The Manufacture of Mozart

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

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

---

Yanni,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

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

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"Keep walking"!

No I didn't say I've been in contact with Mr Roell 'ever since'. You are inventing things I never said. Please read more carefully what I wrote. I had two or three email exchanges with Mr Roell (as said before). I suggested he needed more evidence and that he needed to get samples of Nissen's handwriting. These should be easy to obtain. But, as for the theory itself, if you believe it has merits you should be busy finding more proofs in its support. Which I would encourage. Since the theory itself is interesting.

I am glad we sorted that out ! There has been no long-term contact and your imagination seems to be getting the better of you. But why not write to Roell yourself ?

Your 'opera phantom thread' came 7 months earlier than Roell's ? Great. You should collaborate. Since he is presenting very different but complementary arguments, isn't he ? You surely agree about that. What's the problem, exactly ? You both deserve credit for the very different things you have done on that theory. There are many other lines of evidence which indicate the same thing. But they remain undeveloped. And they will remain undeveloped if you do not see that much more work needs to be done on them. Don't look for credit. Look for answers. That's my considered view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

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

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

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

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"Keep walking"!

---

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

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

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

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"U'Mosar haAdam min haBeheima ayin."

"Keep walking"!

“Je crois vous avoir écrit quel le petit Mosar est ici, et qu’il est moins miracle, quoiqu’il soit toujours le même miracle, mais il ne sera jamais qu’un miracle, et puis voilà tout.”
http://www.fondazionepergolesisponti.../lang,italian/

Adieu encore. Je vous embrasse, en dépit du scandale de Panurge et de tous les envieux de notre tendre correspondance .

From Naples to Mme d'Epinay, 7th July 1770!

"keep walking"

:lol:

Yanni,

The Nissen theory deserves more work. If you want to work more on it, fine.

As for the 'Manufacture of Mozart', my own research began back in the mid 1990's. And in the last 10 years I've been specially busy on it. During which time I have corresponded with dozens and dozens of people. Archivists, librarians, musicologists and many, many other writers and others. Twice or three times to Mr Roell, who had mentioned my own research on his website. That is all.

In point of fact I have been posting on this subject of Mozart to many, many websites long before this one. Years before, in fact.

What matters ? Reality is what matters. Not obscurantism or anything else.

I do not know what you mean about 'Gluck's musical archive'. Why don't you tell us ? Because, so far, you have really told us nothing on that subject. And you've also told us nothing of Mozart and Salieri's supposed role in 'Gluck's musical archive'. As usual. Aren't you being, well, 'obscurantist' in your posts ?

You have the habit of refering to things which nobody (least of all myself) have ever heard of. Why not tell us. So that we can avoid obscurantism completely.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

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

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

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

"The manufacture of Mozart", your thread, began in his forum September 3, 2009.

NOBODY, not even your Mr Roell, buys your stories or "good intentions".

"U'Mosar haAdam min haBeheima ayin."

"Keep walking"!

---

This is much more interesting !

Yes, Mme d'Epinay, partner of Baron Grimm, and of Rousseau. Here in 1770 already closely associated with promoting the 'miracle' of Mozart. In this letter a private joke by repeating the word 'miracle' in connection with Mozart because that was the project they were involved in.

But what of Abbe Galiani of Naples ? What can you tell us of him ?

It's a fascinating letter, for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

“Je crois vous avoir écrit quel le petit Mosar est ici, et qu’il est moins miracle, quoiqu’il soit toujours le même miracle, mais il ne sera jamais qu’un miracle, et puis voilà tout.”
http://www.fondazionepergolesisponti.../lang,italian/

Adieu encore. Je vous embrasse, en dépit du scandale de Panurge et de tous les envieux de notre tendre correspondance .

From Naples to Mme d'Epinay, 7th July 1770!

"keep walking"

:lol:

---

Abbe Galiani, another part of the jigsaw puzzle of the 'Enlightenment'. Poet, librettist, economist. Closely associated with the Encyclopaedists of Paris. With Grimm, d'Epinay etc. etc. Most of his works were published in Naples. Connections with British East India Company in London and with the aristocracy of Britain via Paris and Venice. Interestingly -

Opera by -

Giovanni Paisiello (1740-1816) - (Jesuit educated composer and close associate of Mozart in Vienna etc).
'Socrate Immaginario' (1775) - Premiered Naples
Text partly by Abbe Galiani (1728-1787)

Have been telling you all along, you just don't want to (or are not properly equipped to) hear:

The Opera phantom and Mozart!
________________________________________
Mozart in Paris (Timeline 1777-1779)

(To examine and interpret bearing in mind that “Augustin Henri Cochin, Louis Claude Dupin de Franceuil , Marquis de Girardin, Melchior Grimm, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Rousseau, Claude Louis comte de Saint Germain, Myslivecek, Pierre Michel Hennin, Alexandre Strogonoff, Nicolas Bricaire de La Dixmerie, Chevalier La Luzerne, Marquis de Chastellux, abbe Galiani, abbe Raynal ”, "Baron de Bache" or "Bagge" etc etc are all aliases of Gioachino Cocchi ie "the phantom" and that “Conrad Alexandre Gérard de Rayneval” was, most propably, a blood relative of his-See other relevant threads in this site).
http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=669725
(Durazzo, Gleichen and de Magnaville are included in the etc's.)

Your "manufactured Mozart" can only be "unlocked" by this one and only "key" above.

I have given it to you from the beginning and have been furthermore demonstrating eversince how well it "functions"!

What you think or do with it is up to you, for me the "Manufactured Mosar" case has closed, my curiosity already long satisfied.

Your interpretation of Galiani and D'Epinay "promoting Mozart", is a half truth: "Galiani" writes that he does not believe in miracles and that the little "man" ("mosar" in hebrew) will never ever be "great", c'est tout.

By "pure coincidence", Comte de Saint Germain, the alchemist, as well as "Baron von Gleichen" were seen in Naples that very same summer of 1770:

Battle of Chesme (5 July – 7 July 1770) and the Battle of Kagul (21 July 1770).

SG, July 1770:

It would appear that he then travelled with the Graf von Lamberg, for in a paper published at Florence Le notizie del Mondo (July, 1770), under the heading "News of the World," we find the following paragraph:--p. 48 "TUNIS, July 1770."The Comte Maximilian de Lamberg, 1 Chamberlain of M.M.L.L. II. and RR. having paid a visit to the Island of Corsica to make various investigations, has been staying here since the end of June, in company with the Signor de St. Germain, celebrated in Europe for the vastness of his political and philosophical knowledge."

Gleichen…. am 13. Juli nach Neapel versetzt und damit unverkennbar ein paar Stufen tiefer in der diplomatischen Rangordnung gestellt worden. Gleichwol gefiel sich G. in Neapel in der Gesellschaft Galiani8 so gut, daß er eine Weile Vorhatte, sich dort anzukaufen;

Mme d’Épinay à Galiani, le 17 7bre 1770, dans Correspondance de Ferdinando Galiani et Louise d’Épinay, t. I, Iettre XXVII. D’Epinay introduces “locataire C-p-Savalette de Magnanville


As for "Gluck's" huge music archive: Find your misplaced imagination first, and then go back to my words on "Caccini-Cocchi-Gluck-Grimm-Rousseau- Hennin-Chastellux-Myskivecek-Durazzo" etc in this thread.

Adieu encore. Je vous embrasse, en dépit du scandale de Panurge et de tous les envieux de notre tendre correspondance .
(From Naples to Mme d'Epinay, 7th July 1770!)


Cheers.

,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

This is much more interesting !

Yes, Mme d'Epinay, partner of Baron Grimm, and of Rousseau. Here in 1770 already closely associated with promoting the 'miracle' of Mozart. In this letter a private joke by repeating the word 'miracle' in connection with Mozart because that was the project they were involved in.

But what of Abbe Galiani of Naples ? What can you tell us of him ?

It's a fascinating letter, for sure.

---

Yanni,

You will, from time to time, come across people who know their subject as well, if not better than yourself. This is my experience, at least.

I don't think it's helpful to say I'm not interested in your view when pages of posts here prove the opposite. These persons you have mentioned in connection with your 'Phantom of the Opera' idea are all well known to me. They are, to you aliases of one man, Cocchi. But you must credit the fact that others besides you have examined these issues in detail whose views are of value besides your own. So what you know is useful, but not as useful as your ability to have a respectful conversation without accusing others of being obscure. More important is the fact that all these people you refer to in your article played a role in Mozart's career. And so, aliases to one side, I have no difficulty on this issue. We see, without a shadow of a doubt, the 'Enlightenment' consists of a network of people whose background and whose purpose was to serve the elites of Europe. Who had links with the British Empire, France, Italy etc.

Would it not be obvious arrogance to assume you are always right ?

Let me give you a simple proof of the dubiousness of your Cocchi theory, just on this issue of Abbe Galiani. One of his supposed 'aliases'.

There is an author named Gaetano Amalfi who can perhaps teach you something. In Turin in 1888 he published a book entitled. 'Dubbi sul Galiani'. You may be interested to know the sub-title of Amalfi's book is rather relevant to us, ' On the authorship of various works attributed to Abbe Galiani'. Which you may not like to know about although it calls in to question much of what this Abbe Galiani supposedly wrote and published. In fact, I have many proofs of the same view from other sources. Amalfi says Abbe Galiani wrote few of the works attributed to him. That various other authors were involved. If you get a copy of his book and read it you will see your countless aliases for the same person (Cocchi) cannot possibly be correct. Here in the one case of Abbe Galiani the facts simply do not support the view you are teaching. Is it not better you learn a little humility in what you are teaching so stridently ? Since you profit and I profit only by sharing evidence ?

Anyway, I say so because you have the habit of insisting you are right and that nobody knows of this subject but you. And because I think truth is between us on this issue and is available to be appreciated by us both. With a certain humility.

Regards

....and Bob's your uncle!

The subject is for me closed.

The subject is not closed but your willingness to talk of it is. Let us not confuse the two things.

