Beethoven.

But now you are saying Casanova (who was involved in Mozart's career) has nothing to do with these occultist illuminatists. Despite living in the same place as Waldstein's brother. Despite the fact that Casanova provides countless proofs of being an occultist himself. You are so determined to separate Cocchi from this movement that you describe them as being 'against Cocchi'.

So, as things stand, you have Illuminatists patronising Beethoven and those involved with Casanova patronising Mozart. Isn't that the picture you are presenting to us ? With one against the other (in your thinking). I think this is unsustainable.

Firstly, the simple fact the patrons of Mozart were virtually the same people as the patrons of Beethoven. Take, for example, Prince Lichnowsky. Who supported Mozart and who was an early employer to Beethoven in Vienna. The same Lichnowsky who was a patron of the Illuminatist, Goethe. The same Lichnowsky whose musical archives of 'Mozart' is, to this day, one of the most extensive of them all and whose father was the same. The same Lichnowsky from whose estates in Bohemia came Gluck. And who toured with Mozart late in his life.

And Beethoven came, of course, from Bonn. This Bonn (with its strong links with England). In fact, the earliest patron of Beethoven was the British state. Through the British envoy to Bonn, George Cressner. An agent of Britain in Bonn. In fact, the very first work attempted by the young Beethoven was a cantata (now lost) dedicated to the same George Cressner (as we read in Thayer's 'Life of Beethoven'). Assisted in this by the Kapellmeister of Bonn, Andrea Luchesi. Furthermore, the entire regime at Bonn was, for decades, being financially supported by the British government. It was through Cressner that Beethoven's own family were being financially supported during his earliest years.

But let's take this a step further. There at Bonn, from where Beethoven emerged, was Salomon, who was the impresario for Josef Haydn's tours of England. The same Salomon who, just by coincidence, happens to be living in the very same house as one Ludwig van Beethoven at Bonn.

And there's more. A few days ago you refered to the 'autograph' of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. (Since we didn't discuss its contents I will refer only briefly to them here). This document, being sold as his 'autograph'. If you examine it closely you find many strange things. One is that its text (Italian) also has a German text. And who wrote that ? Well, if you check the publications you find it is credited to Knigge, head of the Illuminatists in Germany at that time. And living, safely, at Hanover. The house of Hanover taking us back again to the British. Thus, indisputably, (and there are hundreds of other such lines of evidence) the Illuminatists were directly involved in the career of Mozart. As we see once again with the librettist for 'The Magic Flute', who ended up becoming a professor of geology at Dublin University (then part of the British rule).

You have, however, the idea that Cocchi, Casanova etc. were working 'against' this movement. When, in fact, Casanova's involvement in the libretto of 'Don Giovanni' (1787) is again clear proof of the opposite. Then we have the long career of British patron Cowper in Italy. Whose assistance to the career of Mozart is indisputable. Who was elevated to become a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire.

It is not acceptable for you to accept that Cocchi (a man on Leopold Mozart's list of persons to see in England) was himself involved in this occultist movement. Although, again, the evidence is extremely strong that Cocchi was part of the same movement. As, for example, the concerts of Cornelys in London. Where the Mozarts went. Located right next door to the ambassador of Venice residence. And the same Mme. Cornelys who had come to England from Holland. A long time friend of....... Casanova. The same Casanova now living at the same place as Waldstein's brother in Dux.

What you find difficult to accept is that the occultist movement which emerged from Venice, then England, and which finally became the 'Englightenment' was one and the same movement to which Cocchi, Casanova, and the Illuminatists were a part. So that the 'Englightenment' involved all of them and you cannot reasonably deny that they were supported by major dignitaries in Rome. Including, as we see here with Casanova, a cardinal.

I could provide a hundred pages of the same. But surely the point is this - Betramka, Dux, etc. were estates whose history is clear. Betramka being (before 1773) closely associated with the Jesuit Order. A Jesuit Order whose control of the arts, culture, music, publishing etc. was massively important from the time of their creation (just before the Council of Trent).

To me, the Englightenment is the secularisation of the Counter-Reformation, achieved through occultist means. That is, through fraternities who could and did inflitrate Britain as they also infiltrated Germany and other nations. Achieving control not by theology (as in former times) but by their increasing control of the culture. Cocchi was part of this process. As his family had been for generations.

Regards

yanni

02-15-2010, 10:57 AM

There we go again:

I want to simplify this (for the sake of those who may be reading). (I thank you on their behalf, noting in parallel that whoever has followed us thus far, is not interested in "simple" explanations) You say the llluminati were 'against Cocchi'. (Weishaupt himself said so, a few posts back but you forgot) And you refer to the fact that Waldstein, patron of Beethoven, served in the British army and died broke in Vienna.(Wikipedia says)

Let me start by saying that none of this changes the fact that Casanova was living with his brother in Dux. (If you refer to a Waldstein's brother, you have to document his existence first. Symmons refers to him as "Casanova's Waldheim" and so do I)

That the career of Casanova (together with other libertine figures of the Englightenment) were working for a movement that spanned entire countries. This is a plain fact and we might begin with this. (OK but please add some vegetables to your broth first.)

Now, here are the Illuminatists of Bonn (in the figure of Waldstein) patronising Beethoven, 'successor to Mozart'. And you agree that he was a member of the huge illuminatist movement which, at that time, was virtually controlling the publishing and performance industry of music. Across Germany. And here they are with Beethoven. (I have already covered the subject of the "german illuminati" many posts ago. The same for "german" music, including my previous post).

