The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Musical history website 'Musical Revisionism' still under construction over the next few weeks. But here, at least, is the construction site -

http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/

LOL !

[yanni]

Not at all:

Think of yourself as the first ever daring musicologist who, looking for Mozart's manufacturer in the stars above, fell accidentaly in the stale pond of history and coudn't get out fast enough.

I never really expected you to question my last revelations on "Cimarosa" and "Diodatti" as the next aliases of Gioachino Cocchi following "Casanova".

:bday_2:


Yanni,

It must be destiny, or fate, or my ignorance (and that of everyone else) which allows you exclusively the privilege of revealing 'Cocchi's Secret'.

As for myself, I am happy to know that all things that are hidden can be and will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Regards

[Musicology]

Yanni,

In my opinion this subject of W.A. Mozart consists of two parts. The first showing why he, Mozart of Salzburg, was not (and could not have been) the composer of most of the works attributed to him. That he was not a 'musical genius', in fact. And the second to show how his huge status, which has for so long come to dominate what we are taught and believe on this period of musical history, was concocted. To obtain control, in fact, of musicology. As pantheons of our culture tend to do. A project which, you may agree, has been hugely successful if able to be proved true.

It has not been my aim to replace one musical idol with another. Since that would be to miss the point.

As for Giachino Cocchi, I will always and gladly learn from you. But you wish to attribute to him, and him exclusively, the musical works of more composers than makes sense to me. And this is simply not right. To me, Cocchi was part of a musical network of real importance in the Mozart story, for sure. An important part, for sure. But there are lives and careers as important as his own in this story.

As for questioning your revelations on Cimarosa, let them be accompanied by some solid evidence and they will certainly be worthy of being described by me too in that way.

Yanni, you will of course be welcome to the new website I'm trying to make on 'Musical Revisionism'.

Regards

p.s. Whose 'birthday' are you refering to in your last post ?

[yanni]

If Cocchi wanted to "obtain control of Musicology", as you say, then the burden to explain why current musicology ignores him (and whether he plus aliases wrote their own music or not) falls on you alone.

As for "Cimarosa" and "Casanova", his last music aliases:

Having checked their few solid biographic-travel data in my mastertimeline I am well satisfied that this is so and that, in what concerns him, musicology still is a world wide conspiracy bordering opera buffa: I don't need or care convince anybody!

You see, only I have a name and an explanation for the myths "Le comte de Saint Germain", "The opera phantom" and "Casanova".

His political influence and diplomatic skill allowed him not just to survive but to keep on staging his operas in Austria and lower Italy till 1800 or so to then stage his next death (as Cimarosa).

Tell your italian friends it's no use hiding their heads in the sand: It's not "in" anymore to mimick their french, german and brit colleagues.

"Their" music is his alone!

Want to prove it? Go ahead (and you are equally wellcome to disprove it ofcourse)!

Best of luck with your new site.

BTW "Birthday" refers to your baptism in my pond!



Yanni,

In my opinion this subject of W.A. Mozart consists of two parts. The first showing why he, Mozart of Salzburg, was not (and could not have been) the composer of most of the works attributed to him. That he was not a 'musical genius', in fact. And the second to show how his huge status, which has for so long come to dominate what we are taught and believe on this period of musical history was concocted. To obtain control, in fact, of musicology. A project which, you may agree, has been hugely successful if true.

It has not been my aim to replace one musical idol with another. Since that would be to miss the point.

As for Giachino Cocchi, I will always and gladly learn from you. But you wish to attribute to him, and him exclusively, the musical works of more composers than makes sense. And this is simply not right. To me, Cocchi was part of a musical network who was of real importance in the Mozart story, for sure. An important part, for sure. But there are lives and careers just as important as his own in this story.

As for questioning your revelations on Cimarosa, let them be accompanied by some solid evidence and they will certainly be worthy of being described as revelations.

Yanni, you will of course be welcome to the new website I'm trying to make on 'Musical Revisionism'.

Regards

p.s. Whose 'birthday' are you refering to in your last post ?

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Your 'quotes' are departing from reality. Search this thread. I've never said that Cocchi wanted to "obtain control of Musicology". Have I ? No, not once. In fact I've repeatedly said he, Cocchi was part of a network of composers. I have even suggested that diplomats do not write operas and that children do not write piano concertos. Have I ever said Cocchi wanted to obtain control of Musicology ? No, not once ! So, thanks attributing the 'quote' to me but you must surely agree I've never said this in the first place. Why are you 'quoting' me on what I've never once said ?? And, until you can show us differently -

Cimarosa died in 1801.
Cocchi died in 1796.
Myslivececk died in 1781.
Rousseau died in 1778.
Baron Grimm died in 1807.

etc etc.

The problems are mounting for you Yanni. Unless you can link the musical and non-musical careers of all these individuals and can provide proofs of them being aliases of the same person I'm not sure what to advise. And the same is true of the 'stage managed' death of Cimarosa. Since, according to you, the works of Myslivecek and of Cimarosa are works of the same person. Of a diplomat, you say ? Not forgetting, of course, symphonies, sonatas, keyboard music and everything else.

Well, you have been generous in allowing me membership of your 'pond'. I prefer to think that G. Cocchi was G. Cocchi, that Myslivecek was Myslivececk, that Rousseau was Rousseau, that Baron Grimm was Baron Grimm, and that all of these were members of a network that included MANY others besides them. Of a fraternity, in fact. Until I see evidence to the contrary that is what I believe and will continue to believe. Since the evidence clearly indicates this. And none contradicts it.

In reply to the rhetorical question of why musicology 'ignores' G. Cocchi I see no evidence of it doing so. As for myself, I've not ignored him - for weeks. He was, in my view, a composer. But you think differently. You credit him with the careers of at least 5 men. Besides being a diplomat. And I am saying this is simply not true.


Regards

[yanni]

Cocchi created the Mozart myth (to separate and conceal his music personae from his others aliases) and everybody then took off a piece of his music as their own to then establish their "national" musics.

Your "evidence" is as fictionary as his other "myths".

Live with that if you so chose and good luck!

[Musicology]

Thanks for your opinion.

Your evidence is 'thinner than a soup made from the shadow of a chicken' !

Regards

Robert


Cocchi created the Mozart myth (to separate and conceal his music personae from his others aliases) and everybody then took off a piece of his music as their own to then establish their "national" musics.

Your "evidence" is as fictionary as his other "myths".

Live with that if you so chose and good luck!

[yanni]

You have accomplished your mission bravely, Robert, and your "two Nissen" invention almost succeeded.

Re my evidence being thin, Google statistics prove otherwise.

Enjoy your broth!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Paul Wranitsky (and his brother Anton Wranitsky) were both composers of Mozart's time. They too are musical 'aliases' of G. Cocchi, I suppose ? And how about Vanhal, Cartellieri, Sarti, Salieri, and literally dozens of others ? They too are aliases of 'G. Cocchi', right ?

Really, I refuse to replace one fiction with another when the music speaks for itself, this repeatedly confirmed by biographical and other information which rarely if ever features in Mozart publications.

Cocchi deserves a place. But not the one you see determined to invent for him. And, just to correct the record, I certainly did not invent the 'Two Nissen Theory'. But this fact too I have repeatedly said here on this thread. As you know. (Why do you insist on attributing to me things I have never said ? It robs you of the credit you deserve).

Anyway, you are entitled to your views and me to mine. Let others decide for themselves.

Regards

Robert Newman


You have accomplished your mission bravely, Robert, and your "two Nissen" invention almost succeeded.

Re my evidence being thin, Google statistics prove otherwise.

Enjoy your broth!

[Musicology]

As for the 'two Nissen' theory I never invented it. On this thread you can see what I said about it no less than 5 times ! As usual you're 'inventing' aren't you Yanni ? Two days in a row. First 'quoting' things I never said and now crediting me with a theory I never invented ! It's poor stuff Yanni and it does your credibility no good.

Why not be fair and honest ?

But it's your choice.

Regards

[yanni]

Salieri was certainly a diffferent person and as for the others, I have had no grounds to check them as possible aliases of Cocchi (who, as Comte de Saint Germain, is said to have used a thousand aliases).

An associate-correspondent of yours invented the two Nissens, as you have admitted, but you never bothered to check the truth of his "story". You are thus,as a declared Mozart buster, equally or more responsible for circulating this fiction.

You and anybody else may decide as they please on the matter, in the meantime google statistics favour my revelations only.

Good luck with your myths!




Yanni,

Paul Wranitsky (and his brother Anton Wranitsky) were both composers of Mozart's time. They too are musical 'aliases' of G. Cocchi, I suppose ? And how about Vanhal, Cartellieri, Sarti, Salieri, and literally dozens of others ? They too are aliases of 'G. Cocchi', right ?

Really, I refuse to replace one fiction with another when the music speaks for itself, this repeatedly confirmed by biographical and other information which rarely if ever features in Mozart publications.

Cocchi deserves a place. But not the one you see determined to invent for him. And, just to correct the record, I certainly did not invent the 'Two Nissen Theory'. But this fact too I have repeatedly said here on this thread. As you know. (Why do you insist on attributing to me things I have never said ? It robs you of the credit you deserve).

Anyway, you are entitled to your views and me to mine. Let others decide for themselves.

Regards

Robert Newman

[yanni]

Having just checked and included in my mastertimeline Wranitsky's 1784-1790 data (from http://www.wranitzky.com/biography.htm) , I can now confirm that he too is another alias of Augustin Henri Cochin-Melchior Grimm-Cluck-Muslivecek-Mirabeau-Chastellux-Casanova-abbe Raynal-abbe Galiani etc etc, ie Gioachino Cocchi.

Whoever wishes to confirm or dispute it, may repeat the excersise (for each and every alias as listed above. Gossec and Baron Bache may be included but there is no relevant reference to be found for them in my timeline for the specific period) at his leisure: All data are on the web (their deaths to be discounted as fictitious)!

My regards to all musicology "scholars"!

[yanni]

There are no serious biographic data on "Jean Baptiste Vanhal" but his works, his two or three operas in particular as well as his "story" , a myth, his few Vienna and Dresden appearances/disappearances, speak for themselves: Yes, he was another Cocchi alias as well!

Re Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (* 27. September 1772 in Danzig; † 2. September 1807 in Liebshausen, Böhmen) if his birth date is correct, he may well have been one of Cocchi's sons as his 1793 presence in Vienna and his 1796connections to prince Lobkowitz indicate. Sometime in 1795, Cartellieri is supposed to have taught music to Beethoven (his two or three year senior, Beethoven was baptised 17 December 1770) however, which rather spoils the "story": He was propably an alias of Cocchi as well!

The same* for Sarti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Sarti!

Now tell me about the others "dozens" Robert!

Three cheers and a half for the science of Musicology!

*Possibly Cocchi's brother.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

My suggestion is -

Why not study the life and music of the composer, G. Cocchi ?

In the meantime here is another important name in the Mozart story - no doubt yet another alias of your G. Cocchi, yes ? :smilewinkgrin:

'A. Rosetti'
Horn Concerto in E-flat major
(Murray C47): (c.1782)
I. Allegro moderato

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEw23894zA0&feature=related

Not forgetting -

J.M. Kraus
March

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

(The relationship of this work by Kraus re-arranged in 1789 in Sweden of the March in 'Mozart's' Idomeneo of 8 years earlier is pure coincidence, of course ! And, the fact Kraus lived close to Mozart for months in Vienna - that too is pure coincidence. Like all the rest. LOL)

'W.A. Mozart' (actually J.M. Kraus) - Munich - January 1781
March
Idomeneo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1wW9bXxVw

Honestly, Yanni, 'Mozart's' music is the product of MANY composers, arrangers, music editors etc.

And here is Cartellieri - the real composer of the 'Mozart' Clarinet Concerto (KV622)

Casimir Anton Cartellieri (1772-1807)
Concerto for 2 Clarinets
Adagio Pastorale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6DVRzBsLbQ

[yanni]

Studying the story of G.Cocchi is what I have been doing for the better part of some five years now and as for Rosetti, his alias, he has been already discussed but, in obvious lack of names for your next dozen, you suddenly forgot all about it.

The "swedish Mozart" Kraus's work, his contacts with Gluck, padre Martini and Mozart, his selection of many wind instruments (flute, obeo, bassons, horns), his lost works and his two distinct periods (jesuit-lutheran) leave little doubt of his true identity (which practicaly vanishes when Swedens politics are examined in parallel to those of France at the time).