Here is a copy of Amalfi's book in the British Library -

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/P11A8NYI65A...089&format=999

Regards

Yanni,

Since we've finished our conversation on the reality of the 'Englightement' network that surrounded Mozart (which I believe was not a network of one person but many) here are several other publication references showing clearly that Abbe Galiani was associated with Jacobin, Illuminatist, 'Englightenment' interests and associated with the mercantile Empire of Britain in various of 'his' publications dealing with economics and trade. This besides being linked with music via composers such as Giovanni Paisiello etc. Starting with reference to a book discussing his Illuminatist contacts.

Celesia, Pietro Paolo.: 'L'illuminismo a Genova' :lettere di P.P. Celesia a F. Galiani /[a cura di] Salvatore Rotta.. Firenze : La nuova Italia, [1973? -1975?].


//

PANAREO, Salvatore.: '' Giovanni Paisiello in Russia'. (Dalle sue lettere al Galiani.)..
pp. 44. Trani, 1910..

//

LUCCHESI-PALLI, Ferdinando, Count.: Principes du Droit public maritime, et histoire de plusieurs traités qui s'y rapportent ... Ouvrage traduit de l'Italien par J. A. de Galiani..Paris, 1842..


//

MORELLET, André. Title Réfutation de l’ouvrage [by F. Galiani] qui a pour titre Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds. [By A. Morellet.] Publisher/year Londres, 1770. Physical descr. pp. 8, 360. 8º. General note The imprint is false. Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds.][/U] Dialogues entre M. marquis de Roquemaure, et Ms. le chevalier Zanobi. The autograph manuscript of the Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds, diplomatically edited with introduction, notes and appendices by Philip Koch.

///

GALEOTA, Onofrio, pseudonym. [i.e. Ferdinando Galiani.] Title Spaventosissima descrizione dello spaventoso spavento che ci spaventò tutti coll’eruzione del Vesuvio la sera delli otto d’Agosto del corrente anno ma ... durò poco. Di D. O. G. Poeta, e Filosofo all’Impronto. Publisher/year Napoli,

//

Torrice :dall'Epoca del Cardinal Mendoza a quella dell'Abate Galiani (secc. XVII-XVIII) : Convegno : Papers..Comune di Torrice Editore, 1989..

//
GALIANI, Aurelio.: Vincenzo Galiani nella congiura giacobina del 1794. Conferenza, etc..pp. 51. Montoro, 192

///

DIODATI, Luigi.: 'Vita dell'abate Ferdinando Galiani, regio consigliere, &c. &c. &c.. Napoli, 1788..

Regards


///

Your "soup" (list of works by or on various Galianis) only proves your predetermination to reach "inescapable conclusions" .....and avoid historic facts not to your liking.

For Ferdinando Galiani's (and "his brother" Bernando's) attempts in establishing their "local" genealogy, see:

http://denatalesifola.altervista.org/index2.php#_ftn119

For the Kingdom of "Two Sicilies", their King Ferdinando IV, their primeminister Tanucci (Galianis' close "associate") and their foreign policy, see Wikipedia.

Mozart was never "surrounded" by anybody in his lifetime: Galiani and Grimm "both" rejected him as a suitable future opera composer, contrary to his father Leopold's hopes. How exactly he later came to "Gluck's'" archive is unknown, yet the logic behind it, to maintain Comte De Saint Germain's real life identity secret, points to the answer and so does my "Two works by Poe decoded".

Yanni,

You have done some remarkable research on a series of issues that are close to the reality of Mozart. The very fact you have examined the careers of people like Cocchi and Galiani is proof of that. These are names which hardly appear in Mozart material and I know how difficult it is to examine any such material in any detail. But the same is true of the patrons, publishers and propagandists of Mozart's life, career and status as a whole. Here in England there are a number of music journalists and writers who encourage deeper study of such things. One is Norman Lebrecht. In his, 'When the Music Stops' he writes -

'The history of music is usually studied from its creative aspect - how masterpieces of western culture came in to being, how composers advanced the state of the art, how major works were received. The underside is rarely discussed - who paid for the music, who profited, who organised it, and why. The history of the music business is a half-glimpsed enigma, unknown to modern managers and undiscussed in polite society. The term itself is impolite, invoking images of fat, ash-flecked agents in loud suits. The truth is necessarily more complex. Some of the most successful operators practiced an almost saintly devotion to artists and their art. Others were outright villains, in it for what they could get. Both types took the greatest care to cover their traces. The music business imposes a stringent vow of silence that is designed to protect the myth of the immaculate artist'.

('Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music - When the Music Stops' - Norman Lebrecht - 1996)

You say Mozart was never surrounded by anyone in his lifetime. I beg to differ. He was virtually never alone throughout his entire lifetime. And, as an example, in the last years of his life, his home was like a railway station, visited by men who suddenly appeared to dominate his life. The composer Sussmayr is one example. Abbe Maximilian Stadler (who went on to become Constanze's 'adviser' and the editor of various musical works) another. Both of whom play a prominent 'minding' role in those last few years'. The court case with Prince Lichnowsky near the end of his life is another case. There was, in fact, no time in Mozart's life when he was alone. He was very closely managed. The sheer number of names in the documents is amazing. Reading like a reference book of 18th century elitism. I do not know a single reference in all of Mozart's correspondence where he refers to nature. Not one. Not a single reference. And this from a person who spent a huge part of his short life travelling across Europe. And this, up until 1781, under the protection of his father. In Vienna he was surrounded by 'friends' who appear from almost nowhere. He lives as a 'celebrity' and yet he is not a celebrity at all. The contradictions and paradoxes are obvious. I think it is very clear that Mozart was surrounded by managers and minders virtually all the way through his life. He is, beyond doubt, the best documented composer of western musical history. And the sheer number of names, characters refered to and met, talked to, etc. is almost ludicrously long. With what does this correspondence compare ? Except, perhaps, the writings of a Casanova. A Casanova who, we learn, helped with the libretto to 'Don Giovanni' for Prague. etc.

No, I can't agree he was a free man. This is the life and career of an exploited individual. A candidate chosen virtually before his birth to play a role. Which he willingly did. Managed till 1787 by his father.

It is my view that these meetings, these tours, these relationships cannot reasonably be explained without the existence of a huge network across western Europe of the time. Into which Mozart was inducted. Aristocrats and fraternity members, the most improbable acclaim and achievement. His itineraries alone so improbable, the welcomes received so contrived, and the logistics of 18th century travel in this way so ridiculous that nobody would have made them or attempted to make them without considerable planning in advance. The name-dropping correspondence testifies to this. Names which, on closer study, tell a very different story about Herr Mozart's mythical talents. And yet, of course, the testimonies exist. The glowing references. The hyperbole. Written, in virtually every case, by his fraternal friends.

I have real respect for your work. We may, in the end, be saying the same thing. From different perspectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Your "soup" (list of works by or on various Galianis) only proves your predetermination to reach "inescapable conclusions" .....and avoid historic facts not to your liking.

For Ferdinando Galiani's (and "his brother" Bernando's) attempts in establishing their "local" genealogy, see:

http://denatalesifola.altervista.org/index2.php#_ftn119

For the Kingdom of "Two Sicilies", their King Ferdinando IV, their primeminister Tanucci (Galianis' close "associate") and their foreign policy, see Wikipedia.

Mozart was never "surrounded" by anybody in his lifetime: Galiani and Grimm "both" rejected him as a suitable future opera composer, contrary to his father Leopold's hopes. How exactly he later came to "Gluck's'" archive is unknown, yet the logic behind it, to maintain Comte De Saint Germain's real life identity secret, points to the answer and so does my "Two works by Poe decoded".

---

Never said Mozart was a free man: He was hard pressed, from early childhood, like most "child miracles" still are and, as far as his life as an adult is concerned, the "surrounding" you are referring to must be attributed both to his introduction to Freemasonry, as well as to his inheriting of "Gluck's" archive and, most propably, his "reform opera composer" ring as well (with "Gluck" desperately seeking to get rid not just of his "Gluck" identity but also of his real one,Cocchi, linking him to Concino Concini and putting in danger the "secret" of the french royal bloodline. Propably he was blackmailed and had to "trade").

Mozart's "death" is linked to Austria's loss of Marie Antoinette and was propably arranged with assistance from french diplomatic agencies. His appointment in (bottom of the barrel for diplomats) Tripoli, as "Nissen", is a measure of their esteem at the time to his person.

Cheers.

If we examine the musical autographs of 'Mozart's' music (which, after all, has its own story to tell) we begin to find things as strange as those we are now discussing in biography.

It's not just the fact that the first few dozen symphonies lack any evidence of being attributable to Mozart. Massive a fact though that is. It's not even that the first 7 concertos are actually arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and others. Or that entire operas were falsely attributed to him. And that his Vienna reputation as a famous virtuoso and performer is an invention. All of these are able to shown without much difficulty. The problem is to know where, if at all, this record of fakery, exaggeration and wholesale musical fraud ended, if at all. Since the musical 'autographs' each have their own story. The discrepancies are massive. They extend in to the works of 'his' last decade. In fact, they are almost predictable. Detailed study of the actual music score of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' used for the premiere, in Vienna, in May 1786, for example. Now, surely, surely, this 'has' to be by Mozart, yes ? But, amazingly, there is not a single published study of that score. And never has been. The first ever made (by Bianchini/Trombetta a few years ago and made with the help of a very expensive microfiche bought from the Austrian National Library) shows the most crude errors, almost impossible parts, the whole work being virtually unperformable. But this score (just to illustrate) is not rubbish. It is a special kind of document. It exists in 2 parts for some strange reason at that library. And, when we examine it very closely from a musical point of view we find it to be an arrangement of music which already existed. This we are able to know because there are various other early scores of the time that lead us to this conclusion. The text (attributed to Lorenzo da Ponte) is in Italian. But it is an Italian which, in this Vienna score, does not fit well in to the music. It is a clumsy translation. So that what we are seeing here is a musical adaption of a work which already existed. In German. Which da Ponte has made for Vienna performance. Corresponding with proof (found in Frankfurt) that this opera existed before 'Mozart' composed it. That what we are seeing here from 'Kapellmeister Mozart' is really an arrangement made of already existing music that was premiered in his name in Vienna and so poor in text and arrangement that it was hissed off the stage after a few performances. The truth of this buried under the fact that it was rapidly revised and re-edited in Prague soon afterwards. And released again. But this is not the end of the story. This theatre score from Vienna can be compared with the so-called 'Mozart autograph' which is on sale online. Now, this 'autograph' of the same opera contains the text in both Italian and in German. And, significantly, that version of the German text cannot be earlier than 1790. At Donaueschingen in Germany is a score of the first two acts of the same 'Figaro' of early date. But it too has a German text, not Italian.