But now you are saying Casanova (who was involved in Mozart's career) has nothing to do with these occultist illuminatists. Despite living in the same place as Waldstein's brother. Despite the fact that Casanova provides countless proofs of being an occultist himself. You are so determined to separate Cocchi from this movement that you describe them as being 'against Cocchi'. (Weishaupt says, you forget. As for me, I have already mentioned that "G" was involved on his professional capacity, with all fraternities (...of idiots, remember?))

So, as things stand, you have Illuminatists patronising Beethoven and those involved with Casanova patronising Mozart. Isn't that the picture you are presenting to us ? With one against the other (in your thinking). I think this is unsustainable.

What you think is unimportant: All tragic heroes did mumble some mumbo-jumbo or other on their way to meet their destiny as prescribed by the muses.(It's not my fault you are unwilling to interpret and apply to your theories the political changes between 1774-1814).

:beatdeadhorse5::nopity:

yanni

02-15-2010, 02:01 PM

That Casanova somehow interferred in the libretto of "Mozart's" Don Giovanni, a fact noticed eversince 1927 yet still remaining among those "eternal mysteries", falls apparently outside the scope of your mission as a "musicologist", Robert!

http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/VIII/4/470

:nopity:

Musicology

02-15-2010, 02:09 PM

There's nothing 'mysterious' about it. Since it's already public knowledge. What is mysterious is what has not been revealed and not what has.

But why let simplicity get in the way of obscurantism ?

That Casanova somehow interferred in the libretto of "Mozart's" Don Giovanni, a fact noticed eversince 1927 yet still remaining among those "eternal mysteries", falls apparently outside the scope of your mission as a "musicologist", Robert!

http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/VIII/4/470

:nopity:

Musicology

02-15-2010, 02:18 PM

The brain-dead spooks of the fraternities. LOL !

Yanni writes -

'What you think is unimportant. All tragic heroes did mumble some mumbo-jumbo or other on their way to meet their destiny as prescribed by the muses. It's not my fault you are unwilling to interpret and apply to your theories the political changes between 1774-1814'

What we think is very important. And there are no 'tragic heroes' except in your mythology. Their 'mumbo jumbo' consists of nothing but lies and more lies. The 'muses' to which you refer are hustlers, fraudsters and exploiters of other men.

The political engineering of 1774-1814 was of course carried out by stooges of the same elite interests as usual. And their offspring. The only difference being they are laughed at by all honest men who know better.

Try reality and stop kidding yourself.

//

yanni

02-15-2010, 02:37 PM

Well, Casanova's identity may still remain a mystery, if you try a little harder, and so may also "Mozart's" Don Giovanni. :yawnb:

There's nothing 'mysterious' about it. Since it's already public knowledge. What is mysterious is what has not been revealed and not what has.

But why let simplicity get in the way of obscurantism ?

yanni

02-15-2010, 02:43 PM

I have the greatest respect for men of strong convictions and stronger words, however correct they may be. Afterall it's their problem, not mine!

:yawnb:

The brain-dead spooks of the fraternities. LOL !

Yanni writes -

'What you think is unimportant. All tragic heroes did mumble some mumbo-jumbo or other on their way to meet their destiny as prescribed by the muses. It's not my fault you are unwilling to interpret and apply to your theories the political changes between 1774-1814'

What we think is very important. And there are no 'tragic heroes' except in your mythology. Their 'mumbo jumbo' consists of nothing but lies and more lies. The 'muses' to which you refer are hustlers, fraudsters and exploiters of other men.

The political engineering of 1774-1814 was of course carried out by stooges of the same elite interests as usual. And their offspring. The only difference being they are laughed at by all honest men who know better.

Try reality and stop kidding yourself.

//

Musicology

02-15-2010, 05:28 PM

Yanni,

Fortunately I am not tied up in complications and false trails. I don't chase mysterious phantoms. I don't need to. The foundations of what I have studied are solid. There is no need for me to speculate. The obfuscation and misinformation that surrounds and has always surrounded this period of history and its music is well known to me. I avoid taking dead ends.

I cannot say who actually wrote 'Don Giovanni'. But I can tell you for certain W.A. Mozart did not. Since the evidence from the rest of his career proves it beyond fair and reasonable doubt. It is a fact this music was composed by talented musicians acting together, over years, to put this opera together into the form we know today. Hidden from view, of course, by the people who managed all the rest. And that this opera (which was first published years after 1791) involved the talents of more than one composer.

I can also tell you Benjamin Franklin did not win the 200 metres at the last Olympic Games. So if anyone believes he did, the evidence shows differently.

Regards

Well, Casanova's identity may still remain a mystery, if you try a little harder, and so may also "Mozart's" Don Giovanni. :yawnb:

Musicology

02-15-2010, 05:38 PM

Yanni,

I will shortly have my own special website on 'The Manufacture of Mozart' which I hope to have ready online in the next few weeks. With much more space to post material and diagrams, pictures, etc. etc. I will post the details here soon. It's for the general information of those interested in this subject of musical reality and musical fiction.

Regards

yanni

02-16-2010, 02:19 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7j9LOHpZbQ&feature=related

God willing, you too may one day be blessed and discover who actually wrote Don Giovanni.

As for Ben Franklin not winning the last Olympics: With science's help any miracle may happen. The Church of England are no fools afterall to have a majority in Pfizer.