Of interest his choice to use himself another alias for a work of his, published 1787 in Paris, as Giuseppe Cambini- whose biography is less blessed with detail than "first national musician of Sweden's" Kraus.

:smile5:

Anyoneelse from your dozens?





Yanni,

My suggestion is -

Why not study the life and music of the composer, G. Cocchi ?

In the meantime here is another important name in the Mozart story - no doubt yet another alias of your G. Cocchi, yes ? :smilewinkgrin:

'A. Rosetti'
Horn Concerto in E-flat major
(Murray C47): (c.1782)
I. Allegro moderato

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEw23894zA0&feature=related

Not forgetting -

J.M. Kraus
March

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

(The relationship of this work by Kraus re-arranged in 1789 in Sweden of the March in 'Mozart's' Idomeneo of 8 years earlier is pure coincidence, of course ! And, the fact Kraus lived close to Mozart for months in Vienna - that too is pure coincidence. Like all the rest. LOL)

'W.A. Mozart' (actually J.M. Kraus) - Munich - January 1781
March
Idomeneo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1wW9bXxVw

Honestly, Yanni, 'Mozart's' music is the product of MANY composers, arrangers, music editors etc.

And here is Cartellieri - the real composer of the 'Mozart' Clarinet Concerto (KV622)

Casimir Anton Cartellieri (1772-1807)
Concerto for 2 Clarinets
Adagio Pastorale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6DVRzBsLbQ

[Musicology]

Yanni,

My subject is Mozart and his bogus career. A career which used the input of MANY composers. As is indisputably correct.

But good luck on your Cocchi (whose musical achievements were far, far greater than those of any Mozart). He must have been a very, very busy composer/diplomat, yes ? It becomes ridiculous, in fact.


Regards

[yanni]

Go ahead, do your duty as a brit musicologist, prove me wrong by providing evidence to the contrary for any single one of my hero's aliases.

If my "Melchior Grimm" and "Rousseau" seem too difficult (in view of their high google stats) you may select any other.

What has become ridiculous in the meantime is your theory on Mozart's manufacture accompanied by (besides your two Nissens) a pile of bogus theories as to his "manufacturers" lacking any evidence whatsoever. (They collapsed of course during our discussion in this thread.)

Cocchi (and family), along with neoclassicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism), taught the younger european nations of his time theater and music, that's a fact, and if you or anybody else have difficulty to digest it, well, milk of magnesia might help!

BTW Cocchi's excellent relations to Sweden were transferred somehow to the next french "Saint Germain", his nephew "Jean d'Anastasi"*, chevalier de l'ordre Wasa, "armenian" consul of Sweden and Norway to Egypt as from 1826, previously employed by the british consulate in Alex, a partner later of consul Henry Salt in collecting and trading antiquities, papyri in particular . He is known today as Caussin de Perceval jr but also signed as Cochini at the time as well. For more details see "Two works by Poe decoded" herein.

If magnesia doesn't help, call me for another recipy.

Hope you soon recover!

Antonios Emm. Kokkinis.

*Also referred to as Jean d'Anastaisi, Jean d'Athanasi, Giovanni or Johann d'Anastasi or D'Anastasy, Ivan Afanassiev, Jannis or Yanni etc.
Belzoni worked under his supervision. Cooperated with Champollion.

[Musicology]

Thanks. Somehow I don't think any of us are profiting from this conversation any more. G. Cocchi has had more than enough our time.

Regards

[yanni]

Cheerio then!

[Musicology]

''Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these''.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 11
Chorale Finale

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

[Musicology]

Thanks Yanni, and to everyone else !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkt75juxvxw&feature=related

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Thanks. Somehow I don't think any of us are profiting from this conversation any more. G. Cocchi has had more than enough our time.

Regards


Cheerio then!


''Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these''.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 11
Chorale Finale

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


Thanks Yanni, and to everyone else !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkt75juxvxw&feature=related

Gentlemen, say it isn't so!
Is this really the end?

All joking aside, whether this is the end or not, my hat is off to both of you for your stubborn endurance and for sharing many new names, dates, events and possibilities to consider. Though I haven't responded much to your posts, I have attempted to read most of your posts, after all if it wasn't for you where would I get my material?

I'm sure our trails will cross elsewhere among the forums.
Until then, keep your bows rosined and your powder dry!

Gilliatt

[Musicology]

Hi Gilliatt,

Best wishes and thanks !

Antonin Dvorak
Cello Concerto
(End of Second Movement)

Soloist - Rostropovich

(Composed New York 1894)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-GlL_qlvBM&feature=related

[Musicology]

Antonin Dvorak
Cello Concerto
Carlo Maria Giulini
London Philharmonic Orchestra
Rostropovitch
1st Movement (Excerpt)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxYbF-Yzdf0&feature=related

[Musicology]

Updated new website on Musical Revisionism. A modern re-examination of the icons of western musical history. In the coming weeks this site will contain various articles, publications and radio interviews etc. on aspects of this important educational and cultural subject.

http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/

[ERS]

Gentlemen, I must second Gilliatt's emotion. You both have shed major light on an era of history that has been vastly misrepresented – even bastardized - by official “education.”

I have been following this discussion since the get-go and must say that my curiosity has been piqued…

I have long listened to - and participated in (I’m a classically-trained horn player) the repertory of the classical era and after delving into this avenue I must declare that I am flabbergasted by the scores (no pun intended) of composers who – to my sensibilities – have received, at best, short shrift from the official establishment. Worse, many have had their music - and life stories – totally ignored and neglected.

After referring to some of the composers’ names mentioned in your missives I am amazed at the quality (and quantity) of their output. Example: Pavel Wranitsky (see the Wranitsky Project Website); the slow movement from his Symphony, opus 31 is sublime, haunting. It is as profound as any I have heard from the “mainstream” characters (Mozart, Haydn, etc. etc.). Until this discussion I thought there was an appalling paucity of composers from that era.
In short, I was wrong.

I am now listening to the MIDI versions of his opus 33 Symphonies. Even the MIDI versions are remarkable. I can only imagine what they would sound like if performed by a full orchestra on period instruments. I can only ask: Why in the world have these jewels of sonic architecture been ignored – cast aside – by the musical “powers-that-be?”
I am coming to the conclusion that Robert is on to a major revelation; that this “Mozart” has received the lion’s share of (patently undeserved) attention and adulation while a virtual throng of real composers has been painted with the black brush of oblivion.

Why?

Bamert’s London Players “Contemporaries of Mozart” series is an example of the musical hierarchy as it presently exists.
The movie “Amadeus”, in light of these considerations, could be considered apocryphal…
An example: The composer Eberl was plagiarized by “Mozart” for a long time. Apparently Eberl did not sound the alarm, contrary to what one would surmise.

I am curious about Yanni’s research into Cocchi. Cocchi was prolific, yes. But could he truly have had that many aliases? Wouldn’t someone need a Guinness Book of World Record case of chronic insomnia to assume that many identities and be so prolific? I ask this in all sincerity…

Well done. BTW, Robert, I look forward to your Website and book.
:)

[yanni]

Friendly suggestion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8551000.stm


Gentlemen, I must second Gilliat's emotion. You both have shed major light on an era of history that has been vastly misrepresented – even bastardized - by official “education.”

I have been following this discussion since the get-go and must say that my curiosity has been piqued…

I have long listened to - and participated in (I’m a classically-trained horn player) the repertory of the classical era and after delving into this avenue I must declare that I am flabbergasted by the scores (no pun intended) of composers who – to my sensibilities – have received, at best, short shrift from the official establishment. Worse, many have had their music - and life stories – totally ignored and neglected.

After referring to some of the composers’ names mentioned in your missives I am amazed at the quality (and quantity) of their output. Example: Pavel Wranitsky (see the Wranitsky Project Website); the slow movement from his Symphony, opus 31 is sublime, haunting. It is as profound as any I have heard from the “mainstream” characters (Mozart, Haydn, etc. etc.). Until this discussion I thought there was an appalling paucity of composers from that era.
In short, I was wrong.

I am now listening to the MIDI versions of his opus 33 Symphonies. Even the MIDI versions are remarkable. I can only imagine what they would sound like if performed by a full orchestra on period instruments. I can only ask: Why in the world have these jewels of sonic architecture been ignored – cast aside – by the musical “powers-that-be?”
I am coming to the conclusion that Robert is on to a major revelation; that this “Mozart” has received the lion’s share of (patently undeserved) attention and adulation while a virtual throng of real composers has been painted with the black brush of oblivion.

Why?

Bamert’s London Concert “Contemporaries of Mozart” series is an example of the musical hierarchy as it presently exists.
The movie “Amadeus”, in light of these considerations, could be considered apocryphal…
An example: The composer Eberl was plagiarized by “Mozart” for a long time. Apparently Eberl did not sound the alarm, contrary to what one would surmise.

I am curious about Yanni’s research into Cocchi. Cocchi was prolific, yes. But could he truly have had that many aliases? Wouldn’t someone need a Guinness Book of World Record case of chronic insomnia to assume that many identities and be so prolific? I ask this in all sincerity…

Well done. BTW, Robert, I look forward to your Website and book.
:)

[ERS]

I'm not sure I follow you, Yanni.

I followed your "friendly suggestion" and came to a link about the U.S. employment figures. And, frankly, I'm not sure I buy the prognostications. The U.S. economy is not likely to improve... As for the jobs market, I see nothing but pink slips in my neck of the woods...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... :sosp:

Please make the connection and enlighten me.

But since it seems that we have a penchant for current events, I'll return the favor:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2d463dc1ea6baf7651f3f5c33b7f382 4.a51&show_article=1

[Babbalanja]

Now Robert has a sock puppet screenname. Desperate?

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

No Babbalanja,

You are again mistaken. I've actually received dozens of similar comments. A professor of harpsichord in Venice recently posted online to say what is being criticised about Mozart is correct. He even used the term 'meticulously well researched'. I don't need (unlike Yanni's version of Cocchi) to invent sock puppets.

I hardly have enough time to make the following website, let alone invent other posters. They can speak for themselves. In fact, I can't finish the 'Musical Revisionism' website for another week or so.

Why not reply to the poster above if you are so sure ? Not me, is it ? I hardly care. Believe as you please. And best wishes.

http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/



Now Robert has a sock puppet screenname. Desperate?

Regards,

Istvan

[Babbalanja]

You are again mistaken. I've actually received dozens of similar comments. A professor of harpsichord in Venice recently posted online to say what is being criticised about Mozart is correct. He even used the term 'meticulously well researched'. I don't need (unlike Yanni's version of Cocchi) to invent sock puppets.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

However, all your new admirer mentioned was that there are many composers of Mozart's time who have received short shrift. This is hardly support for your arcane conspiracy theory which states that powerful secret cabals contracted these composers to ghost write all of Mozart's works.

So I'll ask ERS to clarify his opinion of Robert's work here. Which of these statements would you affirm:

1) The lesser composers of Mozart's time don't deserve to be ignored, and should be acknowledged for their efforts the way Mozart is for his?

2) Mozart was a completely fraudulent creation of diabolical fraternities desperate to create a Viennese Musical Messiah, and that he didn't compose any of his works?

3) There has been a centuries-old cover-up in mainstream musicology and Mozart scholarship to conceal this terrible truth and marginalize those who seek to reveal it?

Look forward to a conversation.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, for now. You might give your own education the benefit of the doubt also. I don't know what makes you believe in the story of Mozart. Well, yes I do. It's simply that you've never considered that it has more holes in it than a leaky boat. Why not start there ? What makes you believe it ? Isn't it the fact that it was cobbled together by vested interests ? And that the past 200 years or so has shown that it unravels on closer examination ? If it wasn't so why would I have posted so often, to so many different places, on various aspects of this myth ? You believe it because, well, because you can't imagine that it's a fairy story.

Name a few works by 'Mozart' and let's see how that goes, if you like.

But what else do you suggest ? Really, there must be a reason why somebody dares to suggest that to you, yes ? Is it, just possibly, because it's right ?

What I've said is correct. And, in the years to come you will find only more and more information confirming it to be so. That's my prediction. And yet, of course, this is only an introduction to that subject.

Was it all a giant scam ? Yes, it was. Not of average music. But of music of great quality and value. Judge for yourself having heard both sides of the story. That's a sensible thing to do.

Regards



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

However, all your new admirer mentioned was that there are many composers of Mozart's time who have received short shrift. This is hardly support for your arcane conspiracy theory which states that powerful secret cabals contracted these composers to ghost write all of Mozart's works.