The more these things are examined the more obvious it becomes that Mozart was receiving extraordinary music which, for some reason, was being credited to him. Concertos, masses, operas, symphonies etc. although in most cases this was never published in his name until well after the time of his death. The scale of this is massive. But the patient research in music archives by men such as Taboga, Bianchini, and women such as Trombetta etc. has shown the same thing. That Mozart was trapped into this amazing situation seems beyond reasonable doubt. His poverty (the subject of those amazing begging letters) explained by the fact that this status of his required his income to be shared with others who were helping his career. And that, even at the time of 'his greatest fame' (e.g. 1786) he is still writing begging letters. One exists to the Vienna music publisher Hoffmeister, for example, which was answered with the note 'Sent him 2 Ducats'. Now this is the real situation of the Vienna Mozart. We also have a document in Mozart's handwriting in which he divides his annual income into 4 equal parts. Why ? And so on. So that the illusion of him being a hugely successful and famous personality is simply untrue.

To unravel all of this, and to go back to how it could possibly have been achieved requires us to look away from the cult of personality and of individualism into the elite nature of musical patronage as it really existed in those times. To consider that Mozart, from the start, was a candidate for glory in one sense but exploitation in the other. And this from a very early age. Proving this beyond reasonable doubt is time consuming and flies against convention, of course. But that's the job in hand.

And all of this extends as far as the last works, the Requiem, etc etc. and the posthumous publication in Mozart's name of a mass of extraordinary music, whose story, whose manufacture in 'his' name has hardly been told.

You suggest Mozart had enemies. I think the constraints within which Mozart lived told in the end. That he took liberties with his patrons. And that he was considered to be uncouth, loud mouthed, boastful, even arrogant to a degree which worked against the project intended by his patrons. So that Mozart reached a point (around 1789) where he began to speak of enemies. Then there was the court case against him, which surfaced again only a few months before his death. That strange court case. With Prince Lichnowsky.

That Mozart's mature operas involved the input of various composers and musicians is, to me, true beyond fair and reasonable doubt.

But that this career of his, this reputation, should tower over music as it does, and should be seen as unchallengeable, this, to me, is absurd. The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

An amazing story, for sure. But hidden, often invented. And only able to be seen with difficulty. Flying in the face of tradition, convention and 'accepted wisdom'.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Never said Mozart was a free man: He was hard pressed, from early childhood, like most "child miracles" still are and, as far as his life as an adult is concerned, the "surrounding" you are referring to must be attributed both to his introduction to Freemasonry, as well as to his inheriting of "Gluck's" archive and, most propably, his "reform opera composer" ring as well (with "Gluck" desperately seeking to get rid not just of his "Gluck" identity but also of his real one,Cocchi, linking him to Concino Concini and putting in danger the "secret" of the french royal bloodline. Propably he was blackmailed and had to "trade").

Mozart's "death" is linked to Austria's loss of Marie Antoinette and was propably arranged with assistance from french diplomatic agencies. His appointment in (bottom of the barrel for diplomats) Tripoli, as "Nissen", is a measure of their esteem at the time to his person.

Cheers.

---

Robert,

You write:

The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

.....after 1791? ?

How so?

As we saw earlier on, Mozart's manufacturing commenced by Nissen's "Mozart" biography, 1826-1829, ie long after Napoleon's fall.

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period?

Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

I am your angel of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPMU...eature=related

Yanni,

Why have you written as you just did ? If a person doesn't understand something and seeks to know of it they don't call it a 'falsehood' ? You wrote -

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period? Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

But it was simply Yanni being controversial again, yes ?

In answer to your question -

Contary to popular opinion Mozart was NOT a well known composer, performer and teacher. Not even in the Viennese capital. At the time of his death in 1791 his funeral went almost un-noticed by the Viennese, for example. Published in his name during Mozart's entire lifetime were less than 145 works, over 100 of which are attributed to the time of his childhood and youth but not to the period of his last 9 years in Vienna. More than 700 other works (the vast majority of 'his' works) were first published decades after 1791. Furthermore, notices of Mozart's death received a few lines in newspapers there, some days later, but nobody (not a single person) has said they were present at the funeral service. We invent the idea that it was a public event. The opposite is true. And, of course, myths have arisen around the cortege, the procession to the cemetery, etc etc. The fabulous story makers were keen to tell us of a Requiem being commissioned and a dramatic picture is given of its rehearsal in his final days from his death bed. Not a single member of Mozart's family or next of kin were present at his funeral. And, as for a memorial service that was arranged in Vienna (this separate from the funeral) this was hastily arranged by the theatre group who had staged 'The Magic Flute'. Once again, no member of Mozart's circle was present there.

The funeral procession is fiction. So too the dramatic commission to compose a Requiem. The story of the Requiem being rehearsed by Mozart from his death bed. The 'grey messenger' commissioning him. Etc. etc.

Well, there is a limit for all this fiction. The rise of his iconic status occurred AFTER 1791. Of course it did. For all the reasons just stated. And many more.

You see, a career can be 'stage managed' as a child. I mean, a child can play a few pieces and be dressed with a wig and a sword and one can describe him sympathetically as a 'young genius'. One can learn a few 'plinkety-plonk' works and be on the road on tour for years, if one wishes to exploit a child in this way. Which is what really happened. Thousands of miles around the dusty roads of Europe by coach, no less ! (With a reputation protected of course by those patrons, publishers, 'friends' etc. who were party to the emerging myth. Aided and abetted by the various fraternities etc). Such things are really not too difficult. Are they ? Every court had its musicians. There were no televisions, were there ? So, why should anyone be especially interested.

Consider this too. If we believe Mozart to have been a wonder-child, a musical 'genius', how would a person in an obscure town know of it in advance of his arrival ? There is no record of this being published in local newspapers prior to his arrival in those places. Now, ask any touring musician what response his tour will have if it is not advertised in advance when he is travelling. With few exceptions these 'tours' were not advertised. In fact, they were 'stage managed' with the collaboration of those who were party to them. This is not difficult to consider.

But we have this fairy story of the gates opening, of enthusiastic crowds of startled dignitaries, of music lovers filled with applause, etc etc. Imagine the scenario -

'You must excuse me, I've been travelling for 8 hours and around 7 years on tours around Europe. I've had virtually no time to compose anything, much less to become a brilliant keyboard player, and yet I will astound you with my skills'.

This is plain silly, yes ?

In London Mozart was inaccessible to the general public. His legendary status was published in papers. By Leopold Mozart. The charge to see him was far too high for ordinary people to take advantage of. When he played in a public concert (a benefit concert) near Chelsea the Rotunda (a great building where he came with his father) was filled with people who saw visiting musicians all the time. People did not usually sit there. They walked around its floor, talking. Those who sat usually ordered something to eat, and drank. The idea that this vast space (known as the Rotunda) was where Mozart on one of the early pianos astounded England is ludicrous. Tried listening to an 18th century piano in the open air amongst hundreds of people walking around and talking ?

But it doesn't matter. The legend is taught and we consume it.

In 1768 (by the age of 12) this nonsense was finally exposed, in Vienna, with the opera commission business of 'La Finta Semplice'. But the project continued.

After Mozart's death in late 1791 it took a further 8 years before 'his' works became available for publication ! So that's part of your answer. Indeed, the first publication of a Mozart opera (a whole score able to be performed, that is) occurred nearer to 1800. The same is true of many, many works. It is in this sense that his iconic status was massively and posthumously manufactured. The evidence of this is irrefutable. There is no point in Mozart's life, even during the days of his final years, where he tries to sell 'his' masterpieces for publication. A strange fact, yes ? I mean, if a man is desperately poor and wants to improve his situation, would he not try to sell his stuff ? But that never happened too. Imagine a baker who makes bread starving to death while he produces a warehouse of bread ! Or a writer who writes many books but makes little attempt to publish them when he is facing ruin ?

Anyway, I think you see the picture. The realities and the stories are very, very different. The publication of those works took a lot of editing, control, manufacture and promotion. Almost all of this after Mozart's death. So that the Mozart few had ever heard of could become, in the hands of the emerging music industry, a towering icon of music history, virtually unchallenged by anyone, even the editors of biographies and reference books. We want to believe in this legend. So we do. And although everything else in life is filled with exaggerations etc we do not readily accept reality in the cultural area. Which is precisely the power and influence of it within our society. The legendary Mozart. And our stupendous ignorance of his times and of the music of those who were his contemporaries. As for the composition of 'his' music, that too, buried away and hardly appreciated.

So, where did this stuff come from ? How was it done ? And what proofs are there and can there be if such things were hidden ? We need to examine all these issues. We need, in fact, to look closely at the lives and careers of his own contemporaries, his publishers, his patrons, and others. We need to look again at the sources and where they come from. And at the careers of men we have hardly heard of. Only then does the story begin to unravel. In short, we must challenge the disembodied 'genius' idea and get back to reality - the kind which we use for the study of any other composer.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Robert,

You write:

The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

.....after 1791? ?

How so?

As we saw earlier on, Mozart's manufacturing commenced by Nissen's "Mozart" biography, 1826-1829, ie long after Napoleon's fall.

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period?

Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

I am your angel of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPMU...eature=related

---

Robert,

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

You have managed to prove your other point however: Mozart's manufacture still continues today!

LOL!

Yanni,

You will be even more amazed to learn there are great gaps in your education. You write -

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

LOL ! Here are a few basic facts. I hope they help you not make such statements in the future -

1. The earliest Mozart biography is not that of Nissen/Constanze Mozart as you seem to suppose but dates from far, far earlier. It's that of FX Niemetscheck and dates from 1797 and 1798. Published in Prague. The same Prague where Jesuit priest Abbe Noe arranged for its author to adopt one of the Mozart children. With the permission of Constanze Mozart, of course. (One of those 'coincidences') you understand ? So, so much for your date of 1825/6.

2. In addition to this early biography of 1797/8 by Niemetscheck (which, I must assume you've never heard of nor read or you would not have written as you did in your last post) we have the 'Nekrology' published in 1793 by Friedrich Schlichtegroll (1765-1822) who was himself dead 4 years before Nissen's 'biography' appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schlichtegroll


3. On page 15 of this long thread you can even find my reference to this work by Niemetscheck. Perhaps you were having a busy day ?

4. In addition to these works was publication in Vienna of a series of anecdotes on Mozart in various newspapers, especially in the late 1790's (around a decade after his death) with the assistance of one Constanze Mozart. This through the editor Rochlitz. I wrote a short article on Rochlitz for the Italian Opera website on the subject of the 'Mozart' quintet, KV452, which you might care to look at - (since it involved the usual deception).

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:Y...&hl=en&ct=clnk

Just for the record, you understand ?

Hopefully this will help to clarify the picture.

Regards

Robert

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Robert,

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

You have managed to prove your other point however: Mozart's manufacture still continues today!

LOL!

---

Nissen's is considered today as the first serious attempt to a Mozart biography, "serious" in as much as letters were purchased and/or collected and claims to "musical greatness" were propably (never read it) phrased by the compilers (Nissen and Constanze) and, following Nissen's death, Feuerstein then came along to help Constanze complete the mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_Mozart

Was this "author-compiler" Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his 1791 death*? (You neither answered nor commented this one).

All this has been already discussed Robert and you still have not answered my previous question, to provide any evidence that the myth of "Mozart the great reform opera composer" began before 1826.
(1826-1828 being a very crucial year in my research on "family matters" in Zante and Paris)

What you list above are all alibi providers for Mozart, at the time very much alive and kicking Tripoli's dust 1801-1807 at least. (To then do his best, not much I dare say, to provide cover for "Gluck" and his music as ordered, the question is "WHEN" was he ordered?)

Unfortunately for you they fall in the category I prudently exempted in my previous: "Manufactured"...."in music, not in playing dead", I wrote!

Too much to ask? Pehaps!

BTW: Do try providing dates when possible: WHEN did Constanze give away her child for adoption to the Jesuits? It's definitely another alibi provider but the time is important if conclusions are to be drawn!


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

Yanni,

I will shortly be too busy to post here much. But, since you do not acknowledge your own errors let me repeat that what is 'considered today as the first serious attempt' at a Mozart biography was one put together by Niemetsheck. A man whom (you may not know) collaborated closely with Constanze Mozart. And who was sent (according to Constanze Mozart herself) many letters and documents. This speaks for itself, does it not ? Indeed, Constanze Mozart destroyed the 1st edition of this book in 1797, buying up the entire first printing and destroying the plates. Another ('sanitised') version made the year following.

And, what was Niemetsheck's profession ? He was a teacher at a college and was employed as a Censor for the Empire. And the profession of Constanze Mozart's second husband Georg Nissen included being a Censor also. Just a coincidence, of course. Weren't the Jesuit Order employed as censors of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries ?

Niemetscheck's full name is only coincidentally of Jesuit fame. 'F.X. Niemetschek'. So too the fact the adoption of the Mozart child was arranged by Jesuit Abbe Noe of Prague. And it's sheer coincidence the 'student' of Mozart's last years in Vienna was one F.X. Sussmayr. As was the name of one of the Mozart children himself. This too is sheer coincidence, of course !

As for your other questions I will post on these later today.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Nissen's is considered today as the first serious attempt to a Mozart biography, "serious" in as much as letters were purchased and/or collected and claims to "musical greatness" were propably (never read it) phrased by the compilers (Nissen and Constanze) and, following Nissen's death, Feuerstein then came along to help Constanze complete the mess.

Was this "author-compiler" Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death*? (You neither answered nor commented this one).

All this has been already discussed Robert and you still have not answered my previous question, to provide any evidence that the myth of "Mozart the great reform opera composer" began before 1826.

What you list above are all alibi providers for Mozart, very much alive at the time and kicking Tripoli's dust 1801-1807 at least.

Unfortunately for you they fall in the category I prudently exempted in my previous: Manufactured in music, not in playing dead, I wrote!

BTW: Do try providing dates when possible: WHEN did Constanze give away her child for adoption to the Jesuits? It's definitely another alibi provider but the time is important if conclusions are to be drawn!


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

---

Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death ? I neither answered nor commented on this because it's one of dozens of questions which I have been unable to confirm. The official 'cause of Mozart's death' is of course nonsense. Mozart did not die from 'miliary fever'. This 'official' version has no evidence in its support. Nor will you be surprised there was no such 'epidemic' in Vienna at the time (1791) contrary to popular belief.

As for 'Mozart, great reform opera composer', I do not know what you mean. Have you heard operatic music of that time by composers such as Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Salieri, Paisiello, Wranitsky, Cimarosa, Y Soler or various others - which has been massively suppressed ?

Two children of the Mozart family were adopted in Prague at the time his widow visited there on a tour in 1794. (This is the same year Napoleonic troops occupied areas of Germany including Bonn). These children remained in Niemetscheck's care (i.e. in the area) until, I believe, around late 1797, after which time their story changes again. An interesting (though not entirely accurate) account of Constanze and her movements of this period 1791-1805 is found in Agnes Selby, 'After the Requiem' and various others by others. There is, for sure, considerable confusion and contradiction about her movements and locations during the decade after Mozart's death in late 1791. A period which involved various tours of Germany for 'promotional' reasons. One of the sons went to Italy, leaving for there around the same time as Italian Viennese major Mozart publisher Artaria (1798) since he had just retired from Vienna around this same time and (as it happens) he worked there and lived near the Artaria area near Lake Como in Italy and also in Milan. (Josef Haydn ('Papa' Haydn) wrote to the head of the newly founded Milan music Conservatory to get the Mozart son a place there as a music scholar). But of Haydn (well, the less said the better).

Regards


//

Niemetscheck's disputed "first Mozart biography" of 1797-8, is the first to grant him the title "Kappelmeister", a title allegedly used by Mozart himself even if he never became a Kappelmeister (ie music master or church choir director) in his life, Salieri replacing Gluck as Kappelmeister in Vienna with Mozart barely reaching Kammercompositeur in 1787.

Bohemia's music history starts with "Gluck-Myslivecek-Roessler" who, by all indications, did not leave behind just "music" but an unknown number of children and wives as well and (I have a strong hunch that) the whole "Bertramka court" was founded (purchased allegedly by Dusek in 1784) to include some of them at least, possibly Leopold Kozeluch and Niemtscheck himself, and to provide a safehouse for "persecuted reform composers", their offsprings and their collaborators, such as Mozart.

(1784 is the year that "G" decided to go underground as "composer" and as "Saint Germain" war minister and as "Augustin Henry Cochin". )

Niemetscheck thus supports Mozart's own lifelong ambitions at the time, which however did not include "great reform opera composer" per se, as the etymology of "Kappelmeister" excludes "reform"*....
...so I would be very interested to know how, if at all, Niemtscheck stakes Mozart's claim to "Don Giovanni" in 1798.

Our cooperation has beyond doubt proven that Mozart's "creation" is directly and exclusively linked to "G" and his need to "disassociate" himself from his music, his "reform" music in particular ("His" 1787 Don Giovanni, who seems to fly around ,as hot potato of the revolutionary era, long after 1784, with Gluck leaving it "unfinished" en permanence following his own 1787 "death"!)

My "Gluck" however dies 1819 as Nikolai and the task to safeguard his secret (coinciding with blood purity of the french royla line) then passes on to his french relatives who reestablish themselves in France,in positions of authority,and "somehow" inherit more than just "Gluck's music"-their problem to solve , AFTER 1826. They had then the motive and the means to do so.

It's from this point onwards that Mozart's true fabrication beginns and still continues today bypassing Leroux's own revelations of the early 20th century.

To aggravate your "Jesuit" fixation:

Upon their return to anglophile France,the notion of a "mildly reformed" Roman Catholicism returns with them (look for: Augustin Dennis Cochin, historian and Baron Dennis Cochin, diplomat, covering the "eastern matter" and sponsoring Leroux and my own grandfather most propably as well).

Post Napoleon "Rome" was reinstated, the Pope's reach somehow "constrained".

But "G" had left "all that" behind already by 1801 ....

(Cocchi's own "Tuscany castle" (renovated in 1784) in Terrarosa, was confiscated Nel 1787, (Palazzo Cocchi) con la morte senza eredi di Manfredi, il feudo tornς alla corona granducale. http://www.lunigianastorica.it/terrarossa.asp...
and
...his family's tombs and monuments were destroyed in Florence to house those of countess D'Albany, 1806-1808, ("la d’Albany fece rimuovere le antiche tombe dei Cocchi e dei Nardini con l’intervento della nuova granduchessa Elisa Baciocchi. I lavori per l’installazione iniziarono nel 1809; nel novembre era già collocato il basamento; nel giugno 1810 furono spedite le casse coi marmi. ))

...to continue his life, to 1819, in Russia.

As collector of his biographic data , you see, I was fortunate to discover something rare in our days: If not a "purity" then definitely, a "consistency of character".

Now you know (and I do too) why, how, when and by who was Mozart manufactured!

Cheers.