Is it true they distribute Viagras for free now, along with the Holy Communion?

:iagree:

Yanni,

Fortunately I am not tied up in complications and false trails. I don't chase mysterious phantoms. I don't need to. The foundations of what I have studied are solid. There is no need for me to speculate. The obfuscation and misinformation that surrounds and has always surrounded this period of history and its music is well known to me. I avoid taking dead ends.

I cannot say who actually wrote 'Don Giovanni'. But I can tell you for certain W.A. Mozart did not. Since the evidence from the rest of his career proves it beyond fair and reasonable doubt. It is a fact this music was composed by talented musicians acting together, over years, to put this opera together into the form we know today. Hidden from view, of course, by the people who managed all the rest. And that this opera (which was first published years after 1791) involved the talents of more than one composer.

I can also tell you Benjamin Franklin did not win the 200 metres at the last Olympic Games. So if anyone believes he did, the evidence shows differently.

Regards

Musicology

02-16-2010, 06:40 AM

Fortunately my religion is Christianity, not Churchianity. Life is all about living the difference.

But thanks for our conversation Yanni.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7j9LOHpZbQ&feature=related

God willing, you too may one day be blessed and discover who actually wrote Don Giovanni.

As for Ben Franklin not winning the last Olympics: With science's help any miracle may happen. The Church of England are no fools afterall to have a majority in Pfizer.

Is it true they distribute Viagras for free now, along with the Holy Communion?

:iagree:

Musicology

02-16-2010, 08:29 AM

And what of this to end ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zDFaqjcLGU

yanni

02-16-2010, 09:34 AM

Modern music is more to my liking. How about this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL0Qt7IF8Q4&feature=related

yanni

02-17-2010, 01:31 AM

How kind of you, Robert, not to pull my ear for wrongly correcting you for writing that Cocchi's last performances in London were in 1772.

I insisted instead he last appeared in 1762, remember?

We were both wrong but you were closer to the truth than I:

According to "A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Volume 3, Cabanel to Cory by Philip H. Highfill,Kalman A. Burnim,Edward A. Langhans" Cocchi directed two works in 1765-66 (Eumene and La Clemenza di Tito) and some more during 1770-1771 (including Semiramide Riconosciuta), receiving a "most unflattering assesment" for these last by Dr Burney.

Which raises the questions:

-Why did Burney, his long time associate and trusted friend, treat him so at this highly critical turning point* in Cocchi's carreer?
and
-Was Cocchi in London in 1772 too?
and
-Why did you thus cover, through Cocchi, Dr Burney ( a "student" of composer-freemason, "Rule Britannia"-Thomas Arne of Covent Garden) ?

Will you please provide an explanation?

Cheers!

* Cocchi "disappearing" in Naples eversince while his alias "Gluck" enters the parisien scene in 1773.

Musicology

02-17-2010, 02:17 PM

Yanni,

I have noted what you say of Cocchi's last London performances in London. Which (according to the source you give, make it around 1771). With 'Semiramide Riconosciuta'.

You will certainly be interested to know that a work of a very similar name was for a time falsely associated with W.A. Mozart. But the plan did not work. First, you may remember the embarrasing fiasco which Leopold and Wolfgang had in 1768 in Vienna when the commission to write the opera 'La Finta Semplice' was exposed there as a fraud. And how father and son returned empty-handed to Salzburg with all of musical Vienna laughing at this nonsense. Leopold Mozart (and his associates) were determined despite this fiasco to make his son famous as an opera composer. And there is good evidence that during the 1770's (we do not know exactly when) Leopold Mozart obtained a musical score in Salzburg based on a text by Baron Gemmingen by the name of 'Semiramis' ! In H.A.O. Reichard’s publication, ‘Theaterlander’ for the year 1779 Reichard even says that ‘Mozard, Kapellmeister at Salzburg has begun writing ‘Semiramis’ - a musical drama by Baron Gemmingen’. But Reichard is clearly refering not to Wolfgang but to Leopold. A work of that same name was almost certainly in the hands of Leopold not because he was composing one but because he was a dealer in music for many years. Later issues of the same magazine by Reichard even say that work was finished. The only other mention of such as 'Semiramis' is one found in an early work on W.A. Mozart by Gerber. Who somehow decides to attribute that same lost work to Wolfgang Mozart, saying it was written by him around the time of 'Bastien and Bastienne'. In other words Gerber wanted us to believe a 'Semiramis' by W.A. Mozart existed in around 1769 . But no such commission for a ‘Semiramide’ is known and W.A. Mozart was never commissioned to write any such work at Mannheim or anywhere else. It seems almost certain a work of that name has first been associated, as said, with Leopold Mozart. In fact, many early symphonies associated with W.A. Mozart are known to have come from the music collection of Leopold Mozart in Salzburg, some of which were falsely attributed to Wolfgang only from the time of Leopold’s own death in 1787 onwards. Semiramis, of course, is an occultic opera. So that even if Leopold Mozart had a 'Semiramis' which he himself claimed to be composing the likelihood is that he received it from others. Gemmingen first involved in translating it into German. The work itself containing music of another composer. Possibly Cocchi.

As for Charles Burney, you know of course it was members of the Illuminatists who first translated the work of Charles Burney from English into German ? Indeed, Charles Burney was associated with occultic groups that were associated with Mozart's career - this able to be shown from many lines of evidence. His daughter (Fanny) was also (as you may know) in the employment of the English king and queen for several years. Charles Burney, we know, was often inventing fiction.