So I'll ask ERS to clarify his opinion of Robert's work here. Which of these statements would you affirm:

1) The lesser composers of Mozart's time don't deserve to be ignored, and should be acknowledged for their efforts the way Mozart is for his?

2) Mozart was a completely fraudulent creation of diabolical fraternities desperate to create a Viennese Musical Messiah, and that he didn't compose any of his works?

3) There has been a centuries-old cover-up in mainstream musicology and Mozart scholarship to conceal this terrible truth and marginalize those who seek to reveal it?

Look forward to a conversation.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

I am saying your ERS hornblower persona has room for improvement, let alone your attempt to provoke me. :hand:




I'm not sure I follow you, Yanni.

I followed your "friendly suggestion" and came to a link about the U.S. employment figures. And, frankly, I'm not sure I buy the prognostications. The U.S. economy is not likely to improve... As for the jobs market, I see nothing but pink slips in my neck of the woods...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... :sosp:

Please make the connection and enlighten me.

But since it seems that we have a penchant for current events, I'll return the favor:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2d463dc1ea6baf7651f3f5c33b7f382 4.a51&show_article=1

[yanni]

My interest for the "Mozart manufactured" subject has diminished so I suggest we continue with Philidor, the chess master-composer, an important alias of Gioachino Cocchi.

Having already checked him out (via my all aliases mastertimeline) I have no intention to repeat the exercise herein but, should anyone wish to dispute me, here is a good source thru which one may crosscheck his presences in London and Paris as well as his circle of friends (obviously the same as chessmaster-composer Rousseau):

"Crescendo of the virtuoso: spectacle, skill, and self-promotion in Paris" by Paul Metzner.

Regards!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgx1ptlGsw&feature=related

[Musicology]

Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. Having waded through weeks of posts on the multiple lives of G. Cocchi I have no appetite to indulge you on François-André Danican Philidor (1726-95). Except to note that his style is much influenced by Rameau.

His works are as follows -

Le diable à quatre, ou La double métamorphose (3, M.-J. Sedaine), OC (PSL), 19 Aug 1756; pastiche with some new music by Baurans, J.-L. Laruette and Philidor (1757)

Blaise le savetier (1, Sedaine, after La Fontaine), OC (Foire St Germain), 9 March 1759 (1759), excerpts published separately

L’huître et les plaideurs, ou Le tribunal de la chicane (1, Sedaine), OC (PSL), 17 Sept 1759

Le quiproquo, ou Le volage fixé (1, Moustou), PCI (Bourgogne), 6 March 1760, excerpts (n.d.)

Le soldat magicien (1, L. Anseaume), OC (PSL), 14 Aug 1760 (?1760)

Le jardinier et son seigneur (1, Sedaine), OC (Foire St Germain), 18 Feb 1761 (1761)

Le maréchal ferrant (2, A.F. Quétant), OC (PSL), 22 Aug 1761 (1761), excerpts pubd separately

Sancho Pança dans son isle (1, A.A.H. Poinsinet, after M. de Cervantes: Don Quixote), PCI (Bourgogne), 8 July 1762 (?1762), excerpts pubd separately

Le bûcheron, ou Les trois souhaits (1, Guichard and N. Castet), PCI (Bourgogne), 28 Feb 1763 (?1763), excerpts pubd separately

Les fêtes de la paix (1, C.-S. Favart), PCI (Bourgogne), 4 July 1763, excerpts pubd with lib

Le sorcier (2, Poinsinet), PCI (Bourgogne), 2 Jan 1764 (?1764)

Tom Jones (3, Poinsinet, after H. Fielding), PCI (Bourgogne), 27 Feb 1765; rev. (3, Sedaine), 30 Jan 1766 (1766); vs ed. N. McGegan (London, 1978)

Le tonnelier (oc, 1, N.-M. Audinot and A.-F. Quétant, after La Fontaine: Le cuvier), PCI (Bourgogne), 16 March 1765 (c1765); collab. Alexandre, Ciapalanti, Gossec, Kohaut, J. Schobert and J.-C. Trial

Ernelinde, princesse de Norvège (tragédie lyrique, 3, Poinsinet, after F. Silvani: La fede tradita, e vendicata), Opéra, 24 Nov 1767; rev. as Sandomir, prince de Dannemarck, Opéra, 24 Jan 1769 (1769/R1992 in FO, lvi); rev. as Ernelinde (5, Sedaine), Versailles, 11 Dec 1773; rev., Opéra, 8 July 1777; vs (5 acts) ed. A. Pougin and C. Franck (1883), excerpts published separately

Le jardinier de Sidon (2, R.T.R. de Pleinchesne, after P. Metastasio: Il re pastore), PCI (Bourgogne), 18 July 1768 (?1768), excerpts published separately

L’amant déguisé, ou Le jardinier supposé (1, Favart and C.-H. de Voisenen), PCI (Bourgogne), 2 Sept 1769 (1770)

La rosière de Salency (3, Favart), Fontainebleau, 25 Oct 1769, excerpts with lib (1769), collab. Blaise, Duni, Monsigny, van Swieten

La nouvelle école des femmes (3, A. Mouslier de Moissy), PCI (Bourgogne), 22 Jan 1770, F-Pn

Le bon fils (1, F.A. Devaux [G.A. Lemonnier]), PCI (Bourgogne), 11 Jan 1773, excerpts (n.d.)

Zémire et Mélide (Mélide, ou Le navigateur) (2, C.G. Fenouillet de Falbaire), Fontainebleau, 30 Oct 1773 (1774), MS in 3 acts, intended for Opéra, Po

Berthe (3, Pleinchesne), Brussels, Monnaie, 18 Jan 1775, collab. H. Botson, Gossec, I. Vitzthumb

Les femmes vengées, ou Les feintes infidélités (1, Sedaine), PCI (Bourgogne), 20 March 1775 (1775)

Persée (tragédie lyrique, 3, J.F. Marmontel, after P. Quinault), Opéra, 27 Oct 1780, Po, excerpts pubd separately

Thémistocle (tragédie lyrique, 3, E. Morel de Chédeville), Fontainebleau, 13 Oct 1785 (1786)

L’amitié au village (3, Desforges [P.-J.-B. Choudard]), Fontainebleau, 18 Oct 1785, excerpts Pn

La belle esclave, ou Valcour et Zéïla (1, A.J. Dumaniant), Théâtre du Comte de Beaujolais, 18 Sept 1787 (?1787)

Le mari comme il les faudrait tous, ou La nouvelle école des maris (1, de Senne), Théâtre du Comte de Beaujolais, 12 Nov 1788

Bélisaire [Acts 1 and 2] (3, A.-L. Bertin d’Antilly, after Marmontel), OC (Favart), 3 Oct 1796 [Act 3 by H.-M. Berton]

Contribs. to: M.A. Charpentier: Le retour du printemps, perf. privately, Dec 1756; J.C. Gillier: Les pèlerins de la Mecque, PSL, 1758; J.-B.-M. Quinault: Le triomphe du temps, Versailles, 10 Dec 1761; Au Dieu qui vous enchaine, ariette in 1763 edn of J.-J. Rousseau: Le devin du village

Inc.: Protogène (Sedaine), 1779

Spurious: Le rendez-vous (P. Légier), 1763; La bagarre (P. van Maldere), 1763; Les puits d’amour, ou Les amours de Pierre de Long et de Blanche Bazu (Landrin), 1779; Le dormeur éveillé (Marmontel), 1783 [music by N. Piccinni]

//

None of the mature works attributed to Mozart have any connection with this composer Philidor although Philidor's links with Gossec, with Rousseau's 'Le Devin du Village' and with 'Il re pastore' (all refered to above) strongly suggest that the Paris network did have input into 'Mozart's' 'early works'. I am refering here to a Jesuit educated network (both musical and non-musical) of course. Which you may discover for yourself in the life and career of Gossec, again with Rousseau and certainly with Rameau (the latter definitely being a strong influence on Philidor's music). This network in Paris further confirmed by the sources of music for various 'early Mozart piano concertos', 4 known to be arrangements of works by Paris-based German keyboard composers such as Schubart etc.

//

[ERS]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

However, all your new admirer mentioned was that there are many composers of Mozart's time who have received short shrift. This is hardly support for your arcane conspiracy theory which states that powerful secret cabals contracted these composers to ghost write all of Mozart's works.

So I'll ask ERS to clarify his opinion of Robert's work here. Which of these statements would you affirm:

1) The lesser composers of Mozart's time don't deserve to be ignored, and should be acknowledged for their efforts the way Mozart is for his?

2) Mozart was a completely fraudulent creation of diabolical fraternities desperate to create a Viennese Musical Messiah, and that he didn't compose any of his works?

3) There has been a centuries-old cover-up in mainstream musicology and Mozart scholarship to conceal this terrible truth and marginalize those who seek to reveal it?

Look forward to a conversation.

Regards,

Istvan


Istvan:

As soon as I am able, I will be happy to respond to - and affirm to at least some degree - all three of your questions at length.

I will provide some considerations that some may consider to be "outside the box";
that being said, I will do my level best to provide references to people, places and things. As for the "arcane conspiracy theories", I ask: If it's true, is is still a theory?

In the meantime, I will attempt to fabricate some better camouflage... I think my Sockpuppet/Hornblower cover has been blown... :yikes:

Darn - No flies on you, Babbalanja & Yanni. :blush:

I love this Thread!

Sincerely,

ERS

[yanni]

Definitely, Robert, this unique comment of yours re Philidor's style heavily influenced by Rameau (his uncle, huh?) may be labellled as a pearl of pearls, a motherpearl of your understanding of "music".

There are numerous articles online re Philidor's only tragedie lyrique, Ernelinde -heavily influenced by "Rousseau", "Gluck" and "Chastellux", favourably criticized later by "Grimm"-and there are still more articles on "Philidor's" friendhip and collaboration with Diderot, "Grimm's" and "Rousseau's" best friend as well so, instead of repeating your worthless fabrications , I suggest you either put up or shut up!


:hand:







Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. Having waded through weeks of posts on the multiple lives of G. Cocchi I have no appetite to indulge you on François-André Danican Philidor (1726-95). Except to note that his style is much influenced by Rameau.


Ernelinde, princesse de Norvège (tragédie lyrique, 3, Poinsinet, after F. Silvani: La fede tradita, e vendicata), rev., Opéra, 8 July 1777;
//

[Musicology]

Yanni, I can do exactly as you ask. I can do even better. I will shut up on any subject which does not relate to the subject of this thread. Which (at the fourteenth time of telling) is 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.

So you will pardon me for noting that your game of aliases concerning G. Cocchi and now 'Rousseau', 'Gluck', Chastellux', 'Grimm' and Philidor (together with dozens of other part time 'wannabees' who float across these pages) becomes a hall of mirrors. Some more distorted than others. While this room is not a hall of mirrors and it remains dedicated to examing the manufacture of Mozart. A fact which may disgust you but which, on your recognition, may save our sanity and even yours in a world more and more filled by delusions, reflections, clones, aliases and counterfeits.

We can say with certainty that, 'The aliases have landed. Take me to your leader' etc. :rolleyes5:



Definitely, Robert, this unique comment of yours re Philidor's style heavily influenced by Rameau (his uncle, huh?) may be labellled as a pearl of pearls, a motherpearl of your understanding of "music".

There are numerous articles online re Philidor's only tragedie lyrique, Ernelinde -heavily influenced by "Rousseau", "Gluck" and "Chastellux", favourably criticized later by "Grimm"-and there are still more articles on "Philidor's" friendhip and collaboration with Diderot, "Grimm's" and "Rousseau's" best friend as well so, instead of repeating your worthless fabrications , I suggest you either put up or shut up!


:hand:

[yanni]

Dedicated as you are to the manufacture of Mozart subject you have forgotten to add any research results and conclusions in this thread, any input, beyond the title!

:hand:




Yanni, I can do exactly as you ask. In fact I can do even better. I will shut up on any subject which does not relate to the So you will pardon me for noting that your game of aliases concerning G. Cocchi and now 'Rousseau', 'Gluck', Chastellux', 'Grimm' and Philidor (together with dozens of other part time 'wannabees' who float across these pages) becomes a hall of mirrors. Some more distorted than others. While this room is not a hall of mirrors and it remains dedicated to examing the manufacture of Mozart. A fact which may disgust you but which, on your recognition, may save our sanity and even yours in a world more and more filled by delusions, reflections, clones, aliases and counterfeits.

