Yanni,
We have to use what we have. The 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians' (with a few other sources) are the standard reference works of their kind in the English speaking musical world. They are at least the starting point of what is taught and believed. From them we can make a start. But nobody is more critical of them than myself on Handel, Haydn, Mozart etc. So I must disagree with you. We start with them and from them we can go elsewhere.
Denis Pajot was not only talking of 'Handel' works such as Messiah. None of whose oratorios were actually arranged by Mozart. He was also talking about various Bach arrangements which are wrongly attributed to Mozart. Both of these things are plain fact. Mozart did not make these 'Handel' arrangements. Nor did he make the arrangements of Bach. Though all of them are usually (and falsely) attributed to Mozart. Pajot is one of dozens of people who know these arrangements may not be by Mozart. There are numerous other people who say the same. And there are good reasons to say so.
On the subject of Starzer, there is no doubt at all that he was involved in the falsification of Mozart's career. That he was an important part of the 'music industry' of the late 18th century. And yes, his career ties in with all the rest.
I have many references to his career besides that of the 'Grove' dictionary - here is one from the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopaedia -
Starzer, Joseph (Johann Michael) (baptized Vienna, 5 Jan. 1728; d. Vienna, 22 Apr. 1787). A prolific composer of ballet scores, Starzer lived and worked in Vienna, aside from eight years at the Russian court (1759–67), collaborating with leading choreographers such as Franz Hilverding, Jean-Georges Noverre and Angiolini. In 1772 he became leader of the charitable organization for musicians in Vienna, the Tonkunstler-Soziezat, that he helped to set up a year earlier. He participated frequently in the society’s activities as violinist, composer and conductor and, acting on Baron van Swieten’s suggestion in 1779, arranged Handel’s 'Judas Maccabaeus' for the society’s concerts.
Like Mozart, Starzer participated in Baron van Swieten’s regular Sunday concerts, often singing tenor. Their paths crossed elsewhere too. In March 1781 Starzer invited Mozart to play in a Tonkunstler concert and had to persuade Archbishop Colloredo (who still employed Mozart) to allow him to do so. Starzer’s death in 1787 paved the way for Mozart’s court appointment as composer in the Kammermusik (6 Dec. 1787).
(p.491) etc.
//
So there is clear evidence Handel arrangements of 'Mozart' made in Vienna were those of Starzer and not any by Mozart. 'Judas Maccabeus' is only one example. (Starzer was not the only one involved in this). And, as usual, these were attributed to 'Mozart'.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1004420
Why was all this intrigue in the production of 18th century music ? The answer is simple. There was something real. And what was real was music of what is called the late baroque. Which, for decades involved men discussing the subject freely across the religious and social barriers of Europe. But that was not welcomed. For many reasons. It exposed certain weaknesses amongst the works of the time. So the elites tightened up by producing a string of their own manufactured heroes. Throwing away achievements and ignoring others. Manufacturing in its place the input of many of their own fraternity members. Wholesale. And to achieve it they even wrote their own official version of musical history. That's what we now call the music industry.
But Bach was not Handel. The thing is, Yanni, you have to hear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LoW_...eature=related
I will post some more details of Starzer later.