*
In April 1791, Mozart did apply to become the Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral, and was in fact designated by the City Council to take over this job following the death of the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hofmann. However, this never took place, since Mozart died (December 1791) before Hofmann did (1793).[4]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death ? I neither answered nor commented on this because it's one of dozens of questions which I have been unable to confirm. The official 'cause of Mozart's death' is of course nonsense. Mozart did not die from 'miliary fever'. This 'official' version has no evidence in its support. Nor will you be surprised there was no such 'epidemic' in Vienna at the time (1791) contrary to popular belief.

As for 'Mozart, great reform opera composer', I do not know what you mean. Have you heard operatic music of that time by composers such as Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Salieri, Paisiello, Wranitsky, Cimarosa, Y Soler or various others - which has been massively suppressed ?

Two children of the Mozart family were adopted in Prague at the time his widow visited there on a tour in 1794. (This is the same year Napoleonic troops occupied areas of Germany including Bonn). These children remained in Niemetscheck's care (i.e. in the area) until, I believe, around late 1797, after which time their story changes again. An interesting (though not entirely accurate) account of Constanze and her movements of this period 1791-1805 is found in Agnes Selby, 'After the Requiem' and various others by others. There is, for sure, considerable confusion and contradiction about her movements and locations during the decade after Mozart's death in late 1791. A period which involved various tours of Germany for 'promotional' reasons. One of the sons went to Italy, leaving for there around the same time as Italian Viennese major Mozart publisher Artaria (1798) since he had just retired from Vienna around this same time and (as it happens) he worked there and lived near the Artaria area near Lake Como in Italy and also in Milan. (Josef Haydn ('Papa' Haydn) wrote to the head of the newly founded Milan music Conservatory to get the Mozart son a place there as a music scholar). But of Haydn (well, the less said the better).

Regards


//

---

Yanni,

I will write on this later today.

Regards

Yanni,

When Niemetscheck published his biography in 1797-8 he did so with the full collaboration of Constanze Mozart. The title of 'Kapellmeister' was W.A. Mozart copying the same lie told by Leopold Mozart himself, who had, years before toured Europe for years declaring himself to be a 'Kapellmeister'. Wolfgang did so because the 'promise' of becoming Kapellmeister at Bonn was made to him by the younger brother of the Austrian emperor. Max Franz. On this nonsense he started to call himself one. Who knew, of course, he would never become one. The same Max Fraz who in 1784, finally became Elector at Bonn. But the actual post of Kapellmeister there in Bonn was never open to Mozart. It was nothing but an illusion. The post was already occupied there by Andrea Luchesi. And had been since 1774. So this highly publicised promise was an empty one from the start.

2 years later, with Mozart still unemployed in Vienna, he continued to use the title of 'Kapellmeister' at the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and is described as such on the playbill of its disastrous Vienna premiere. In 1787, with this falsehood becoming more and more obvious to anyone a token post was finally manufactured for him by the same Max Franz - this time on the grounds that he would serve him as 'Chamber Music Composer'. But this, as before, was a meaningless and utterly absurd position. For example, Mozart wrote nothing for that post and there is no record of 'his' work (chamber music or any other kind) ever being performed there. So much for the post of Chamber composer. We have not a single reference of his 'work' there. (That token post was to the musical establishment in Vienna of the same Max Franz). Yet another illusion. Mozart did not work there daily. As said. A salary was however paid to him. Thus, once again, Mozart was proud to call himself a 'Kapellmeister'. And, as before, he was known by supporters as a Kapellmeister. There are in fact numerous references to 'Kapellmeister' Mozart during his lifetime, both before and after 1787. Just to keep the illusion going, you understand ?

Baron Bagge was a freemason and belonged to two of the Parisian lodges with the most active music programmes: the celebrated Loge Olympique and particularly Les Neuf Soeurs, where he was director of concerts and where he organized the musical side of Voltaire's initiation. It is with Bagge, for sure, that so many threads of this riddle converge. Even with respect to augmenting Haydn and Mozart's careers. Roessler (another career dogged by false trails) was himself in Paris from around 1781 for some time.

As for the Bertramka estate it was a notorious centre of prostitution and high life from the aristocracy and merchants of that region. The idea of Mozart composing 'Don Giovanni' there is almost laughable. Whose libretto, in fact, owes as much to Venice as it does to Lorenzo da Ponte.

I cannot agree Mozart's creation is 'directly and exlusively linked to 'Gluck' since there is a ton of evidence showing the input of various composers. Gluck's background rules him as a person out as a major composer. Are we to seriously believe the 'Mozart' piano concertos come from Gluck ? Nor do I see much evidence of Gluck leaving an 'unfinished' Don Giovanni. If you are prepared to see your 'Gluck' as more than one person (as was undoubtedly 'Roessler') we would have less of a headache.

I have no fixation with Jesuits. But they just keep turning up, over, and over again. Have you examined the Jesuit aspects of this same Roessler, for example ? Music of which is attributed to 'him' at the memorial for Mozart in Prague during late 1791. And which works are amazingly 'Mozartean'. Just a coincidence, of course ! How about Paul Wranitsky ? Or JM Kraus ? Or Leopold Mozart, or....... and so it goes on. As for Russia, that of course was a centre of Jesuit activity after 1773 as you surely know. And it continued to be so into the early 19th century.

We are talking here not of slabs of meat, or kilos of potatoes, but of the origins of a whole series of musical masterpieces. And this, to me, means (and I see lots of reasons for believing in it) in the input over years of an entire network, consisting of patrons, composers (plural), publicists, editors, fraternity members (plural), aristocrats (plural) and publishers, biographers etc. Many of whom we have not even mentioned. I am certain of it. As certain as I can be. This subject goes beyond 1791 and it began far earlier than the time of Mozart's birth.

As for Mozart's appointment in 1791 at the cathedral, this is more tokenism. Since it was an unpaid post, he produced nothing musical for it, and it was not for the post of Kapellmeister. It was, as usual, more 'smoke and mirrors'. Like all the rest.

Regards

I see you have not picked up the suggested "glove" ....how, if at all, Niemtscheck stakes Mozart's claim to "Don Giovanni" in 1798.*, selecting instead to answer with generalities to finally throw back potatoes and meat at me for overturning your world theories and releasing you, "over cofee", of your 15 year old problematic .

Never said the music attributed to Mozart today was all composed by "Gluck" himself but have instead always spoken of Gluck's "huge music archive", hinting all along how he (Cocchi, with his own long family background in music) collected it, paid for it, used it as he pleased, as France's "incharge", topman, of all arts alongside- or rather in control of- his cousin, Charles Nicholas Cochin, as well.

As for Gluck's own "unfinished" Don Giovanni, see my previous interpretation of the phantom's words to Christine Daae: "Unfinished" means "not signed" by composer (who, coincidentaly, after 1784, was also very busy "elsewhere" to have his Don Giovanni completed and thus "triumph".)

Save your "food" Robert,by all means, but first your credibility!

My sympathies.

*A verbatim quotation of Niemtschek's views on "Mozart's" Don Giovanni would be the right answer, ONLY!

Yanni,

First of all what of the existence of still another biography of Mozart published before 1826 ? Stendhal's of (1814). I can even name you a fourth if you like. But I think the point has surely been made.

Of Niemetscheck's biography - made with the input of Constanze Mozart and riddled, as it is, with falsehoods, not least that Niemetscheck (contrary to his own published statements) never met Mozart and never saw him, nor even lived in Prague during the entire lifetime of Mozart. Such are the foundations on which the Mozart story is constructed . Supported by the exaggerations and inventions of Leopold Mozart et al. And those of Constanze Mozart and the usual fantoccini.

“In 1966, Tomislav Volek undertook to examine the question [of Niemetsheck's personal relationship with Mozart came to the conclusion that Niemetscheck probably had never had any personal contact with Mozart - Source - Tomislav Volek, Meznama tvar F.X. Nemecka / Das unbekannte Angesicht von F.X. Niemetschek, in: Hudebni rozhledy 19.Praha 1966, Nr.14, S.427ff

As for Niemetscheck adopting the two Mozart children -

“Following Mozart's death Niemetscheck took Karl Thomas Mozart (1784-1858), the composer's older son, under his wing, housing him in Prague between 1794 and 1797; he also looked after the younger son FX (Franz Xaver) Wolfgang Mozart (1791-1844) for six months in 1795-6, while Constanze Mozart was on a concert tour in Germany.”

Which is, for sure, bizzare. Under what circumstances would a perfect stranger in Bohemia adopt two children of the Mozart family (formerly of Vienna) ? When Niemetscheck was not married but a single man (not marrying until 1798). And yet there is indisputable evidence Constanze Mozart worked closely with Niemetscheck in the creation and publication of that biography.

Is it not plain, therefore, Yanni, that every area of Mozart's iconic status was being managed, manufactured ? As we see here in this biography ?

And, as for the overdue implications of this obvious fact - an article by W. Brauneis -

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Braunei....rev.Index.pdf

As for who was doing all of this 'management' we read in Brauneis -

February 1794 - Mozart’s widow brings Carl Thomas (9 years old) to
Prague to live with Niemetschek, apparently at the suggestion of Canon Franz Xaver Noe, a friend of the Mozarts from earlier days. Carl Thomas remains with Niemetschek until 1797.

(The same Jesuit educated priest who was 'a friend of the Mozarts from earlier days').

Thus, every aspect of the mythical career of Mozart was being arranged, including these early biographies. Indeed, these are only a further stage in the construction of his myth. Including these earliest biographies such as that of Niemetscheck, the Nekrology of Schlichtegroll (1793) etc. etc.

But I won't stay on that subject Yanni. It's just another coincidence, right ?

As for Noe -

25 August 1796 - Niemetschek’s mentor, Canon Franz Xaver Noe, dies.

//

So Niemetscheck had a 'mentor' who just happened to be a Jesuit priest who arranged things for Constanze Mozart during the time that biography was being written. This same 'friendly' Noe, this ‘mentor’ of earlier years is never actually mentioned before this date in any Mozart correspondence.