We can say with certainty that, 'The aliases have landed'. Take me to your leader' etc. :rolleyes5:

[ERS]

I cite two references, respectively, from Wikipedia and The Michael Haydn Project Website:

1) “There was another case of posthumous mistaken identity involving Michael Haydn: for many years, the piece which is now known as Michael Haydn's Symphony No. 25 was thought to be Mozart's Symphony No. 37 and assigned K. 444. The confusion arose because an autograph was discovered which had the opening movement of the symphony in Mozart's hand, and the rest in somebody else's. It is now thought that Mozart had composed a new slow introduction for reasons unknown, but the rest of the work is known to be by Michael Haydn. The piece, which had been quite widely performed as a Mozart symphony, has been performed considerably less often since this discovery in 1907."

“Indeed, several of Michael Haydn's works influenced Mozart. To give just two examples: the Te Deum "which Wolfgang was later to follow very closely in K. 141"[10] and the finale of the Symphony No. 23 which influenced the finale of the G major Quartet, K. 387. (Max Kenyon, Mozart in Salzburg: A Study and Guide. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons: 44)”


2) “Not very much of Michael Haydn's music was published in his lifetime, and only a part of this with his knowledge. A well-documented story about this, tells us how Nannerl Mozart acted as an agent for Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig and secured copies of his works behind his back for publishing without paying him fees. [Ruth Halliwell : The Mozart Family]”

Does this not beg the question: If Mozart’s “37th Symphony” was in reality Michael Haydn's 25th, where is Mozart’s actual “37th Symphony”? There remains a void here which has not been addressed or corrected – that is, why not renumber Mozart’s last four symphonies with the historical explanation? And why has Michael Haydn’s 25th Symphony been relegated to the dustbin of history?

Funny how it was good enough to perform when it was deemed to have been written by “Mozart”; even more funny how it did not qualitatively and stylistically stand out like the proverbial sore thumb prior to this discovery…

And what of this matter with Nannerl? If her Husband “Wolfie” (read: “Amadeus”) was such a creative powerhouse, why would she need to fence other composers works behind their backs?? I’d be curious about how many of those hawked works had “Wolfie’s” ubiquitous Trademark scrawled upon them.

Could it be that the whole matter has become a sticky Tar Baby because a pre-ordained paradigm was challenged?

Let us consider a legal allegory:

In court, the job of a defense attorney (or prosecuting attorney, for that matter) is to establish reasonable doubt. When reasonable doubt has been established, the jury is sanctioned to decide either in the affirmative or negative. The judge, of course, accepts this verdict and passes sentence. If the judge is prejudiced (in which case he should have readily recused himself from the case and any related proceedings) he likely will either not accept the verdict, or will render a markedly reduced (or stiffened) penalty, depending, of course, on the direction and intensity of his sentiments.

Robert’s work and research have already established - in my mind – “reasonable doubt” about the accuracy – and truthfulness - of what we have been told about this “Wunderkind”.

Are those who question the Mozart paradigm the jury, and the official musical establishment the biased judge?

When defending the British Regulars (in November, 1770) accused in the March 5th Boston Massacre where five Colonial men (including Crispus Attucks) and boys were killed by musket fire, then-attorney John Adams said: “Facts are stubborn things, gentlemen.”

Are the growing inconsistencies surrounding the Mozart Myth just as stubborn?

Was I disappointed when, as a kid, I learned that the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were fairy tales? You bet.
It seems that they were not the only fables told…

And Cocchi also had a chess player alias? My, our good Italian appears to have had more identities than there are Chins in the Beijing White Pages…
:lol: :lol:

[Musicology]

Yanni,

We might compare this to a sweet shop (perhaps better known to our transatlantic cousins as a 'candy store') which has been invaded by children who have pulled all the chocolates, candies, and other nice things out of their boxes. So that in spite of the confusion of the scene caused by various contributors, (all welcomed), is its title. A thread whose title you pay lip service to but have never tasted for yourself.

It remains my view (and I think others agree) that the role of numerous composers (including G. Cocchi, Philidor and others) was significant in 18th century music, overlapping with the manufacture of Mozart. And, in many cases in a major way. But, just as we have great paintings which were once attributed to famous painters but now belong to the 'school of Reubens or van Dyke, or the 'school of Raphael' etc. so also we have a network of musical composers surrounding what can describe as the musical manufacture of Mozart. But nobody (with the exception of Yanni) has said all these people were all the same person.

And so, you see, I am more keen to give G. Cocchi his proper place in the history of music than you might suppose. It's simply that I do not wish to replace one pagan icon with another.

I attach a famous song from the 1940's which a friend sent to me the other day. Nice stuff, yes ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVdoZNxtL8k


Dedicated as you are to the manufacture of Mozart subject you have forgotten to add any research results and conclusions in this thread, any input, beyond the title!


:hand:

[yanni]

And Cocchi also had a chess player alias? My, our good Italian appears to have had more identities than there are Chins in the Beijing White Pages…
:lol: :lol:

For a hornblower with a lawyer flare, you are obviously confused:

Composer -chess player Rousseau's chess match with David Hume is legendary already and I have no doubt that Gioachino Cocchi and general Washington enjoyed the game too.

Jefferson certainly did (study Philidor and joined his chess society while in Paris) but there is no record of ever playing with him.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/us-presidents-and-chess

:smilielol5:

[yanni]

..then ask for carbon credits!

Indeed this tragedie lyrique is staged in a candy store emptied, during our lifetime, by greedy children but this is no reason for playing dead, rabbit or chicken, Robert, otherwise we'll all "go bananas":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ZYP_xWSbI&feature=related

:hand:



Yanni,

We might compare this to a sweet shop (perhaps better known to our transatlantic cousins as a 'candy store') which has been invaded by children who have pulled all the chocolates, candies, and other nice things out of their boxes. So that in spite of the confusion of the scene caused by various contributors, (all welcomed), is its title. A thread whose title you pay lip service to but have never tasted for yourself.

It remains my view (and I think others agree) that the role of numerous composers (including G. Cocchi, Philidor and others) was significant in 18th century music, overlapping with the manufacture of Mozart. And, in many cases in a major way. But, just as we have great paintings which were once attributed to famous painters but now belong to the 'school of Reubens or van Dyke, or the 'school of Raphael' etc. so also we have a network of musical composers surrounding what can describe as the musical manufacture of Mozart. But nobody (with the exception of Yanni) has said all these people were all the same person.

And so, you see, I am more keen to give G. Cocchi his proper place in the history of music than you might suppose. It's simply that I do not wish to replace one pagan icon with another.

I attach a famous song from the 1940's which a friend sent to me the other day. Nice stuff, yes ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVdoZNxtL8k

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Questioning your aliases is not difficult. A man plays chess and this is seen as proof that he is another person. Well, here is the entry in the 'Grove' Dictionary of Music and Musicians on Philidor. It refers to the following -

As a page-boy in the royal chapel at Versailles, he (Philidor) received a good musical education with André Campra, the maître de chapelle; he also learnt the favourite pastime of the musicians, chess.

So there were lots of chess-playing musicians of that time. And not just a few. It was the favourite pastime of musicians of the time !

Also -

From 1740 Philidor lived in Paris, performing, teaching and, in the family tradition, copying music. He also assisted Rousseau, in an unknown manner, with Les muses galantes. His skill at chess marked him out earlier than his musical gifts. At the Café de la Régence he came into contact with many of the brightest minds of the time, including Diderot who was to call him, in Le neveu de Rameau, ‘Philidor le subtil’.

Philidor was best known as a professional chess player. Rousseau was not best known as a chess player. Was he ? Nor was Grimm, or any other of the aliases you seem to determined to force on Cocchi and now on Philidor. Who, themselves, may well have played chess. And why not ?

I myself play chess, as does half of the world, I suppose. Are we candidates for your theory ?

Far more interesting and relevant is Philidor was undoubtedly associated with the early years of the 'Enlightenment'. Which included Encyclopaedists such as Diderot, and musical contacts such as the Jesuit educated Rameau and others. And that the early musical stage works attributed to Mozart definitely came from this network spread across Europe of which Philidor was certainly a part. As was Cocchi. But none of this proves Rousseau was Philidor or anyone else. The evidence continues to suggest we are describing a huge fraternal network who spanned most of the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. Who, together, were agents of the emerging 'Englightenment' philosophy. And amongst whose musical achievements was music which was attributed to a certain W.A. Mozart, amongst others. This process did not involve one talented composer or even several. But many composers, music editors, publishers, and members of the same fraternities. Including your G. Cocchi, Philidor and others.

But if you have evidence which suggests differently I'm always happy to see it.

Here is a spring planting song (for those planting potatoes, I mean) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDIpkz6DOi8



For a hornblower with a lawyer flare, you are obviously confused:

Composer -chess player Rousseau's chess match with David Hume is legendary already and I have no doubt that Gioachino Cocchi and general Washington enjoyed the game too.

:smilielol5:

[yanni]

How many of your numerous chess playing-musicians were "connected" enough to successfully stage operas in Paris 1760-1790 and regularly visit London as well, do you know?

:smilielol5:



Yanni,

Questioning your aliases is not difficult. A man plays chess and this is seen as proof that he is another person. Well, here is the entry in the 'Grove' Dictionary of Music and Musicians on Philidor. It refers to the following -

As a page-boy in the royal chapel at Versailles, he (Philidor) received a good musical education with André Campra, the maître de chapelle; he also learnt the favourite pastime of the musicians, chess.

So there were lots of chess-playing musicians of that time. And not just a few. It was the favourite pastime of musicians of the time !

Also -

From 1740 Philidor lived in Paris, performing, teaching and, in the family tradition, copying music. He also assisted Rousseau, in an unknown manner, with Les muses galantes. His skill at chess marked him out earlier than his musical gifts. At the Café de la Régence he came into contact with many of the brightest minds of the time, including Diderot who was to call him, in Le neveu de Rameau, ‘Philidor le subtil’.

Philidor was best known as a professional chess player. Rousseau was not best known as a chess player. Was he ? Nor was Grimm, or any other of the aliases you seem to determined to force on Cocchi and now on Philidor. Who, themselves, may well have played chess. And why not ?

I myself play chess, as does half of the world, I suppose. Are we candidates for your theory ?

Far more interesting and relevant is Philidor was undoubtedly associated with the early years of the 'Enlightenment'. Which included Encyclopaedists such as Diderot, and musical contacts such as the Jesuit educated Rameau and others. And that the early musical stage works attributed to Mozart definitely came from this network spread across Europe of which Philidor was certainly a part. As was Cocchi. But none of this proves Rousseau was Philidor or anyone else. The evidence continues to suggest we are describing a huge fraternal network who spanned most of the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. Who, together, were agents of the emerging 'Englightenment' philosophy. And amongst whose musical achievements was music which was attributed to a certain W.A. Mozart, amongst others. This process did not involve one talented composer or even several. But many composers, music editors, publishers, and members of the same fraternities. Including your G. Cocchi, Philidor and others.

But if you have evidence which suggests differently I'm always happy to see it.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Chess was very widely played in the 18th century. By composers, artists, teachers, and by the general society. There were no televisions, DVD's, or other electronic distractions.

Amongst the modern composers Prokofiev was a noted chess player, all of his adult life.

But, to get to your question, we might ask -

Which visiting composers of the period 1760-90 to London did NOT play chess ? It may be a smaller list than those who were chess players. :smilielol5:

[yanni]

My question was quite specific and so was the absence of your answer!

"Philidor" was a rare, very "in", opera composer in Paris until he "associated" himself with "Gluck" in "their" Ernelinda.

Enjoy your chicken broth!

:hand:

[Babbalanja]

Robert’s work and research have already established - in my mind – “reasonable doubt” about the accuracy – and truthfulness - of what we have been told about this “Wunderkind”.:frown2:

Robert, have you no shame?

Regards,

Istvan

[stlukesguild]

You are nothing if not motivated, gentlemen. Some might suggest monomaniacal... but I'll not go further in that direction... except to suggest that such might apply better to a theme on Berlioz. The problem with the aliases is that they lack any originality. Now on another literature site that I once frequented there was one member who wrote under several aliases... all of whom had a predilection for Baudelaire, Lautreamont, Rimbaud, Celine, and the Marquis de Sade. One of the more memorable aliases was a gorgeous, 21-year old kick-boxing nymphomaniac from Australia who just happened to have a deep abiding passion for S&M and dark French literature. Certainly the author's ideal. A woman with a cute accent who could hurt him on many levels while reciting favorite passages from Les Fleurs du Mal. Regardless... carry on with your experiments in Borgesian fictions, Gentlemen!:biggrinjester:

[stlukesguild]

Robert, have you no shame?