In fact the same Burney was closely associated with one of the tours of Mozart in Italy as a child. Although his close association with Wolfgang and Leopold is hidden. Burney was in Rome at the time when Mozart supposedly wrote, from memory, the Allegri work in Rome. Burney was undoubtedly part of an occultist network. And, in Milan, especially, Burney was close to Mozart and his father, although the family correspondence is silent on this fact.

Certainly, the musical career of Cocchi is important. It was important in England at the time of Mozart's visit there and it entirely possible a work composed by Cocchi ('Semiramide') of the late 1760's or early 1770's known as 'Semiramide' was planned to falsely become a work by 'W.A. Mozart'. A copy most probably sent to Leopold in Salzburg. Which, in later years, Gerber and others tried to credit as a work by young W.A. Mozart himself. As per their plan. But to credit W.A. Mozart with writing a Semiramide would not have been convincing to anyone who knew of events in Vienna in 1768 and would not have been believed in Austria/Germany. Cetainly not after the fiasco with 'La Finta Semplice' their. So their idea of a W.A. Mozart 'Semiramide' was finally abandoned.

This music (the 'Semiramide' in Salzburg) may indeed have based on a work by G. Cocchi. I believe that is very possible. That, at least, is my opinion. But those who wanted it to be credited to W.A. Mozart abandoned their plan, as said.

Musicology

02-17-2010, 02:55 PM

J.S. Bach/Stolzel
'Bist du bei mir'

Bist du bei mir, geh' ich mit Freuden
zum Sterben und zu meiner Ruh'.
Ach, wie vergnügt wär' so mein Ende,
es drückten deine lieber Hände
mir die getreuen Augen zu!

English translation:

Be Thou with me, then I will go gladly
unto my death and to my rest.
Ah, what a pleasant end for me,
if your dear hands be the last I see,
closing shut my faithful eyes to rest!

(In the musical notebook of Bach's wife, Anna Magdelena).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0FJ-LrRXjA&feature=related

Musicology

02-17-2010, 05:30 PM

Ton Koopman on Bach's Cantata 56

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

yanni

02-18-2010, 04:43 AM

Let's concentrate on music, Robert, and let's avoid your "occultists", including Dr Burney, Arne and the Royal Courts of all of Europe without exception.

Let's stick to Mozart, let's fiddle happygoluckily to his tunes, or Bach's, while the Titanic is raised from the depths your "musicologists" had reserved for Cocchi and his tremendous influence on the world of his time, his world, the Royal House of Britain included (as Dr Burney and his daughter Fanny would surely attest).

Never expected a better answer really from you (he was in London 1772 too btw) but, yes, I agree, let's limit it to music because, now Titanic has surfaced, I don't really know what to do with it, I never thought how to tow her and where to keep her.

While drawing parallels between Burney and Cocchi (and his aliases Rousseau, Gluck and Myslivecek as well) another alias of him appeared, a very swiss, very genevan, violinist-composer by the name Gaspard Fritz (1716-1783), said to have italian influences.

Gaspard tutored prince Friedrich von Sachsen Gotha Altenburg (1725-1756), March 1747 in Geneva and, according to Rousseau's "Confessions", became aquainted with Rousseau too, in Paris 1749, while under Melchior Grimm, his "other" tutor.

Friedrich's early death put his brother ErnstII Ludwig (1745-1804) to the seat of Herzog of Sachsen Gotha, a distinguished Illuminatus, Weishaupt's and Goethe's "pangermanic" protector etc etc

Coming back to Gaspard: His music, the few surviving violin-flute pieces , may be labeled as "magic" I hear.

Burney thought so too, July 1770 in Geneva.

Cheers!

Musicology

02-18-2010, 09:06 AM

Any coincidences with the British monarchy and the British Empire are sheer coincidence, of course, in the career of 'Gaspard Fritz'. Not forgetting the fortuitous contributions to 'Die Zauberflote' of a certain Clementi, and those of Paul and Anton Wranitsky. Whose input for Mozart's opera from the earlier 'Oberon' is still another coincidence, of course !

Musicology

02-18-2010, 10:53 AM

Maurice Ravel - Bolero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnut9tB78BE&feature=related

yanni

02-18-2010, 11:25 AM

You forget Cocchi's (Chastellux) USA record again Robert.

As for his Magic Flute:

If he was large enough to let Mozart assume authorship of many of his works, including Don Juan, why not Clementi too?

After his relative encounter with Mozart, Clementi then moved to London for the next twenty years. He may have been another agent of Cocchi, like Mozart was.

There was noother in his time reformist enough or classical greek enough to introduce Pan and his flute to court music.

"Great Pan is dead"...and burried under Paris Opera, trust me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)

Cheers.

Any coincidences with the British monarchy and the British Empire are sheer coincidence, of course, in the career of 'Gaspard Fritz'. Not forgetting the fortuitous contributions to 'Die Zauberflote' of a certain Clementi, and those of Paul and Anton Wranitsky. Whose input for Mozart's opera from the earlier 'Oberon' is still another coincidence, of course !

Musicology

02-18-2010, 12:46 PM

Yanni,

To my knowledge I've forgotten nothing. Not even the career in the USA of Lorenzo da Ponte (and that in the years before he left England for the USA). But you are very right in saying that we should be aware of events in Paris.

yanni

02-18-2010, 01:12 PM

Use the key I gave you exclusively on music related locks, otherwise Vainamoinen will come looking for you!