//

Welcome to the world of Mozartean 'stage management'. Of invention, exaggeration and downright untruth. Foisted on the world as biography.

//

Yes, you’ve spoken of 'Gluck's huge music archive'. Why can't you tell us if that archive included 'Mozart' piano concertos ? And, if it did, may we have some details ?

That Cocchi was deeply involved in the manufacture of Mozart's career cannot be seriously doubted. But you surely agree all of this music came from more than one composer. That ‘Gluck’ was not its single composer. Don't you ? It did. Whether 'Gluck' was a pseudonym or not.

It would be great if you could provide us some details of 'Gluck's' unfinished 'Don Giovanni'. But, as usual, this request is not answered. Where can we see this document ?

I promise you Yanni, if you were to examine the career of W.A. Mozart up until the year he allegedly wrote 'Don Giovanni' you would laugh that anyone can believe he wrote it. Because you would see the track record of falsehood and know in advance he did not. But since the true composer/s of this music are a different issue than establishing the fact that he did not let us first agree he (Mozart) did not. Iif we do this, we are able to focus on the role of such charlatans as 'Gluck' and others. Who, to me, are names of convenience, warehouses, in fact, for the accumulation of music from various composers. These works later edited, revised, altered, improved, and often published long, long after the death of Mozart. As we see in the case of every single one of ‘Mozart's’ stage operas. So that if you are prepared to consider ‘Gluck’ as a musical warehouse (as were various others, such as ) then we are close to saying the same thing.

The piano concertos of Mozart have little to do with 'Gluck'. Their story is very different from that of the operas. It too involves various composers. Why, the first 7 of these 27 concertos (as said) are already acknowledged to be mere hack arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and other Paris-based German composers. As for the others, their story most certainly takes us to Salzburg, and to Offenbach and to Paris and other places. With the input of various composers, arrangers, editors etc. Only 3 (possibly 4) of which appeared in print in Mozart’s name during his lifetime.

The scale of this deception is not explained by your Cocchi/'Gluck'/Rousseau/etc theory despite the fact that you are, to your credit. correctly identifying a major component of the network.

As for what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8 I must check like you (?) although I know in advance he falsely attributes that opera to Mozart.

Regards

Fugue
BWV 889

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PhU...D26D4A47388279

I neither can nor need to check "what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8": A lie is a lie and my only interest was to see how it was served at the time, ie how did Niemetscheck-Constanze carry out "Gluck's" wish to have Mozart appear as the "hot potato's composer.

Leroux's overwhelmingly persuading words, so well fitting to my timeline and long established views, are more than enough for me!

What "Gluck's music archive included" is anybody's guess today, it has been dispersed to the four winds eversince>

I very much doubt furthermore your methodology, trying to find who wrote what music concerto, who copied what partiture, who faked another's handwriting, whose music resembles who's etc while ignoring at the same time events at the center of their world then, music included, Paris, thus not allowing you to understand the "scale of the deception" or even "Gluck" as a "musical ware house" as you wrongly put it (he had the means and the interest to buy only music) and thus dispute me.

cheers!

Yanni,

You neither can nor need to check what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8. And yet you repeatedly ask me to. Is it not fair to ask people to do things you are willing and prepared to do yourself ?

You say 'Leroux's overwhelmingly persauding words, so well fitting to (your) timeline and long established views are more than enough for me'. Yanni, that is fine. But you might forgive others who want rather more than these. And who do not have long established views. I think it fairest to say your views of Leroux are based on things more solid than that.

There is, in German literature, a strange book attributed to one August Klingemann (1777-1831) entitled 'Die Nachtwachen des Bonaventura' (1804) which was published in the early 19th century with various allusions to the music of Mozart and to other individuals whose great reputations were, shall we say (?), 'manufactured'. Whose authorship has long been mysterious and whose true author is still a matter of controversy. I recommend its contents for you to study on this subject although I'm not aware of anyone reading it in any other sense than a vivid series of strange stories. One of a number of other sources of the same kind as Leroux. Another would be the satirical writings of the librettist Casti. And even the Tales of Hoffmann, etc. There are in fact a series of unusual references to the manufactured career of Mozart in early 19th century literature. The Frankenstein myth of Mary Shelley is another. None of them in themselves proof of anything. But, when added to other information, they are consistent with the idea of manufactured phenomenon being a major part in human affairs. So that the 19th century, within a few decades, had a fashion for the bizzare which we see in theatre and publications generally.

Thanks for saying Gluck's music archive has been dispersed.

There were many individuals capable of buying music and amassing vast quantities of it. As you will agree. But in the case of Mozart we are not dealing with grand and haphazard project of arbitrarily buying music from countless sources. But of a specific project whose real aim was to draw together music and to create by the input of a series of talented composers and editors (this with the aid of publishers and propagandists) a body of music identifiable (we think) to only one composer. W.A. Mozart. Thus requiring music editors, sympathetic publishers, propagandists, early biographers, exaggerated testimonials and the usual editing out of virtually all of Mozart's musical contemporaries. So that editorial control of what was published in textbooks on the subject of music and musical achievement could be and was slowly achieved in terms of 18th century 'musical history'. To achieve this, virtually without criticism control on what is taught and believed on music as a whole during that period. Even involving (as we see) the suppression of the careers of countless composers and their works and the marginalisation of the work of others. To ignore, in fact, music as it really existed in Mozart's time. To create, in fact, a character (or small group of musical characters) who would be members of a musical 'pantheon', this towering over all others. To consider oneself educated in these matters by reference to a handful of composers from the hundreds and thousands who have lived. They and their music. All of this to obtain the desired effect. Of a Mozart who would literally dominate the musical landscape of western Europe and of our education in that area. An industry, in fact, patronised by the successors of those who were party to it in the first place and virtually a counterfeit of fact and reality. The negation of musicology and of musical biography in its critical sense. Since the Mozart myth exists most successfully when it fails to accept or ever to examine its own inherent contradictions.

How shall we describe a body of teachings which is rarely subjected to criticism in any detail ? As we see here in the inflated life, career and 'genius' status of one W.A. Mozart ? Though that body of teachings is revered as being a product of our western culture and of 'experts' patronised and admired which enjoys high status in textbooks, journal articles, music publications and so on ? A paradigm, in fact. No more subject to detailed criticism of its publications than the dogmas of pagan Greece or Rome. For, as says the movie 'Amadeus', 'all you have heard is true'.

The important thing here is not to believe one must be 'right'. But to make available a contrary view and to let others form their own judgement having had the chance to examine it for themselves from both sides.


Regards

Fugue
BWV 849

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLoMs...D26D4A47388279

"Fair" as "right" or "fair" as "white coloured-blue eyed-blonde"?

The particular adjective should be removed from the english language!

Cheers!

You have a good point Yanni. But, to me, every word can be well used or abused and it's a question of using them appropriately, within their right context, and understanding them in the same.

We must each reserve the right to judge them, for sure.

p.s. England is sunny today for the first time in many weeks. I have planted some potatoes this morning. lol !

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

"Fair" as "right" or "fair" as "white coloured-blue eyed-blonde"?

The particular adjective should be removed from the english language!

Cheers!

---

Orchestral Suite No. 1
Opening Overture

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

G.F. Handel
'Arrival of the Queen of Sheba'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkx2F...eature=related

Funny thing how such silly words pop up to make any serious post read like another joke on blondes!

Thus returning to "Bagge's baguette":

Have you had the chance ever to read Mirabeau's letters from Berlin?

Mirabeau was in Berlin, till late 1786 reporting to Calonne in Paris, and noone really knows the return route he next took.

What is sure however is
-he had "inside knowledge" on "Baron Bagge" and his Berlin theatrical performances at the time (before December the 5th),
-included "ridiculous" Bagge in his correspondence to the French General Controler of Finance and that...
-some 34 years later, ie around 1820 or so, someone went to great lenghts to have this correspondence translated and published in London.

Correct me if I am wrong but,this same December, "Mozart's" Figaro was staged in Prague while Mozart himself was still in Vienna. (Figaro was staged 11th December by Bondini, while Mozart left Vienna for Prague January 8th).

Mirabeau-Bagge returned Paris last days of January (Louis Barthou, p126, to then decide going to Brunswick May 1787, p129 but went instead, as Raynal, to Russia for a while)

Lastly: Whenever I mention the title of a book or article, I always accompany it with a quotation of the specific part or parts of relevance to my subject which, may I remind you, never was Mozart, but my own genealogy.

Based in Athens, I have no chance of finding in a public library highly specialised and rare books on Mozart.

It's only reasonable for me to assume that you, with Mozart in your focus for the past fifteen years, have already a long database on him with clippings from various books as well, thus I asked you to provide the specific Niemetcheck reference to Mozart's Don Giovanni but you refused.

But then, you always mention booktitles but never quote parts therefrom in you posts here, don't you?

As I said, your methodology leads nowhere!

Cheers!

Yanni,

I will try to obtain a translated text of Niemetscheck and will let you know when I do. But your claim that I never quote from the books I refer to is contradicted by my posts. Take for example those of the past few days -

“In 1966, Tomislav Volek undertook to examine the question [of Niemetsheck's personal relationship with Mozart came to the conclusion that Niemetscheck probably had never had any personal contact with Mozart - Source - Tomislav Volek, Meznama tvar F.X. Nemecka / Das unbekannte Angesicht von F.X. Niemetschek, in: Hudebni rozhledy 19.Praha 1966, Nr.14, S.427ff

and again -

'The history of music is usually studied from its creative aspect - how masterpieces of western culture came in to being, how composers advanced the state of the art, how major works were received. The underside is rarely discussed - who paid for the music, who profited, who organised it, and why. The history of the music business is a half-glimpsed enigma, unknown to modern managers and undiscussed in polite society. The term itself is impolite, invoking images of fat, ash-flecked agents in loud suits. The truth is necessarily more complex. Some of the most successful operators practiced an almost saintly devotion to artists and their art. Others were outright villains, in it for what they could get. Both types took the greatest care to cover their traces. The music business imposes a stringent vow of silence that is designed to protect the myth of the immaculate artist'.

('Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music - When the Music Stops' - Norman Lebrecht - 1996)

and, again -

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Braunei....rev.Index.pdf

These are just a few examples.

Thanks for your comments which I will examine closely later.

Robert

Here is a spring morning !

Prelude and Fugue in C Sharp Major
BWV 848

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-c8W...eature=related

The Prague performances of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' date from December 1786. (That is, some 7 months after their disastrous premiere in Vienna). And, between the premiere in Vienna in May of that year and these performances in Prague the opera score was massively edited, by others. Being restored, in fact, to the work from which Mozart and da Ponte had first adapted it earlier. With the disastrous Italian text/music relationship of the Vienna ‘premiere’ improved.

//

Here is an article on Bagge from the 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians' which may be of interest. We may both agree it is hugely inaccurate in many parts and says little of Bagge's real life. But it at least offers a list of interesting, known relationships and some dates.

Bagge [Bach], Baron de [Ennal, Charles-Ernest

(b Fockenhof, Kurland, 14 Feb 1722; d Paris, 24 March 1791). French dilettante, amateur violinist and composer, patron of the arts and instrument collector. A magnificent and very wealthy nobleman, he both amused and astounded his contemporaries. M. Audinot in his comic opera La musicomanie (1779), and possibly E.T.A. Hoffmann in his tale Die Serapionsbrüder (1819), attempted to evoke his strange personality, emphasizing its ridiculous nature. At the death of his father, a landed nobleman, in 1747, Bagge inherited a large fortune which enabled him to study the violin in Italy with Tartini. (1) By 1750 he had settled in Paris; in the following year he was awarded the title chambellan du Roi de Prusse (then Frederick II) and married the daughter of the Swiss banker Jacob Maudry. With Maudry's death in 1762 the very large inheritance proved a source of contention to the ill-matched couple and they soon separated. Bagge later attempted to gain possession of the inheritance of Mme Maudry, who had died in 1767, and the resulting lawsuits scandalized Paris until the Parlement decided in his wife's favour in 1773.

After the separation Bagge devoted himself entirely to music, and exercised considerable influence on Parisian musical life as concert organizer, patron, performer, composer and teacher. Every Friday in his hotel on the Rue de La Feuillade he held a concert at which his protégés performed; on one of these occasions in 1783 Kreutzer gave the first performance of one of Bagge's violin concertos. He travelled in 1778 to England and in 1784 to Vienna, where he performed before Mozart. In 1790, having left France at the outbreak of the Revolution, he was appointed Kammerherr to Friedrich Wilhelm II in Berlin. His death in the following year was accompanied by rumours that he had been poisoned by his mistress, though several public disclaimers later that year discredit the accusation.

Bagge was a freemason and belonged to two of the Parisian lodges with the most active music programmes: the celebrated Loge Olympique and particularly Les Neuf Soeurs, where he was director of concerts and organized the musical side of Voltaire's initiation. His talent as a violinist and particularly his technical capabilities were perhaps not so negligible as earlier writers have maintained. He showed special skill in performing ascending and descending scales on a single string using only one finger of the left hand. His compositions, though hardly original, reveal sureness of taste and irreproachable workmanship. He was criticized for his nervous twitches and strange attitudes while performing; the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (iii, 1800, col.841) recalled of his playing that

No Baron can ever have made such horrible grimaces the moment he took violin and bow in hand. His face, his muscles, the whole of his body underwent most painful contortions, and, as his playing increased in animation, the sounds that proceeded could only be likened to the wailing of a cat.

This doubtless gave rise to the ambiguous compliment paid by the Emperor Joseph II (‘My dear Baron, I have never heard anyone play the violin quite like you’), and the quatrain under one of his portraits:

Du Dieu de l'harmonie adorateur fidèle,
Son zèle impetueux ne saurait s'arrêter;
Dans l'art du violon il n'a point de modèle
Et personne jamais n’osera l’imiter.

As a patron Bagge was extraordinarily generous. Although he favoured artists who were also freemasons (Kreutzer, Viotti, Duport, Capron and Gossec), or who were closely linked with the order (Gaviniès and Boccherini), he nevertheless helped only deserving musicians. He insisted, however, on giving lessons to the violinists among them, paying them to accept his tuition, and was thus able to boast of himself as leader of the French violin school. His private collection of violins was prodigious, and included instruments by Stradivari, Amati and Gasparo da Salò, which he generously conferred on his ‘pupils’. This collection, as well as his large music library which he freely extended to other musicians, reverted at his death to his wife together with the rest of his largely depleted estate, and has since been untraced.
Several portraits of Bagge are known, one of them engraved by Nicolas Cochin (reproduced in Terry) and another portraying him with a violin ‘comme un ménétrier’.

WORKS

all printed works published in Paris

Orch: 3 sinfonie (1788); 4 vn concs., all (n.d.); vn conc., F-Pn; 2 symphonies concertantes, D-Bsb
Chbr: 6 quatuors concertants, str qt, op.1 (1773); 6 trio, 2 vn, b (n.d.); Airs de Marlborough variés, hpd, vn (n.d.); 2 str qts, 4 str qnts, collab. ?F. Fiorillo, destroyed
Cantata, 1786, for accession of Friedrich Wilhelm II, D-Bsb


BIBLIOGRAPHY

FétisB
GerberL

L. Petit de Bachaumont and others: Mémoires secrets, xx (London, 1783), 83–4
F. Marpurg: Legende einiger Musikheiligen (Cologne [recte Breslau], 1786), 224–5, 277ff
P. Smith: ‘Les élèves du Baron de Bagge’, RGMP, xii (1845)
G. Cucuel: ‘Le Baron de Bagge et son temps’, Année musicale, i (1911), 145–86
C.S. Terry: ‘Baron Bach’, ML, xii (1931), 130–39
C.M. Carroll: ‘A Beneficent Poseur: Charles Ernest, Baron de Bagge’, RMFC, xvi (1976), 24–36
R.J.V. Cotte: Les musiciens franc-maçons à la cour de Versailles et à Paris sous l'ancien régime (doctorat d'Etat, diss., 1982, F-Pn)
R.J.V. Cotte: La musique maçonnique et ses musiciens (Paris, 2/1987), 72–4

/

R

Awfully sorry for not specifying "relevant" quotations supporting your-eager but unfounded-"scholarly" conclusions such as:

There were many individuals capable of buying music and amassing vast quantities of it. As you will agree. But in the case of Mozart we are not dealing with grand and haphazard project of arbitrarily buying music from countless sources. But of a specific project whose real aim was to draw together music and to create by the input of a series of talented composers and editors (this with the aid of publishers and propagandists) a body of music identifiable (we think) to only one composer. W.A. Mozart.

You have to first identify the "many individuals", then compare their "ammassing" capacity to France's, Napoli's and Vienna's to then come to "Gluck-Rousseau-Grimm-Myslivecek-Cocchi etc" and the "specific project..." AT THE TIME(before 1780), FIND THE REASON THEN WHY IT (REFORM OPERA basically) was thrown on Mozart's lap around 1785-6, TO THEN proceed to post 1815 political events and explain thereby the "universal accord" to pass the whole inexplicable, highly distorted already and out of all proportions, very hot potato, to Mozart thereafter.

Alternatively, you should plant onions and garlic alongside your potatoes. It might prove more usefull and certainly more healthy.

BTW The whole thing on Bagge you quote from Grove is only a very minor part of the post 1815 fiction (based on post 1783-Chastellux's return from USA-"inputs" from Paris. Gossec and Gavinier where aliases of "Bagge" etc etc)

Cheers

Yanni,

My knowledge of what you mean by 'reform opera' has not changed over the past few days. Maybe you can tell me what you mean ? But it may be quicker if you listen to some of the operas of Myslievececk, Sarti, Gazzaniga, and so on during the time of this supposed 'reform' - as already suggested last time we spoke of it. You believe 'Gluck' was the spearhead of a 'reform' of opera. In fact, 'Gluck's' music was not a reform. It was simply an expansion of an increasingly controlled music industry into Paris. An industry which was increasingly under the control of the 'enlightenment' philosophy of Voltaire and Rousseau. Whose aim was to obtain control across Europe of the performing arts across most of Europe. Including music. You should examine the history of opera in England at this time. The role of operatic ballet under Noverre, also the careers of Gallini, Viotti, Cowper and others. Who used Paris and Italy as a recruiting base. The 'enlightenment', Yanni, was as much due to the control of the British Empire and the merchants of the East India Company and the Dutch East India Company as the Holy Roman Empire. Since these two things were merging at this time. The patrons of opera and music at this time were already working towards the control of the performing arts.

As for collectors of large volumes of music, these included the chapels of many princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Such as Bonn, Regensburg, Esterhazy and so on.

Yes, as said, the Grove Dictionary provides only a standard account of Bagge. Bagge was certainly as important as Grimm in a musical sense.

What is hidden from appreciation in standard biographies of music and musician is the role of the fraternities (religious and occultist) and the way they merged during the late 18th century. Plus the role of those who patronised the arts. Many of them aristocrats and princes themselves. These things all fusing with the 'enlightenment' and with the union of these different fraternal strands under the Illuminatists etc. Culminating in the Council of Vienna (1815 onwards) and the restoration of the Jesuit Order. So that, eventually, all these things merged. And the music industry (which emerged in the early 19th century) began to control the writing of textbooks, omitting inconvenient biographical and musical facts, elevating a handful of composers to god-like status in a 'pantheon', as we see in pagan times. And, as for the facts of history, well, these were conveniently 'altered' and revised. So that we end more ignorant of reality than if we knew nothing at all. One result of which is the destruction of musicology, as such, and the rise of sheer commercialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Awfully sorry for not specifying "relevant" quotations supporting your-eager but unfounded-"scholarly" conclusions such as:

There were many individuals capable of buying music and amassing vast quantities of it. As you will agree. But in the case of Mozart we are not dealing with grand and haphazard project of arbitrarily buying music from countless sources. But of a specific project whose real aim was to draw together music and to create by the input of a series of talented composers and editors (this with the aid of publishers and propagandists) a body of music identifiable (we think) to only one composer. W.A. Mozart.