Regards,

Istvan

Yes... it is a bit self-serving as fiction. Perhaps a persona who challenges Robert's monomaniacal theories with an equally inventive alternative...? Or at least a kick-boxing nymphomaniac with an accent and a penchant for Poe.

[Musicology]

Nice try Babbalanja,

This thread is on the manufacture of Mozart. You clearly do not like the way it is going. So you attribute to me the posts of others. Why not contribute on the subject of this thread ? Which, as you see, is continually being diverted by irrelevancies.

As for the contents of other posters on this thread, why not write to them yourself and spare us anything except your posts on the subject of W.A. Mozart.

You don't have any, do you ? That becomes more and more obvious.

Best wishes



:frown2:

Robert, have you no shame?

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

And there the truth was told 'em...
And ev'ry morning went to prayer,
And then began disputing,
Till oppositions silenced were,
By arguments refuting.
Now politicians of all kinds,
Who are not yet decided,
May see how Yankees speak their minds,
And yet are not divided.
So here I end my Fed'ral song,
Composed of thirteen verses;
May agriculture flourish long
And commerce fill our purses!

:Angel_anim:

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Since this thread is on 'The Manufacture of Mozart' I will decline your offer to discuss aliases of Philidor and Cocchi. And will remain, as usual, dedicated to the subject of this thread. Which, believe it or not is, 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.

Does this make sense to you ?


My question was quite specific and so was the absence of your answer!

"Philidor" was a rare, very "in", opera composer in Paris until he "associated" himself with "Gluck" in "their" Ernelinda.

Enjoy your chicken broth!

:hand:

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Since this thread is on 'The Manufacture of Mozart' I will decline your offer to discuss aliases of Philidor and Cocchi. And will remain, as usual, dedicated to the subject of this thread. Which, believe it or not is, 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.

Does this make sense to you ?

Do feel free to open a thread on 'Cocchi', or 'Philidor', or on 18th century chess players.

Regards



My question was quite specific and so was the absence of your answer!

"Philidor" was a rare, very "in", opera composer in Paris until he "associated" himself with "Gluck" in "their" Ernelinda.

Enjoy your chicken broth!

:hand:

[yanni]

OK!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3stjchqqAA

[Musicology]

Well, Yanni,
Here's the first movement to a famous work.

attr. 'Josef Haydn'
Symphony No. 92 - 'The Oxford'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_114zRTXvQ&feature=related

And another -

attr. 'Josef Haydn'
Symphony No. 104 - 'The London'
Finale

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


(Well, that's what the textbooks say, at least ! The music is wonderful and we don't need to haggle too much about the true composer.)

[ERS]

Robert,

Is there evidence to suggest that Haydn's story is dodgy as well?

[yanni]

By suggesting Forkel instead, Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).

After hearing them all, Haydn made a now-famous remark to Mozart's father Leopold, who was visiting from Salzburg: "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."[3] The comment was preserved in a letter Leopold wrote 16 February to his daughter Nannerl.[4] (Wiki)

But then, Robert refuses to address any relative (to "Koch") issue, including Krause's correspondence (because of the unfortunate "Carl Ludwig Cocceji")

On the subject of "Koch" sharing the same music principles (melody vs harmony, ie Rameau vs Rousseau/Grimm or the buffon debate, later "Gluck" vs Piccininni) with paedagogue-lexicographer "Rousseau", see http://www.fedegarcia.net/writings/period.pdf

But then, again, Robert wants us to believe that "Rousseau's" alias "Philidor" supported Rameau's principles.

IE

a)"Koch" was a master chessplayer.

b)Robert is a faithfull servant of the Music Industry!!!

...and the identity of the London "Bach" is still pending!

:smilielol5:

[Musicology]

ERS,

Yes indeed ERS ! The foundations of the 'Wiener Klassik' (so-called) and which consists of Josef Haydn, W.A. Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven have been called in recent years 'the final frontier of musicological research', and quite rightly.

The symphonies of Joseph Haydn (for example) have their true origins in the supply to Esterhazy of works by composers such as Sammartini and (later, from 1771 onwards) by Andrea Luchesi, the newly appointed Kapellmeister at Bonn. Indeed, the 'autographs' of 'Haydn's' symphonies show them to have been written in his hand long, long after their supposed date of composition. The expert in this area of study is Giorgio Taboga of Italy, who has closely examined the whole subject of Haydn's career. Also known as 'Papa' Haydn, that is ! It too is a long story. At the Estense Library in Modena are various masses and symphonies attributed to Josef Haydn which show clear evidence of having existed far earlier than their supposed composition dates. I have a lot of information on this subject, but became so busy with the Mozart book that it remains, till now, hardly touched. The same is true of 'Haydn's' operas. Indeed the attribution of music to Josef Haydn (much of which is really fine music) has a very different story from that of convention.

Regards

Robert (Newman)


Robert,

Is there evidence to suggest that Haydn's story is dodgy as well?

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Thank you for your rather strange last post. May I correct you ?

Musical pedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph Koch 'recognised the mastery of 'Mozart's' so-called 'Haydn' quartets years after Mozart's death. In 1793, fully 8 years after their date of composition, when Mozart was, as said, already dead. The same year when he completely fails to refer to any of 'Mozart's' piano concertos. A strange oversight, yes ? As for these 'Mozart' string quartets (a subject which you have clearly not made any study of) they were declared at the time (1785) to be riddled with errors and musical absurdities by musical writers of the time. Including the Vienna based librettist and writer, Casti. In fact Casti laughed at these 'Mozart' works and they finally re-appeared years later in a much 'improved' musical form. The letter Casti wrote on this subject finally disappeared in Italy and is mocking of these 'Mozart's string quartets' (his earlier set from the time of his youth being blatantly based on those attributed to Josef Haydn and of very weak musical content).

The statement made by Haydn to Mozart's father is sheer moonshine. Both Haydn and Mozart came from the same fraudulent bucket. The same Haydn who refused repeatedly to come to Italy, and whose 'operas' were NOT performed in London. Indeed, at the time of Haydn's visits to England, Haydn could hardly hold a pen in his hand. (Suffering as he was with a debilitating neural illness). So much for the compositional 'genius of Haydn'. The works attributed to him there (including these last symphonies) were supplied TO HIM, before he ever arrived in England. From Bonn. Including the symphonies refered to above. I even have the text of a copy of the letter accompanying the contract made between Haydn and the impresario Salomon for these England tours which describes Josef Haydn at that time as being (and I quote) an 'unknown composer' and willing to accept a small fraction of usual payments for 'his' music from English publishers because of it. Needless to say, this never gets a reference in mainstream publications.

So much for facts and for fiction !

Meanwhile, back at Bonn, the unknown Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi................ LOL !! And you hear in this 'Haydn' anticipations of Beethoven's own style, don't you ? And who was Luchesi ? - if he was not the true composition teacher in Bonn of one Ludwig van Beethoven. Amongst others.

Yes, Haydn loved Bonn. Visiting there before each tour of England and also on return from both visits there. It 'helped' his musical reputation in England no end - courtesy of Salomon/Neefe/Simrock and others. LOL. Not forgetting Maestro Luchesi, of course !!!!



By suggesting Forkel instead, Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).

After hearing them all, Haydn made a now-famous remark to Mozart's father Leopold, who was visiting from Salzburg: "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."[3] The comment was preserved in a letter Leopold wrote 16 February to his daughter Nannerl.[4] (Wiki)

But then, Robert refuses to address any relative (to "Koch") issue, including Krause's correspondence (because of the unfortunate "Carl Ludwig Cocceji")

On the subject of "Koch" sharing the same music principles (melody vs harmony, ie Rameau vs Rousseau/Grimm or the buffon debate, later "Gluck" vs Piccininni) with paedagogue-lexicographer "Rousseau", see http://www.fedegarcia.net/writings/period.pdf

But then, again, Robert wants us to believe that "Rousseau's" alias "Philidor" supported Rameau's principles.

IE

a)"Koch" was a master chessplayer.

b)Robert is a faithfull servant of the Music Industry!!!

...and the identity of the London "Bach" is still pending!

:smilielol5:

[Babbalanja]

ERS,

Yes indeed ERS !
http://www.bluemoontalent.com/talent/variety/brian-tiernan/photo-1.jpg

[Musicology]

And here is some more music that has been falsely attributed to 'giants' of the musical industry. This time remarkable music falsely attributed to the young Ludwig van Beethoven who was still a student at Bonn. Two cantatas of state actually composed by the Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (Beethoven's musical teacher) but credited by sheer tradition to the music student of Bonn himself, Ludwig van Beethoven ! Courtesy of the iconic world of Easter Island.

Now, whose job was it to write cantatas of state for the death of Emperors and the accession of new emperors in the Holy Roman Empire ? It was the job of the Kapellmeister of Bonn. NOT the young student Beethoven. But the Kapellmeister. How simple is that to understand ?

And thus, these two works today attributed to the young student Beethoven, Wo87 and WoO88 (cantatas on the death of the Emperor Joseph and also the cantata written on the accession of his successor, WoO88) are NOT by the student Beethoven and were in fact never credited to Beethoven in his entire lifetime. They are instead works by Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801). Ignored and marginalised (as usual) by the music industry ever since. Since, of course, you will look in vain for reference to Luchesi as his musical composition teacher in the textbooks of music history.

Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Kapellmeister at Bonn (1771-1794)
Trauerkantate auf den Tod Kaiser Josephs II
Chorus

and NOT Ludwig van Beethoven.

Glad we sorted that out ! (These two cantatas were performed at Frankfurt and only much later were they falsely attributed to Ludwig van Beethoven). As for Andrea Luchesi............... Andrea who ???????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rMSFkfSyy0&feature=related

[yanni]

I have no doubt, Robert, that "Koch" promoted his disciple Mozart (alive in 1793), that disciple Haydn followed in step (and that his letter to Leopold is "moonshine" as you write) and so did Luchesi, but you apparently missed the essence of my "strange" previous post, ie the identity of The Manufacturer, a matter you have selected to leave covered in clouds.

But that was my point from the early start of this thread, was it not?

[Musicology]

I am glad you agree the Haydn/Mozart relationship is moonshine. And so it is. But the fact remains that nobody knew of 'Mozart's piano concertos' until after 1791, with the exception of 3 concertos published in 1783, whose origins are definitely NOT Mozart. Neither Koch, nor any other writer of the time. Including Forkel. All 27 of these concertos appeared in print only in the very last years of the 18th century (i.e. from around 1798 onwards). By 1803 Koch saw them for the first time, in print. In 'Mozart's' name, of course. LOL.

As for actual authorship of these quartets dedicated to Haydn, no, I have no evidence of their actual composer. Since the documentary evidence shows they reached their final form long after 1785. This is a big subject and there is no simple answer. Several composers were certainly involved. And there is a fraudulent 'autograph' of these same works. Not often refered to. Casti was right. The original version of these quartets was riddled with musical errors and mistakes. They were it seems produced as arrangements of other music, drawing as it happens on various stage works attributed to (wait for it)..... Josef Haydn.

The circular world of musical propaganda, no less !

[yanni]

With Koch (alias Rousseau, Philidor, Gluck, Casanova, Grimm etc etc) praising Mozart's "Haydn symphonies" already in 1793 , your reluctance to address THE issue is well understood but maybe costly nevertheless.

BTW Musical Propaganda never was "Circular" but pyramidic instead!

:hand:



I am glad you agree the Haydn/Mozart relationship is moonshine. And so it is. But the fact remains that nobody knew of 'Mozart's piano concertos' until after 1791, with the exception of 3 concertos published in 1783, whose origins are definitely NOT Mozart. Neither Koch, nor any other writer of the time. Including Forkel. All 27 of these concertos appeared in print only in the very last years of the 18th century (i.e. from around 1798 onwards). By 1803 Koch saw them for the first time, in print. In 'Mozart's' name, of course. LOL.

As for actual authorship of these quartets dedicated to Haydn, no, I have no evidence of their actual composer. Since the documentary evidence shows they reached their final form long after 1785. This is a big subject and there is no simple answer. Several composers were certainly involved. And there is a fraudulent 'autograph' of these same works. Not often refered to. Casti was right. The original version of these quartets was riddled with musical errors and mistakes. They were it seems produced as arrangements of other music, drawing as it happens on various stage works attributed to (wait for it)..... Josef Haydn.

The circular world of musical propaganda, no less !

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Please provide us with evidence that Koch (aka Rousseau, Philidor, Gluck, Casanova,Grimm and numerous others) were all the same person.