:reddevil:

Yanni,

To my knowledge I've forgotten nothing. Not even the career in the USA of Lorenzo da Ponte (and that in the years before he left England for the USA). But you are very right in saying that we should be aware of events in Paris.

Musicology

02-18-2010, 02:16 PM

LOL ! The subject is open. The locks rusted two centuries ago, and there is nothing left except honesty.

And a few red faces !

Use the key I gave you exclusively on music related locks, otherwise Vainamoinen will come looking for you!

:reddevil:

yanni

02-18-2010, 03:44 PM

...and goldman sucks!

Moral standards are inversely proportional to "quality of life", Robert, it's a law of nature, (and a democratic law at that), as such you can still afford to be a romantic.

In theory, all subjects are open but, as you might have noticed, there are no openminded people anymore!

You have exhibited throughout a remarkable eagerness to draw your prepackaged conclusions and I simply don't believe you can become Cocchi, live his life, see his world with his eyes to then, only then, comment on what he did wrong or not.

Personaly I don't condemn him (the philosophe-politician in him) for anything other than his theory on "public happiness" and how to attain it via a republic where all "equal born" would enjoy "equal rights".

Well, they are not, they do not and, moreover, they should not:

In an ideal state, less blessed people should enjoy more rights (be treated far more leniently) than "leaders".

That's all!

Cheers!

LOL ! The subject is open. The locks rusted two centuries ago, and there is nothing left except honesty.

And a few red faces !

Musicology

02-18-2010, 05:00 PM

The truth is that truth is truth. And what we see in its place are hidden, elitist, unaccountable, corporate, occultic, counterfeits. Whose dogmas are forced on the unsuspecting fools who believe them. Fortunately, that stuff belongs to an age that is irrelevant.

As for 'pre-packaged' conclusions, I was for over 15 years educated to believe the very opposite to what I now know about Mozart. I arrived at my understanding only by detailed study of the subject. That's the very opposite of 'pre-packaged conclusions'. Isn't it ? Indeed, the pre-packaged conclusions of the music industry on this subject are almost laughable. They hide away and have nothing to say. Theirs is a mantra that is never cross-examined. As anyone can see. Just like the icons we find on Easter Island. Which are cleaned, polished up for tourists, and which keep the industry going. Dumbing down the world in the process.

Well, even Mozart deserves to be criticised. Like every icon of our civilization. The laughter starts when we discover the 'experts' are on the golf course, or hidden in their lodges.

I really can't write too much at this moment. I'm queing up to hear the latest corporate news from the international oligarchical news channels. And their corporate sponsors. So that I can stay 'well informed', you understand ?

...and goldman sucks!

Moral standards are inversely proportional to "quality of life", Robert, it's a law of nature, (and a democratic law at that), as such you can still afford to be a romantic.

In theory, all subjects are open but, as you might have noticed, there are no openminded people anymore!

You have exhibited throughout a remarkable eagerness to draw your prepackaged conclusions and I simply don't believe you can become Cocchi, live his life, see his world with his eyes to then, only then, comment on what he did wrong or not.

Personaly I don't condemn him (the philosophe-politician in him) for anything other than his theory on "public happiness" and how to attain it via a republic where all "equal born" would enjoy "equal rights".

Well, they are not, they do not and, moreover, they should not:

In an ideal state, less blessed people should enjoy more rights (be treated far more leniently) than "leaders".

That's all!

Cheers!

yanni

02-19-2010, 02:09 AM

State promoted art, music included, will always work for the interests of the establishment, Robert, musicians and experts to be bought a dime a dozen.

Criticize Mozart for what exactly? Following orders?

As for the media, look at them positively, as a means to discover the masochist in you!

:cheers2:

Musicology

02-19-2010, 07:11 AM

'This music that students can learn from, like religion, is an evidence of a better world. But every trace of it has to be hidden, by design, by the shows and diversions of the buffoons and their managers. Does that suprise you ? Since commerce, buffoonery, their own status, the praises of the spectacularists and those of short-lived fashion, and the absent-mindedness of their own professors, become of course the institution they know and love the most, and it is all they can ever achieve and hope to achieve. And see the labour they spend in their sophistry ! You must not be surprised statue makers are busy these days in Vienna - and that ignorance reigns supreme. Remind them, if you dare, that a Bach lived and had no passport there. You may upset their lunch with the fact of it. And leave them to their stories. To their expertise. Love laughter. And tolerate, always tolerate, the fool. Since, we are those saved fools.

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

(J.N. Forkel - Founder of the Science of Musicology - Public Lecture - Gottingen, Germany )

State promoted art, music included, will always work for the interests of the establishment, Robert, musicians and experts to be bought a dime a dozen.

Criticize Mozart for what exactly? Following orders?

As for the media, look at them positively, as a means to discover the masochist in you!

:cheers2:

Musicology

02-19-2010, 09:00 AM

Noticed today on the internet. At the bottom of the page is reference to 'The Manufacture of Mozart' in a post made by a Professor of Music in Venice. Interesting, Yanni, yes ?