It is not that I am reluctant to address 'the issue' but that the onus is yours to prove that Koch was another alias. Isn't it ?

We are still waiting for the evidence. What exactly IS the evidence in the case of Koch ? Because Herr Gluck died decades earlier. No ?


With Koch (alias Rousseau, Philidor, Gluck, Casanova, Grimm etc etc) praising Mozart's "Haydn symphonies" already in 1793 , your reluctance to address THE issue is well understood but maybe costly nevertheless.

BTW Musical Propaganda never was "Circular" but pyramidic instead!

:hand:

[Musicology]

And here again -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhZE4SLTd2c&feature=related

Andrea Luchesi (1740-1801), WoO87 #
Kapellmeister, Bonn Hofkapelle (1774-1794)
Cantata (1790) on the Death of the Emperor Joseph
(Performed in Frankfurt at State Ceremonies)

This music had massive influence on Beethoven's only opera, 'Fidelio', of years later as you can hear here.

Details, courtesy of the great independent musical history researcher - Giorgio Taboga, Italy.

[yanni]

Evidence has already been presented, apparently in your mental absence.Nevertheless here is a recent work that might interest you:

Gluck: The marriage of Hercules and Hebe ~ Christoph Willibald Gluck (Composer), Helmut Koch (Conductor), Berlin Chamber Orchestra (Orchestra), Kammerorchester Berlin (Orchestra), Rosemarie Ronisch (Soprano), et al.
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

First performance 29.6.1747 Pillnitz castle. (Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor,Full name Peter Leopold Joseph,Titles Grand Duke of Tuscany,King of Germany,King of Hungary,King of Croatia and Slavonia,King of Bohemia
Archduke of Austria,Born May 5, 1747 Vienna ).

...and "bohemian Gluck" was as real a person as "little prophet from Bohemia Grimm".

Cheers!



Yanni,

Please provide us with evidence that Koch (aka Rousseau, Philidor, Gluck, Casanova,Grimm and numerous others) were all the same person.

It is not that I am reluctant to address 'the issue' but that the onus is yours to prove that Koch was another alias. Isn't it ?

We are still waiting for the evidence. What exactly IS the evidence in the case of Koch ? Because Herr Gluck died decades earlier. No ?

[Musicology]

Yanni,

My 'mental absence' (so-called) equals that of virtually everyone reading this thread. You were asked to provide evidence Heinrich Christoph Koch was the same person as Gluck, Rousseau, and all the other invented aliases of your theory. But what have you provided ? Before we consider your last post let me start at the beginning.

Here is a reference to H.C. Koch anyone can read -

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&u=http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch&ei=8CuWS4XuLoqy0gSTuKztCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DHeinrich%2BChristoph%2BKoch%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1G1ACEWCENUK313

And here, for the sake of our sanity, is the entire reference to H.C. Koch in the 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'. Please read it.

KOCH, HEINRICH CHRISTOPH

(b Rudolstadt, 10 Oct 1749; d Rudolstadt, 19 March 1816). German music theorist and violinist. He served in his youth as a violinist in the Hofkapelle at Rudolstadt and in 1772 became a court musician. He studied the violin and composition with the Kapellmeister Christian Scheinpflug and briefly continued his studies in Weimar, Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg before returning to Rudolstadt, where he remained for the rest of his life. In 1792 he was appointed Kapellmeister, but he returned voluntarily to the orchestra as a first violinist after one year. Composition and writing then occupied him until his death. He was posthumously elected to the Swedish Royal Academy of Music in 1818.

The majority of Koch's compositions were for the court: cantatas, a drama Die Stimme der Freude in Hygeens Haine (1790), instrumental works and sacred music. Except for excerpts illustrating his theoretical writings, these are now lost. Seven symphonies ascribed to ‘Koch’ and formerly held by the Hofkapelle (now in D-RUl) do not appear in contemporary lists of Koch's compositions and may not be his. Koch also wrote numerous reviews and a few articles – some anonymously – for the Musikalische Real-Zeitung of Speyer (1788–91), the Jenaische allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1804–11) and the Allegmeine musikalische Zeitung (1807–11). He started a periodical entitled Journal der Tonkunst in 1795, but only two issues appeared.

The Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, published in three volumes (1782, 1787, 1793), is Koch's most original and important work. A comprehensive study of both the theory and the aesthetics of music, it is grounded in the repertory of the day. Koch resolves the 18th-century dispute over the relative importance of harmony and melody by examining the origins of tones and the process by which the notes of the scale arise. He asserts that neither harmony nor melody takes precedence; key, or mode, is the primary matter (Urstoff) of music. If notes occur simultaneously, harmony results; if successively, melody results. Koch is indebted to Marpurg for the theoretical views expressed in volume i, but does not accept his theory of the undertones, derives the 7th differently, and does not believe that harmony is the primary element of music. He uses five counterpoint exercises of increasing harmonic complexity to illustrate how the notes of a cantus firmus contain the basis for differing harmonies related to the prevailing key. This demonstration is important preparation for the creation of a melody rich in harmonic variety. The Handbuch of 1811 is a revision of this volume, introducing recent scientific discoveries and a different method of chord classification.

Koch began volume ii of the 'Versuch' with an extended essay on aesthetic considerations and guidelines for creation in music. Here he was indebted to the work of Charles Batteux, which he knew in K.W. Ramler's translation, and especially to Sulzer's Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste. He believed that the ultimate purpose and moral justification of the fine arts, in particular music, are to awaken feelings in the audience that will inspire noble resolutions. Although aesthetic theory did not yet validate instrumental music, Koch implies that, by following certain guidelines of the fine arts, the composer of instrumental music may realize the same aim. He outlines three stages of creation, the plan (Anlage), the realization (Ausführung) and the elaboration (Ausarbeitung), and relates them specifically to music, describing the stages in which an aria from C.H. Graun's Der Tod Jesu was supposedly composed. Although it is unlikely that this method of creation was actually practised, the analysis was a useful pedagogical exercise.

Most of volume ii and all of volume iii are entitled ‘Von den mechanischen Regeln der Melodie’ [The Mechanical Rules of Melody]. Koch examines modulation, metre, melodic sections and their connection, and the genres of the day, stressing throughout the importance of the harmonic dimension. The composer's goal should be ‘to conceive of melody harmonically’ (die Melodie harmonisch zu denken), and this mutual dependence of melody and harmony should inform decisions at all levels. Koch acknowledges Joseph Riepel's Anfangsgründe zur musicalischen Setzkunst as the first work to discuss the smallest units of music and the ways in which they must be joined, and builds systematically upon these ideas. The distinguishing characteristics of a musical unit are its ending and its length. The ending, or melodic punctuation, is a resting-point articulated by melodic and harmonic means. The length of a phrase has a rhythmical character (rhythmische Beschaffenheit); because successive phrases create a rhythm, or periodicity, most pleasing if their lengths are equivalent. Koch prefers the four-bar phrase (Vierer), but also describes basic phrases of other lengths and extended and compound phrases. He discusses ways in which these building-blocks may be joined together in brief works, offering various harmonic patterns, and shows how an eight-bar dance can be expanded to 32 bars by such means as sequence, repetition, parenthesis and multiplication of phrase endings and cadences. In his descriptions of the larger forms, Koch concentrates on the principal period (Hauptperiode), a group of phrases which ends with a formal cadence. These periods create the various forms of music by their statement, their repetition, and the position of their harmonic centres within the hierarchy of the prevailing key. For the first movement of a symphony, Koch outlines a binary structure consisting of three principal periods; although he refers to a ‘singing phrase’ after the modulation, he never refers to it as a second theme. Koch's teachings on form were not prescriptive; he generally presented several options observed in the current repertory with the aim of showing what was most usual, das Gewöhnliche.

The Versuch includes many musical examples by Koch and excerpts from symphonies by Haydn and Antonio Rosetti, Singspiele by J.A. Hiller and Georg Benda, keyboard sonatas and concertos by C.P.E. Bach and works by other composers. Although the majority date from the 1760s and 70s, Koch also praised Mozart's ‘Haydn’ Quartets (published in 1785) and noted changes in recent practice.

The monumental 'Musikalisches Lexikon' of 1802 was the work by which Koch was best known until the mid-20th century. It provides information on the formal and technical aspects of the music of the late 18th century in concise entries with scientific explanations, mathematical illustrations and numerous musical examples. Koch later revised and condensed it for a more popular version (1807).

Extracts from the Lexikon were translated into Danish in 1826, and Arrey von Dommer revised and enlarged the entire work in 1865. Both the Lexikon and the Versuch influenced such theorists as Choron, Weber, Marx, Lobe, Lussy and Riemann.

WRITINGS
Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition (Rudolstadt and Leipzig, 1782–93/R; partial Eng. trans. by N.K. Baker as Introductory Essay on Composition: the Mechanical Rules of Melody, Sections 3 and 4, 1983)

ed.: Journal der Tonkunst (Erfurt, 1795)

Musikalisches Lexikon, welches die theoretische und praktische Tonkunst, encyclopädisch bearbeitet, alle alten und neuen Kunstwörter erklärt, und die alten und neuen Instrumente beschrieben, enthält (Frankfurt, 1802/R, 2/1817); abridged as Kurzgefasstes Handwörterbuch der Musik für praktische Tonkünstler und für Dilettanten (Leipzig, 1807/R)

‘Über den technischen Ausdruck: Tempo rubato’, AMZ, x (1808), cols. 513–19

Handbuch bey dem Studium der Harmonie (Leipzig, 1811)

Versuch, aus der harten und weichen Tonart jeder Tonstufe der diatonisch-chromatischen Leiter vermittels des enharmonischen Tonwechsels in die Dur- und Molltonart der übrigen Stufen auszuweichen (Rudolstadt, 1812)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grove6 (L.G. Ratner)

H. Riemann: ‘H. Chr. Koch als Erläuterer unregelmässigen Themenaufbaues’, Präludien und Studien, ii (Leipzig, 1900/R), 56–70

N.K. Baker: From ‘Teil’ to ‘Tonstück’: the Significance of the ‘Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition’ by Heinrich Christoph Koch (diss., Yale U., 1975); extracts in JMT, xx (1976), 1–48, IRASM, viii (1977), 183–209, Studi musicali, ix (1980), 303–16

C. Dahlhaus: ‘Der rhetorische Formbegriff H.Chr. Kochs und die Theorie der Sonatenform’, AMw, xxxv (1978), 155–77

E. Sisman: ‘Small and Expanded Forms: Koch's Model and Haydn's Music’, MQ, lxviii (1982), 444–75

W. Budday: Grundlagen musikalischer Formen der Wiener Klassik: an Hand der zeitgenössischen Theorie von Joseph Riepel und Heinrich Christoph Koch dargestellt an Menuetten und Sonatensätzen (1750–1790) (Basle, 1983)

S. Davis: ‘H.C. Koch, the Classic Concerto, and the Sonata-Form Retransition’, JM, ii (1983), 45–61

I. Bent: ‘The “Compositional Process” in Music Theory 1713–1850’, MAn, iii (1984), 29–55

N.K. Baker: ‘Der Urstoff der Musik: Implications for Harmony and Melody in the Theory of Heinrich Koch’, MAn, vii (1988), 3–30

C. Dahlhaus: ‘Logik, Grammatik und Syntax der Musik bei Heinrich Christoph Koch’, Die Sprache der Musik: Festschrift Klaus Wolfgang Niemöller, ed. J. Fricke and others (Regensburg, 1989), 99–109

I. Waldbauer: ‘Riemann's Periodization Revisited and Revised’, JMT, xxxiii (1989), 333–91

J. Lester: Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1992)

W. Dürr: ‘Music as an Analogue of Speech: Musical Syntax in the Writings of Heinrich Christoph Koch and in the Works of Schubert’, Eighteenth-Century Music in Theory and Practice: Essays in Honor of Alfred Mann, ed. M. Parker (Stuyvesant, NY, 1994), 227–40

N.K. Baker and T. Christensen, trans. and eds.: Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment: Selected Writings of Johann G. Sulzer and Heinrich C. Koch (London, 1995)


//

OK ? And when you were asked to show that this person is the same person as Gluck you provide us with the following -

[I]Gluck: 'The Marriage of Hercules and Hebe' ~ Christoph Willibald Gluck (Composer), Helmut Koch (Conductor), Berlin Chamber Orchestra (Orchestra), Kammerorchester Berlin (Orchestra), Rosemarie Ronisch (Soprano), et al.

First performance 29.6.1747 Pillnitz castle. (Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor,Full name Peter Leopold Joseph,Titles Grand Duke of Tuscany,King of Germany,King of Hungary,King of Croatia and Slavonia,King of Bohemia
Archduke of Austria,Born May 5, 1747 Vienna ).

...and "bohemian Gluck" was as real a person as "little prophet from Bohemia Grimm".

And this is the sum total of your 'proof' that H.C. Koch was the same person as Gluck !!!!!

I hate to trouble you further. But what is the relationship between the contents of your last post and H.C. Koch ?

But it gets worse. H.C. Koch died in 1816. But Christoph Willibald Ritter von Gluck died in 1787. Twenty nine years earlier.

I leave others to comment on your 'proofs' they were one and the same person since you have provided none at all. As usual.

Regards

[Musicology]

But, to return to the subject. Here is the opening movement of 'Mozart's' Symphony No. 35 'Haffner', KV 385. Allegedly composed in Vienna 2 years after his arrival there.

A symphony, in fact, NOT by Mozart. Which began its life as a symphony supplied to Salzburg years earlier, by another composer. Which was twice altered, first into a Serenade, then re-orchestrated and changed back into a symphony by Leopold Mozart and (later) his son in Vienna before being performed and published in Mozart's name in Vienna ! And for which there is documentary evidence of it existing long before 1783 in its original form. As we find in the score today able to be seen at the Estense Library in Modena. Italy. A Modena score which goes year after year and decade after decade completely ignored in 'Mozart research'.

(Courtesy of L. Bianchini/A. Trombetta/G. Taboga/A. Taboga)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HV-B5tHM4o&feature=related

[yanni]

Quoting doublebed sheets from Grove does not impress me, Robert, and neither does it impress anybody who has studied history in enough detail to conclude the obvious:

"Sources" and "scholars" were even less worth their ink then than those of today!

Having urged you from my first post in this thread to....

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

...I can now but repeat one more of same.

It will take you a couple of years, grant you that!

:D

[Babbalanja]

And here is some more music that has been falsely attributed to 'giants' of the musical industry. This time remarkable music falsely attributed to the young Ludwig van Beethoven who was still a student at Bonn. Two cantatas of state actually composed by the Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (Beethoven's musical teacher) but credited by sheer tradition to the music student of Bonn himself, Ludwig van Beethoven ! Courtesy of the iconic world of Easter Island.

Now, whose job was it to write cantatas of state for the death of Emperors and the accession of new emperors in the Holy Roman Empire ? It was the job of the Kapellmeister of Bonn. NOT the young student Beethoven. But the Kapellmeister. How simple is that to understand ?

And thus, these two works today attributed to the young student Beethoven, Wo87 and WoO88 (cantatas on the death of the Emperor Joseph and also the cantata written on the accession of his successor, WoO88) are NOT by the student Beethoven and were in fact never credited to Beethoven in his entire lifetime. They are instead works by Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801). Ignored and marginalised (as usual) by the music industry ever since. Since, of course, you will look in vain for reference to Luchesi as his musical composition teacher in the textbooks of music history.
This is all completely false.

It wasn't the job of the Kapellmeister to write cantatas for state events. Haydn was a Kapellmeister in Austria, but he didn't write cantatas for the death of Maria Theresa in 1780 or the elevation of her successor Joseph ll.

The reason no one mentions Luchesi as Beethoven's teacher was that he wasn't Beethoven's teacher. There was bad blood between Luchesi and Beethoven's father: Johann expected to inherit his father's Kapellmeister position, but Luchesi ended up succeeding Beethoven's grandfather Ludwig in the position.

Furthermore, Beethoven arrived in Vienna without the knowledge of counterpoint that the immensely talented Luchesi certainly would have imparted to any pupil: Beethoven's acknowledged tutor Neefe was certainly deficient in this regard.

There exist sketches in Beethoven's hand of the works Robert attributes to Luchesi. There is no evidence whatsoever that Luchesi had anything to do with them.

Again, more shoddy work from "Musicology."

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Completely 'false' ?

You say it wasn't the job of Kapellmeisters to write cantatas for state events. Really ! ? So it was the job of unknown music students ? Students whom, you agree yourself, still needed more teaching when they came to Vienna ? Is that what you are saying ? Really !!!!! This is absurd. You are saying Beethoven was chosen for these festivities of the Holy Roman Empire held at Frankfurt ! In preference to the Kapellmeisters of Germany !!! And I am saying Manchester United is not the name of a candy bar.

Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) was the longest serving Kapellmeister of the Bonn Hofkapelle. Specially appointed. One of the great music chapels of Germany. In fact it was ranked third in all of Germany during the late 1780's, at the time when Beethoven and numerous others were musical pupils were there. The PRINCIPAL duty of a Kapellmeister was to provide musical instruction to its pupils. Another was to provide music for the official functions of the state.

Welcome to Planet Earth, Istvan !

'Beethoven's acknowledged tutor Neefe'. That's what you've just written, isn't it ? But you are again ignoring the man in charge of Bonn Hofkapelle, aren't you ? Its Kapellmeister. Andrea Luchesi. As for Neefe, he was at best a temporary substitute in 1783/4 in that role, during the year Luchesi returned to Italy for a year long stay. Compare that FACT with Luchesi, who served in that capacity from 1774 right up until the dissolution of the Bonn Hofkapelle in 1794. Twenty years, no less !!! Now who is fooling who ? Luchesi is also recorded as having assisted the young Beethoven in writing the cantata on the death of the British Envoy there, George Cressner. Once again, clear and obvious, logical, consistent proof that Luchesi WAS the composition and music teacher of the young Ludwig van Beethoven. Ignored, of course, in the 19th century. And ever since. There is a ton of evidence that Luchesi WAS the Kapellmeister who wrote these two cantatas for the state occasion at Frankfurt on the death of the Emperor Joseph and on the accession of the new Emperor. But you ignore such obvious things (as do writers of German textbooks on music history). Really ! This is absurd. There is not a shred of evidence Beethoven, one of many students there, wrote these two cantatas of state. It's science fiction. Indeed, categorical proof that Beethoven did NOT write them is in catalogue C53/1 (today held at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) where we see that the young Beethoven was credited with writing only 4 works before he left Bonn for Vienna. And none of them is a cantata for orchestra, choir and soloists. This FACT is again proved with a surviving letter from Josef Haydn to Max Franz, which was replied to by Max Franz (elector of Bonn) who reminded Haydn of that fact. That his 'pupil' Beethoven had written nothing except those four works. One of which was a fugue. But none of them major works of the kind we hear here in WoO87 and WoO88. That cantata is the work of a finished musical master. And not by Beethoven. These documents exist, these letters, and they cannot be disputed. They can only be ignored. By men like you.

Thus, your moonshine on Neefe (who came to Bonn long, long after Luchesi was Kapellmeister and who left before him) and now on the young Beethoven is, and it remains, moonshine. These two cantatas are the product of Andrea Luchesi, the Kapellmeister at Bonn. The true composer of these works. Which were performed at Frankfurt, the capital of the Holy Roman Empire on such occasions. And not (contrary to musical mythology) the young Beethoven. It was Luchesi who wrote these 'Haydn' symphonies for England posted here a day or so ago. Because (as anyone can hear with their own ears) they are stylistically in anticipation of the style you know today as that of Beethoven. And how can it be otherwise ? Since Luchesi WAS, as said, the composition and music teacher of this same young Ludwig van Beethoven. So says ALL the evidence. So says common sense. And so says anyone who has an ear to hear this music.

The 'shoddy work' is your very own. I will keep producing information of accuracy (able to be demonstrated true) and you will keep ignoring it, having none of your own. Such is the difference between fact and popular fiction.


This is all completely false.

It wasn't the job of the Kapellmeister to write cantatas for state events. Haydn was a Kapellmeister in Austria, but he didn't write cantatas for the death of Maria Theresa in 1780 or the elevation of her successor Joseph ll.

The reason no one mentions Luchesi as Beethoven's teacher was that he wasn't Beethoven's teacher. There was bad blood between Luchesi and Beethoven's father: Johann expected to inherit his father's Kapellmeister position, but Luchesi ended up succeeding Beethoven's grandfather Ludwig in the position.

Furthermore, Beethoven arrived in Vienna without the knowledge of counterpoint that the immensely talented Luchesi certainly would have imparted to any pupil: Beethoven's acknowledged tutor Neefe was certainly deficient in this regard.

There exist sketches in Beethoven's hand of the works Robert attributes to Luchesi. There is no evidence whatsoever that Luchesi had anything to do with them.

Again, more shoddy work from "Musicology."

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

:crash:

And your evidence that Koch was Gluck is.................. precisely what ?




Quoting doublebed sheets from Grove does not impress me, Robert, and neither does it impress anybody who has studied history in enough detail to conclude the obvious:

"Sources" and "scholars" were even less worth their ink then than those of today!

Having urged you from my first post in this thread to....

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

...I can now but repeat one more of same.

It will take you a couple of years, grant you that!

:D

[Musicology]

Istvan says there exists 'sketches of these works in Beethoven's own hand'. This too is incorrect and very misleading. What exists is a sketch for a work Beethoven wished to write, which would have included part of these two state cantatas already composed by his teacher, Andrea Luchesi ! Indeed, I have already posted on the subject elsewhere, at some length.

[yanni]

Read this thread backwards and, when you reach post #1 of "Two works by Poe decoded", you'll know everything!

:Angel_anim:


:crash:

And your evidence that Koch was Gluck is.................. precisely what ?

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Since the theory that Koch was Gluck is none but yours the onus is on you to produce evidence for it here. Isn't it ?

Something I am happy to do with what I say and write. Why not you ? Your last post does nothing at all to 'prove' as you claim. Does it ? And, with respect, 'Poe Decoded' is a totally different thread. Please produce some evidence that Koch was Gluck. Here.

The wisest thing is to have both sides of an argument to consider. And then, having them both together, to form your own considered judgment. I see no reason to break with that common sense. And, having extracted ourselves from the quicksand of your Cocchi theory shall we now walk back into one on Koch/Gluck ?

If you wish to provide some evidence here of them being the same person, please do here. I can't be fairer than that.


Thank You



Read this thread backwards and, when you reach post #1 of "Two works by Poe decoded", you'll know everything!

:Angel_anim:

[yanni]

Robert, the issue of your integrity as a scholar, the issue of your inadequacy as a "faithfull servant of the Music Industry", the issue of your worthiness as my talking partner:

By your post 8 you first brought up the name of "Koch" in this thread as follows....

“Take a simple example. In Vienna in 1793 a 2 volume work was published by musicologist Heinrich Koch dealing with concertos. Mozart is nowhere mentioned. Not once. And there is plenty of evidence for the massive fraud that was his 'reputation'.” (post 8)

...immediatley answered by my...

“All I am saying is that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera. He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg) "Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)
*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!” (post 9)

You did not reply on that one and decided to drop "Koch" for Forkel, but I did not and brought him up again....

*Mozart's 1778 questionable relations to "Grimm", who did not really approve of "flawed" Mozart as his(as "Gluck"-musicmaster) successor(hence Koch's later ommission of Mozart), are important in deciphering "Grimm" himself and his role in diplomacy and world affairs. (post 201 by Y)

...which you also failed to address, as you did my next ...

(On Cocchi-"Koch")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.(400 by Y)

....and my next...

Assuming these wise words of Forkel's date post 1774...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. (p 471 by Y)

....until finally my decisive....

By suggesting Forkel instead, Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).
After hearing them all, Haydn made a now-famous remark to Mozart's father Leopold, who was visiting from Salzburg: "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."[3] The comment was preserved in a letter Leopold wrote 16 February to his daughter Nannerl.[4] (Wiki)
But then, Robert refuses to address any relative (to "Koch") issue, including Krause's correspondence (because of the unfortunate "Carl Ludwig Cocceji")
On the subject of "Koch" sharing the same music principles (melody vs harmony, ie Rameau vs Rousseau/Grimm or the buffon debate, later "Gluck" vs Piccininni) with paedagogue-lexicographer "Rousseau", see http://www.fedegarcia.net/writings/period.pdf
But then, again, Robert wants us to believe that "Rousseau's" alias "Philidor" supported Rameau's principles.
IE
a)"Koch" was a master chessplayer.
b)Robert is a faithfull servant of the Music Industry!!!
...and the identity of the London "Bach" is still pending!

Why did you "fail to tell the truth" (about Koch not including Mozart in his Lexikon) in your post 8 above???

Are you so desperate?