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:-PA_HfFkSNwJ:z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D9514+jesuit+mozart+robert+ newman&cd=56&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

yanni

02-19-2010, 01:28 PM

Assuming these wise words of Forkel's date post 1774 and aware by now that he was not just anti-'buffoons and their managers' but also somewhat(playing it safe) critical of Gluck's reform opera, coming then on stage, I have this to say:

He was about 20 years behind, in musical as well as political developments, not ready then to deviate from church music, but a pioneer promoter of future german "ethnic" music (as per title) nevertheless.

His opinion on "Rousseau-Gluck-Cocchi etc" is irrelevant, as a musician he was insignificant and the title "first musicologist" totaly unfounded: He had neither the depth nor the knowledge!

If I were a musicologist, Robert, I would research similarities between music dictionaries by Rousseau and Koch.

Finaly: All churches wanted to keep exclusive control of music (and musicians) well aware of its value as a means of persuasion and, as such, a certain envy against those that used it for their own purposes (commerce, Forkel notices) is well understood and to be excused.....

...for Forkel!

You are biased, Robert, by later turn of events and "today".

But the circumstances were different then!

:patriot:

'This music that students can learn from, like religion, is an evidence of a better world. But every trace of it has to be hidden, by design, by the shows and diversions of the buffoons and their managers. Does that suprise you ? Since commerce, buffoonery, their own status, the praises of the spectacularists and those of short-lived fashion, and the absent-mindedness of their own professors, become of course the institution they know and love the most, and it is all they can ever achieve and hope to achieve. And see the labour they spend in their sophistry ! You must not be surprised statue makers are busy these days in Vienna - and that ignorance reigns supreme. Remind them, if you dare, that a Bach lived and had no passport there. You may upset their lunch with the fact of it. And leave them to their stories. To their expertise. Love laughter. And tolerate, always tolerate, the fool. Since, we are those saved fools.

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

(J.N. Forkel - Founder of the Science of Musicology - Public Lecture - Gottingen, Germany )

Musicology

02-19-2010, 02:52 PM

Yanni,

First of all, here is the Wikipedia article on Johann Forkel -

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

You will note his musical association with the University of Gottingen for close to half a century. He saw it all. His publications are famous for their detail and for their learning. He gave public lectures. And he was increasingly despised by the managers and impresarios of the music industry.

It was Forkel who (as already said) introduced the accomplishments of Bach to a startled world. Who taught that the greatest music is that which can be used for the teaching of students. And if you will notice carefully his early articles on Bach are not (as you claim) refering to church music at all. Forkel knew perfectly well the prejudices and absurdities of his age. He knew the bigotry which had kept musicians ignorant of the subject. On Bach he focused on the marvellous instrumental music, the sonatas, the partitas, and other secular music such as his concertos. Plus the major works such as the 48 Preludes and Fugues, the 'Art of Fugue' etc. How much more fair could he be ?

The 'establishment' (to their shame) already knew of Bach's formidable musical legacy. In fact, down in Italy it's recorded that teachers such as Padre Martini kept a copy of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues on their desk. But you will search in vain for any reference to J.S. Bach during his whole lifetime in Vienna or in Italy, Bohemia, France or even England. Catholic Europe pretended he did not exist. End of story. And, anyway, they wanted to invent something else. Their own theoretical models. And, by the late 18th century there were charlatans who taught that they could make better arrangements of Bach's own music (complete with their own new harmonies) that were supposedly superior to those of Bach himself. Men such as the buffoon theorist, Abbe Vogler, for example. (A man who also attacked Forkel). Accusing him (as you do) of Bach being 'old fashioned'. When, today, if you were to ask, say, a jazz musician whose music has been the greatest influence on them from classical music they will invariably tell you it's JS Bach. The 19th century saw the teaching of harmony enter into a chaotic state. With fugue itself ignored. Or parodied at best. In Vienna others marvelled at it, and even bought copies of it. But they never performed it publicly. Because, of course, they had their heroes. And the music industry had 'modern' things to give the public in its place. The resistance against Bach (and others of the late baroque period) was relentless. The secularisation was, of course, the emerging industry itself. Which still found no place for this amazing music of the late baroque.

So, no. Let's be honest about this. People don't exist if they aren't part of the 'system'. And others worked for peanuts whose names are today virtually ignored. That's the reality.

It would be useless, of course, to replace the idol of Mozart with one of Bach. And that has never happened. Still, the lesson is clear. The industry suffers from 'amnesia' and Bach is amongst the greatest examples. All this taking place within a Holy Roman Empire where, only a few decades before the teaching in most schools was in Latin, with students unable to speak their own language there, and no history taught at all. A recipe for ignorance. Only matched by us today.

yanni

02-20-2010, 03:03 AM

In my opinion, Robert, following my revelations on Cocchi and his aliases, history and music scholars, having hopefully survived falling of their podiums , should now head straight for the woods and stay there forever.

I don't give a cent (sic) on what Forkel says or what Wikipedia says or what the early anglosaxon nationalistic attempts by Hanover and the famous(!) University of Goettingen (Founded 1737 by George II as compared to Pragues Karl University founded 1348) "scholars" claimed then, and still claim, as "their music, musicians and musicoloy".

Further to what I wrote in previous, I suggest you read Daniel Heartz (Words on Music) if you really wish to concentrate on Forkel's 1774 blah-blahs but I don't really see the reason:

It was you afterall who, a while back in this thread, were talking of the "italian" origins of all european music (even if "musicology" is a greek word and Rousseau's definition of "fuga"-escape-in his dictionary confirms it)!