:hand:


Yanni,

Since the theory that Koch was Gluck is none but yours the onus is on you to produce evidence for it here. Isn't it ?

Something I am happy to do with what I say and write. Why not you ?

[Musicology]

If truth is simple your postings are definitely not. When you are asked to provide hard evidence that Koch was the same person as Gluck (who had died 29 years earlier than he) you return to your usual spaghetti. And the spaghetti becomes even more tangled. Since you believe Koch is not only the same person as Gluck, but also numerous other people ! Which, when examined, when questioned, has you saying I am desparate !!!!

You are, Yanni, a highly complicated person. And I can't really spend much more time on this nonsense. You seem incapable of understanding a subject is worthy of study only if it is agreed by by those who are discussing it that it is worth studying. In our conversation you have failed to produce any evidence to me or anyone else of it being worth my time, and that of others. And here we are, weeks later, still trying to understand what on earth you are actually saying !

This is my final post on this subject. My reply to your last post. Showing, once again, your ability to misquote and obfuscate is the same as ever.

Yes, in Post 8 I refered to Koch who, in 1793 (5 years after the death of Gluck) published a two volume work in which Mozart is not refered to even once.

To which you replied, 'All I am saying is.... that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera. He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg) "Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)

*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!” (post 9)

And, so far, your only 'proof' of Gluck, Koch and Cocchi being the very same person is that they believed 'music followed lyrics'. Yanni, I hate to shatter your delusions but the belief 'music follows lyrics' was shared by dozens, even hundreds of composers and theoreticians of the 18th and 19th century. As was chess playing.

I know a lady in Florida who likes Big Macs. But she is not the same person as a lady here in London who likes the same. They are, I promise you, two different people. I am sure of it Yanni. In fact, I know them to be different. Though they both like Big Macs.

But on equally flimsy grounds you are sure that Cocchi was Koch. (And also Gluck, JJ Rousseau and others).

Can anyone play this game ? I know a man in Estonia who likes chocolate. And another man in Edinburgh who always buys his wife chocolates for her birthday. Does this prove they are the same person ?

Again, Prokofiev was a chess player for most of his adult life. Clear proof he must be an 18th century chess player. Right ? And we still have not a shred of evidence from you connecting Koch with Gluck, do we ?

You then go on to say -

If I were a musicologist, Robert, I would research similarities between music dictionaries by Rousseau and Koch. (p 471 by Y)

Well, OK. My sources have been checked and they say that JJ Rousseau died in 1778. And when did Koch die, Yanni ?

And so we come to your 'decisive' argument. This is the best of them all.

Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).

No, you are wrong. Koch did NOT recognise Mozart's quartets in his publication of 1793. He did not refer to them in his 'Versuch' of that year. He actually refered to them 10 years later (in 1803). And this was now 25 years after the death of Rousseau and 16 years after the death of Gluck. Though all 3 (or is it 8 people) were one and the same.

This nonsense continues with your statement -

Why did you "fail to tell the truth" (about Koch not including Mozart in his Lexikon) in your post 8 above??? Are you so desperate?

Yanni, unless/until you can show us evidence that Koch was Gluck (and also Cocchi) I can only laugh at this nonsense. Sorry, but you need rather more evidence to persuade me and the rest of the human race. Of this I am certain.

Koch published works in 1793 and also (as said in the early 19th century). This too seems to have escaped your attention.

But thank you. I prefer simplicity and you are, beyond all doubt, a master chef of spaghetti.

Regards

[Musicology]

If truth is simple your postings are not. When you are asked to provide evidence that Koch is the same person as Gluck (who died 29 years earlier than he) you return to your ususal spaghetti. And the spaghetti becomes even more tangled. Since you believe that Koch is not only the same person as Gluck, but also numerous other people. Which, when examined, when questioned, has you saying that I am desparate !!!!

You are, Yanni, a most complicated person. And I can't really spend much more time on this nonsense. You seem incapable of understanding that a subject is worthy of study only if it is agreed that it is worth studying. In our conversation you have failed to produce any evidence of it being worth my time, and that of others. And here we are, weeks later, still trying to understand what on earth you are actually saying.

This is my final post on this subject. My reply to your last post. Showing, once again, that your ability to misquote and obfuscate is the same as ever.

Yes, in Post 8 I refered to Koch who, in 1793 (5 years after the death of Gluck) published a two volume work in which Mozart is not refered to even once. This is FACT. Isn't it ?

To which your replied, 'All I am saying is.... that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera. He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg) "Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)

*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!” (post 9)

And, so far, your only proof of Gluck, Koch and Cocchi being the same person is that they believed 'music followed lyrics'. Yanni, I hate to shatter your delusions but the belief that 'music follows lyrics' was believed by dozens, even hundreds of composers and theoreticians of the 18th and 19th century.

I know a lady in Florida who likes Big Macs. But she is not the same person as a lady here in London who likes the same. They are, I promise you, two different people. I am sure of this Yanni. In fact, I know them to be different. Though they both like Big Macs.

But on these grounds you are already sure that Cocchi is now Koch.

Can anyone play this game ? I also know a man in Estonia who likes chocolate. And another man in Edinburgh who always buys his wife chocolates for her birthday. Does this prove they are the same person ?

Again, Prokofiev was a chess player for most of his adult life. Clear proof that he must be an 18th century chess player. Right ? And we still have not a shred of evidence connecting Koch with Gluck, do we ?

You then go on to say -

If I were a musicologist, Robert, I would research similarities between music dictionaries by Rousseau and Koch. (p 471 by Y)

Well, OK. My sources say that JJ Rousseau died in 1778. And when did Koch die, Yanni ?

And so we come to your 'decisive' argument.

Robert selects to ignore music paedagogue and lexicographer Heinrich Christoph "Koch", who recognised Mozart's mastery in his "Haydn" quartets, 1785 (In Koch's "Lexikon", around 1793).

No, you are wrong. Koch did NOT recognise Mozart's quartets in his publication of 1793. He did not refer to them at all in his 'Versuch' of that year. He refered to them 10 years later (in 1803). And this was now 25 years after the death of Rousseau and 16 years after the death of Gluck.

This nonsense continues with your statement -

Why did you "fail to tell the truth" (about Koch not including Mozart in his Lexikon) in your post 8 above??? Are you so desperate?

Yanni, unless/until you can show us some evidence that Koch was Gluck (and also Cocchi) I can only laugh at this nonsense. Sorry, but you need rather more evidence to persuade me, and the rest of the human race. Of this I am certain.

Koch published works in 1793 and also (as said) in the early 19th century. Before which time he had never heard of Mozart piano concertos at all. This too seems to have escaped your attention.

But thank you. I really prefer simplicity and you are, without a doubt, a master chef of low nutrient spaghetti.

Regards

[yanni]

:hand:

In his book, The Haydn Quartets, page 74, John Irving (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/music/staff/ji/) clearly refers to Koch's Versuch of 1793 as Among the earliest critical reactions to Mozart's Haydn quartets

The book is online.

At stake is not if I care to persuade you or anybody else as to the real identity of Koch-Cocchi but the continuation of your employment at the Music Industry and the Macaroni club controlling it.

Keep your cool, you are going to need it soon!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

If the 'earliest critical reactions' to Mozart's 'Haydn' set of quartets were years after Mozart was already dead what does that tell us of reactions to them during the years of 1785, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1790 and 1791 - when Mozart was very much still alive ? The answer is they were rubbished during those years as musical nonsense. Full of errors and mistakes. 1793 was 8 years after Mozart claims to have composed them, yes ? But, during Mozart's lifetime they were singled out for ridicule by Casti, a writer on music of the time. A fact you have chosen to completely ignore. Why ? By 1793 (i.e. within 2 years of Mozart's funeral ) they had been completely rewritten and published. In Mozart's name. So this sheer nonsense was now officially credited to Mozart's 'genius'. Why not read what Casti wrote about these very works in 1785 ? The year of their supposed composition by Mozart ? The 'earliest cricial reactions' do not come from 1793 or from any other posthumous date. They come from men such as Casti. Around 1785. Maybe he was another alias of Cocchi ???

You also write -

At stake is not if I care to persuade you or anybody else as to the real identity of Koch-Cocchi but the continuation of your employment at the Music Industry and the Macaroni club controlling it.

Well, how are you going to persuade anyone of the 'real' identity of Koch and the ubiquitous Cocchi (being the 'same person') if you switch the conversation to these quartets ?

What we are looking for, and have spent a page asking for, is some evidence Koch/Cocchi/Gluck/Rousseau/Baron Grimm and other aliases and pen-names were one and the same person ? Which is what you seem determined to post on here. When the evidence you gave us today was the premiere of a Gluck opera in 1747. The 'time warps' of your aliases seem unlimited.

If you cannot provide evidence for even one link of this alleged chain of aliases (Koch being the same person as Gluck) please ignore the request. Because so far we seem to be getting nowhere, fast. Don't you agree ?

Regards

[yanni]

I repeat: Why did you lie in your post 8 (and elsewhere*) on Koch not including Mozart in his 1793 Versuch?

You are a shame to musicology and your employers!

:hand:

Antonios Emm.Kokkinis.

*http://www.italianopera.org/articoli/newmanCONCERTI.html

[yanni]

there are Cocchis everywhere!

Early Beethoven (aka little Mozart)

Becoming aware of his son’s extraordinary talent, Johann thinks of turning young Beethoven into a new Mozart (whose childhood success was still vivid in people’s minds). In this respect, he tries to provide Ludwig with a musical education that might enhance his remarkable abilities. In fact, from this point on, Beethoven's childhood will be marked by his father's cruel attempts to transform him into a music genius.
Until the age of 12 his studies lacked any systematic organization. Among his teachers there was one of the court’s musicians, a certain Eden, followed by actor Tobias Pfeifer and Franciscan monk Willibald Koch.*
In March 1778, Johann forces Ludwig to hold a concert in Koeln. At that time Beethoven was 8 years old.

No wonder "Koch" sources are overly gekocht!

:Angel_anim:

*According to http://www.musicweb-international.com/Scott/Scottbook/chapter2.htm "Koch" taught Wolfgand music "sometime" in 1781. According to my mastertimeline it was not later than early 1781, ie a few months before "abbe Raynal's" Paris condemnation (May) and subsequent "Chastellux's/Bagge's" departure for America.
"The Beethoven violin sonatas: history, criticism, performance" by Lewis Lockwood,Mark Kroll, notices Heinrich Christoph Koch's influence on Beethoven's sonatas.

[Musicology]

Please provide us with some evidence of Gluck being the same person as Koch. This is the fifth consecutive request.

In 1793 Koch did not refer to the piano concertos of 'Mozart'. He did so at length in his future publications. (When no less than 24 of them became available in 'Mozart's' name through various publishers, often many years after Mozart's death). I have also told you the contemporary reference to the 'Haydn' string quartets comes from Casti. Which you have of course chosen to ignore. Or were ignorant of. Giovanni Battista Casti - Italian poet, satirist, and author of comic opera libretti. (1724-1803).

Please can we finally have some real evidence of Gluck being the same person as Koch ? This is request number 6.

And counting !

There may be many people of the same surname. Who denies it ? What we want is evidence Gluck and Koch were the same person. Which is your own idea. And here we are, yet again, waiting for some evidence. You don't have any, do you ?

Thank You

[yanni]

Continue your "Mozart manufacture" with Professor John Irving if you can.

My input in this thread is terminated for reasons already explained.

:hand:

[Musicology]

And for reasons unexplained, yes ? :yesnod:

Now I don't need to ask for a 7th time.

I have said all along that these things are explained by the existence of an entire network of composers, patrons, publishers and propagandists. And there is no reason to believe otherwise. Not even your fixation with G. Cocchi. Seen within that context we can have a useful discussion. But this thread is about Mozart, and not your never-ending ideas of the omnipotent and ever more prolific G. Cocchi.

Thanks Yanni



Continue your "Mozart manufacture" with Professor John Irving if you can.

My input in this thread is terminated for reasons already explained.

:hand:

[Musicology]

I will contact the archivist of the Bonn Franciscans reference the Koch refered to in early Beethoven's life.

[yanni]

No need to rush, the question of the manufacture of-not just- Mozart has been answered, thanks!

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51451


I will contact the archivist of the Bonn Franciscans reference the Koch refered to in early Beethoven's life.

[H. Haverstock]

Is this serious? New Historicism and post-modernism (with a healthy dose of "fake news") has found another cause.

"The Mozart Myth" - I'm sure some cynical publisher will be happy to cash in.