As for Bach, his "formidable legacy" and the music establishement (then and now):

Add to your future tentative "musicology research themas" J.C.Bach, the London Bach, and his special relationship to Baron Bache or Bagge (and his patron Cocchi).

Preferably after succesfully digesting the rest of my story, in a year or two, and before heading for the woods yourself.

BTW:

Louis XV died May 10th, 1774.

Shortly before Gluck had his Iphigenie premiering in Paris, April 19th 1774, Gossec staged his tragedie lyrique "Sabinus" at Versailles, December the 4th, 1773 to then repeat it early 74 in the Paris Music Academy to then cooperate "somehow" with Gluck, as the story reads currently in "New" France: Avec lui, Gossec forme le projet d'utiliser ce livret dιlaissι pour thθme de son premier opιra :Sabinus.
http://philidor.cmbv.fr/jlbweb/jlbWeb?html=cmbv/BurAff&path=/biblio/bur/02/92/292.pdf&ext=pdf (notice name of site) and http://www.musicologie.org/Biographies/g/gossec.htm (valid only as far his works are concerned. His biographic data are fake!)

Cheers!

:party: (you'll find many french musicologists to keep you company in the "Bois" Robert)

Yanni,

First of all, here is the Wikipedia article on Johann Forkel -

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

You will note his musical association with the University of Gottingen for close to half a century. He saw it all. His publications are famous for their detail and for their learning. He gave public lectures. And he was increasingly despised by the managers and impresarios of the music industry.

It was Forkel who (as already said) introduced the accomplishments of Bach to a startled world. Who taught that the greatest music is that which can be used for the teaching of students. And if you will notice carefully his early articles on Bach are not (as you claim) refering to church music at all. Forkel knew perfectly well the prejudices and absurdities of his age. He knew the bigotry which had kept musicians ignorant of the subject. On Bach he focused on the marvellous instrumental music, the sonatas, the partitas, and other secular music such as his concertos. Plus the major works such as the 48 Preludes and Fugues, the 'Art of Fugue' etc. How much more fair could he be ?

The 'establishment' (to their shame) already knew of Bach's formidable musical legacy. In fact, down in Italy it's recorded that teachers such as Padre Martini kept a copy of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues on their desk. But you will search in vain for any reference to J.S. Bach during his whole lifetime in Vienna or in Italy, Bohemia, France or even England. Catholic Europe pretended he did not exist. End of story. And, anyway, they wanted to invent something else. Their own theoretical models. And, by the late 18th century there were charlatans who taught that they could make better arrangements of Bach's own music (complete with their own new harmonies) that were supposedly superior to those of Bach himself. Men such as the buffoon theorist, Abbe Vogler, for example. (A man who also attacked Forkel). Accusing him (as you do) of Bach being 'old fashioned'. When, today, if you were to ask, say, a jazz musician whose music has been the greatest influence on them from classical music they will invariably tell you it's JS Bach. The 19th century saw the teaching of harmony enter into a chaotic state. With fugue itself ignored. Or parodied at best. In Vienna others marvelled at it, and even bought copies of it. But they never performed it publicly. Because, of course, they had their heroes. And the music industry had 'modern' things to give the public in its place. The resistance against Bach (and others of the late baroque period) was relentless. The secularisation was, of course, the emerging industry itself. Which still found no place for this amazing music of the late baroque.

So, no. Let's be honest about this. People don't exist if they aren't part of the 'system'. And others worked for peanuts whose names are today virtually ignored. That's the reality.

It would be useless, of course, to replace the idol of Mozart with one of Bach. And that has never happened. Still, the lesson is clear. The industry suffers from 'amnesia' and Bach is amongst the greatest examples. All this taking place within a Holy Roman Empire where, only a few decades before the teaching in most schools was in Latin, with students unable to speak their own language there, and no history taught at all. A recipe for ignorance. Only matched by us today.

Musicology

02-20-2010, 06:33 AM

Yanni,

Your 'revelations' on Cocchi and his aliases are, in my view, not your strongest arguments. They are the equivalent of carefully peeling an onion only to find another skin. And to remove it only to find another. But, on the other hand, the fact you are focusing on Cocchi is very, very useful. He is, according to you, on some vague mission in life to use lots of aliases for the French government. Although you have not specified his mission. And he is, according to you, a part time musical genius. Plus a diplomat. You also argue that musicians are ten a penny. My opinion may not be worth much but it's this - children do not write symphonies, operas and piano concertos. Nor do they fly jumbo jets across the Atlantic or design computers. And, similarly, nor do French diplomats write operas. Music, Janni, is not making hamburgers.

And may I gently correct you ? I didn't say 'all music came from Italy'. In fact, what first came from Italy are the forms of music such as concertos, symphonies, sonatas, quartets etc. Plus, of course, operas etc. The immense importance of Italy for these things is plain fact. To this day Italian terms are used on musical scores. And it is a plain fact Italian musicians (and Kapellmeisters) literally dominated the early and middle 18th century musical scene in Austria and Germany. Plus of course Bohemians.

You mention J.C. Bach and his special relationship to Baron Bache/Bagge in London. Plus of course C.P.E. Bach. Yes, now THAT is a fascinating subject, for sure ! And what of J.C. Bach's relationship to the British monarchy ? (To ask how the son of one of the most talented composers who ever lived, a Protestant composer, had several sons who converted to Roman Catholicism - this alone is a very, very interesting question). And it's not as simply answered as it may first seem. There IS a missing aspect of that subject and I'm convinced it comes from the British Empire. Or, to be more accurate, the East India Company. An Empire who (because of the Venetian/British link) grew to have huge power and influence in Germany. So this 'conversion' of the Bach sons after J.S. Bach's death was seen by them as siding with the British, rather than a religious change of view, as such. To them, they were now succeeding in their careers under British influence instead of dogmatic Catholicism. Which may well explain the role of Hamburg in C.P.E. Bach's life and career (a place where there was a massive East India Company estate of the British).

The many falsehoods associated with 18th century music are well known. Of all the centuries the 18th century is the most riddled with dubious musical attributions, for a start. But I think (and am sure) Cocchi was part of a musical network and that we are missing the point if we make him (or Gluck, or Rousseau, or anyone else) the solution. There were in fact a whole network of composers. One group of which manufactured certain reputations. Musically. With the collusion of aristocrats, patrons, managers, publishers, occultists, fraternity members etc. Amongst whose products was the career of Mozart. And by no means alone. Josef Haydn too. And, even, to an as yet unresearched degree, Ludwig van Beethoven.

You are again right Paris is vitally important in those decades. This particular jigsaw puzzle (of Mozart) spanned numerous countries. And it took time.

But Yanni, I never want to think you have nothing good to share. I have found the opposite. Much of what you say is useful. Some of it is very useful. But not all. I suggest you carefully consider the Venetian/British Empire aspect (i.e. that of the fraternities and the role of them especially within areas outside of the Holy Roman Empire) as being the missing link in all of this. Certainly in the case of Mozart. And that means, yes, Paris and England are hugely important. Without Paris, I believe, we would not have had the earliest publications of many of 'Mozart's' works. Indeed, even on the eve of the French Revolution, the 'factory' in Paris was very occupied with 'Mozart'.

Regards

yanni

02-20-2010, 06:43 AM

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/558700922HdTNHt

Musicology

02-20-2010, 06:48 AM

This link does not work !

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/558700922HdTNHt

yanni

02-20-2010, 06:50 AM

It works fine with me.

Try http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2003/observer-030119.html (concerning working girls only, nothing to do with musicology etc)

:party:

Musicology

02-20-2010, 06:57 AM

:eek2:

Ah, yes. And why, Janni, are the oldest professions also those of deception ?

yanni

02-20-2010, 07:05 AM

Why focus on the trade of musicology, Robert, and not aim for something higher?

My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference. Harry S. Truman

Musicology

02-20-2010, 08:33 AM

Yanni,

I cannot write on tennis, brain surgery or electronics. Since I've little knowledge of any of those things.

I focus on musicology (or, rather, the corporate forgery which today speaks in its name) because control of the culture (and also of the media, politics, banking, commerce etc) have always been hugely important parts of what we are told to believe about ourselves. And where more clearly than in music ? But this manipulation of music and musical history is of course really a form of control. Whose patrons have always managed its progress through manufacturing and controlling what is widely revered and believed on the subject. The extent to which our culture is manipulated and even manufactured in this way by these virtually unknown patrons and propagandists of the past is truly massive. In fact, most wars rely on a manipulated form of culture. And always has done. The role within every society of art and music in controllable ways is massive. And these icons of civilization sustain entire civilizations. They are the stuff of our 'education'. Since the chief patrons of approved art and culture were/are of course none other than these same elites of civilization.

We of the west are taught to value individualism above almost anything else and we like to believe our cultural heroes were 'individuals'. In fact, they were, almost without exception, stooges of the system that had patronised and controlled them in the first place. 'That's the way it goes in the industry', right ? Sometimes absurdly so. The end result is that a cultural pantheon is manufactured and sustained. Whose statues are testimony to these cultural 'gods of the state', in fact. Whose biographical and artistic merits are never questioned or cross-examined in detail. In fact, the lack of criticism of these giants of our culture is as clear as their dominance of our 'education'. So that spurious biographies enter our textbooks, as fact. And our 'education' never extends to questioning how those icons which now dominate our musical landscape were first constructed nor ever questioning their massive role within our 'education'. Examples in other areas are also plain. They range from NASA moon landings, corporate 'news', the dominant role of Darwinism within biology and 'science', the 'genius' of Mozart, etc. etc. The heroism of this handful of revered individuals emphasises their 'genius' but never, of course, tells the story of their patrons, their role in the propaganda to which we are accustomed, nor, of course, any appreciation of the lives, careers and achievements of countless others.

We invite cultural barbarianism by corporate, commercialised nonsense. We are, in many respects, little more educated and informed than the barbarians and pagans. Since the criticism that is vital in, say, musicology, or the 'history of music' does not exist and has hardly existed since the time of Forkel. It is not welcomed. And, shortly after its birth this science of musicology (the real science, that is) was blatantly hijacked by the commercial music industry, its managers and by vested interests. So within decades, a pseudo-musicology obtained control. By corporate, commercial ways. Through the emerging 'music industry', of course. Thus 'musicology' is today limited to highly funded corporate products on a handful of these icons whose 'experts' cannot and will not be accountable for what they teach.

It is of course childish nonsense. But the credit card of 'genius' is used whenever convention is questioned. And the managers of this nonsense laugh all the way to the bank.

Why focus on the trade of musicology, Robert, and not aim for something higher?

My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference. Harry S. Truman