You have to first identify the "many individuals", then compare their "ammassing" capacity to France's, Napoli's and Vienna's to then come to "Gluck-Rousseau-Grimm-Myslivecek-Cocchi etc" and the "specific project..." AT THE TIME(before 1780), FIND THE REASON THEN WHY IT (REFORM OPERA basically) was thrown on Mozart's lap around 1785-6, TO THEN proceed to post 1815 political events and explain thereby the "universal accord" to pass the whole inexplicable, highly distorted already and out of all proportions, very hot potato, to Mozart thereafter.

Alternatively, you should plant onions and garlic alongside your potatoes. It might prove more usefull and certainly more healthy.

BTW The whole thing on Bagge you quote from Grove is only a very minor part of the post 1815 fiction (based on post 1783-Chastellux's return from USA-"inputs" from Paris. Gossec and Gavinier where aliases of "Bagge" etc etc)

Cheers

---

I don't need to explain(In fact I already did herein) what reform opera was meant to be (music serving the lyrics, don't you rmember, for a specific message to get through) and the mere fact you suggest "listen to the music" demonstrates you are indeed still unaware of the difference.

The enlightment became a common goal AFTER Britain lost their West Indies but the "established commercial interests" existed before that and collaborated to the fact.

For the minor role of the Holy Roman Empire" I have already spoken. The same for fraternities.

Chapels indeed employed famous musiciens (who nevertheless may have had their own ideas at the time, serving other, non religious patrons as well) but had little or nothing to do with opera or even chamber music, their task being to praise the Lord exclusively.

My previous guide to your road to fame, or at least to truth, stands as is.

Cheers.

Thank you Yanni,

I understand what you mean by 'reform opera' although the 'reform' that it represents was more advertising and hyperbole than substance. Still, yes, I do understand what you mean.

On the 'enlightenment' we differ. I agree completely with you in certain respects. The commercial interests of Europe are a major factor. And the British Empire was itself a major factor. As already said. The Northern Venice of London, in fact. But this secular movement was a new method of uniting people. A new tool of propaganda, in fact. The end of direct church control of society and the beginnings of what SEEMED to be secularised society. A secularised society which was run more by fraternities and hidden interests of the ruling elite than theologians and bishops. At least, on the surface. The secularised society of the Encyclopaedists, of Voltaire, Rousseau etc. Whose relationship with the British elites, with the mercantile power that was England cannot be ignored.

A letter of Mozart (28th December 1782, to his father in Salzburg. "I was working on a very difficult task--a Bardic song by Denis on Gibraltar. It is a secret, for a Hungarian lady wants thus to honor Denis." "Yes, I have heard of England's triumph at Gibraltar, and, indeed, with great joy (for you know well that I am an arch-Englishman)."

There is, Yanni, absolutely no doubt that Mozart's contacts in England were extensive. They included the Prime Minister of England, the Prince of Wales, numerous high ranking land owners, archbishops etc. Most of them connected with the Catholic nobility. And with the fraternities which, in the mid-18th century onwards were supporters of Jacobinism and of an attempt to restore England to the papacy. Indeed, that movement was close to success and it had been a major factor within the British establishment since the time when the Venetians founded the British mercantile empire. The occultist/fraternity infiltration of the British government was very real. They literally controlled the Royal Society from the time of its foundation, for example. The formation of Freemasony in England (itself another form of occultism seen earlier in Venice), and its export to Germany, Italy and elsewhere was a growing movement itself. Secularism had many attractions to the elites of England. Whose slave trading companies and whose quest for imperial control of other nations is a plain fact of history. Unlike yourself I believe that fraternities had a very major role in this movement. That it was, from the start, part of the counter-reformation. Exportable, as we see here in England. So that it would be absurd to study the history of the period without being aware of both the Holy Roman Empire and also the 'Englightenment'. They both merged, after all. At least, they did so in this vital area of culture. Of which music was a vital part.

We might one day discuss the life and career of your Cocchi. A career, I think, which is part of this same British Empire/Venetian idea. Occultism, in fact. Thinly veiled, of course. Since Cocchi was a definite link for Mozart's career and nothing I have found contradicts that fact.

You describe the role of the Holy Roman Empire as being 'minor'. Well, what about Earl Cowper ? The Englishman who lived for decades in Florence and who was a major musical impresario and patron, knighted as a baron of the Holy Roman Empire, although he was English. Or various ambassadors of Britain including the Ambassador to Vienna, Keith. These were vitally important in the Mozart story. And in the propagation of Mozart. Again, the idea of Vienna as 'city of music'. This cannot be separated from the Holy Roman Empire, whose capital city it was. And then we have the affair of the Requiem, announced as proof positive that Mozart had died as a loyal son of the Roman Catholic Church. And an employee of the Cathedral.

No, you believe the role of the 'Holy Roman Empire' in the career of Mozart was minor. When, we see, his association from the start was organised by a Prince Archbishop of Salzburg. And, decades later, in the 19th century, when the Mozarteum (the centre for the study of Mozart was opened in Salzburg) it was patronised by the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg. The ecclesiastical links with Mozart are indisputable. And they included his award of the Order of the Golden Spur in Rome, by the Pope himself. But you believe the Role of the Holy Roman Empire was minor.

As for fraternities, are you suggesting these had no place in the life and career of Mozart ? Surely not. Since, in truth, we see countless proofs of the opposite in Rosicrucianism (a belief very strongly based in Salzburg), plus Freemasonry, and, of course, in many, many illuminatist publishers, managers and propagandists of his time and beyond. How you can say these things are 'minor' has escaped me.

Unless I am mistaken Mr Cocchi was an occulist himself. But perhaps I am mistaken ?

It can be no coincidence, Yanni, that the move to unite Europe, and to unite entire nations, (which everyone knows has been spoken of as a goal of globalism and particularly of the illuminatists since the 18th century) are strikingly similar to those of empires themselves. So that, once again, we cannot ignore these things and can only observe that they involve the unification of disparate fraternities, of which Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Illuminatism etc. are obvious examples. These 'secularised' movements uniting with the net effect being to control, to rule from within, to remain, officially, of minor significance, but, in reality, to have a clear and obvious tendency to maintain the power of the elites, to expand them, rather, and to serve the 'status quo'. Whether this is acknowledged by general members of the fraternties at the lower levels of these organisations or not. Since, again, we see evidence of it everywhere and especially in this vital area of culture - the control of what is taught and believed of musical achievement in particular. It is precisely because textbooks tell us nonsense in matters of biography and achievement etc. that we are able to say that some other explanation for these omissions exists. And it does. Since the 'fairy story' must be maintained at all costs. The one invented by those whose control of the music industry has made them in the first place.

It seems to me obvious that banking, commerce, and politics are not the only areas of corruption within our society. Since that of music and the performing arts are and have always been subject to the same corporate and often blatant examples of control and fiction.

Regards

Thanks Yanni. I will post here from time to time. Nice to discuss these things with you.

Best wishes

Robert N.

Aria
'Mache dich, mein Herze, rein'
Matthäus-Passion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF6xVtLL-l8

"Unless I am mistaken Mr Cocchi was an occulist himself. But perhaps I am mistaken ?"

He was much more than that and to assign him just the "occulist" attribute, is in fact a distortion of truth (coming furthermore from the one who has promised to ask his italian friends on "their Cocchis and why they hide them" never to return on the subject).

He was a highly talented, exceptionaly intelligent, extremely hardworking, perfectly balanced, wonderfully disciplined, deeply self motivated and amazingly successfull, civil servant of France, their top "secret agent", who had to wear many hats and associate himself with all sorts, to control and influence them, as his duties demanded.

I have absolutely no doubt that every national archive in every country he "passed through" in his time, still maintains a room full of files on his person where, an army of researchers has been employed in the past to crosscheck and "establish" his multiple aliases as separate individuals (maintaining them from now on is however questionable).

He was well trusted as a diplomat in all "courts" at least till 1786, including USA's but his identity and the controversy in his many aliases had been partly uncovered. He was thereby threatened and propably blackmailed at the time (thus concented to deliver his music archive to Mozart but never mentioned him in his "Koch" music dictionary of 1792) but kept on serving Royal France, totally "drained" already, under yet more aliases, until "Terror" decapitated the Royal couple when he decided to quit and permanently settle in Russia. He was already around 70 at the time.

For the "common good" (his concept) it was decided to "bury" him in a myth, a rather favourable myth at that, "Le comte de Saint Germain", still described as a likeable "good sort", his "charlatan" personality, a professional hazard, suppressed by other comments, all to his favour.

He definitely was a pacifist and definitely proposed "make trade, not war" and practiced "make love instead" in his private life too (rather excessively and indiscriminatly, I might add) !

In short, he was "Flying-throughout his life but was not really a-Dutchman" even if he was a "Heinault" or a "Hennin" for a while!

But did he favour "dreadnought diplomacy to promote trade and conquer" as it then developed (to still apply, wherever possible, today)?

Having studied him "a while", I answer "no, he did not" and challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Did he apply his "common good" rule on his own person?

He certainly did, perhaps masterminding and certainly silently approving the "removal" of his own son Pavel, to honour previous pacts and avoid another war, but failed , to witness it and die soon after, an unhappy Mathusala, as I believe.

Do return here by all means: Your answer on Cocchi may be the first, but is certainly not the last "promised answer yet to come".

My regards.


As a farewell gift, a little something freshly "forged":

Mozart’s seven great operas, his brilliant contribution
to music theatre and world culture, are unequalled in
their depth of human characterisation and musical
expression.
Through happy coincidence, all seven opera scores
have survived almost complete in Mozart’s manuscript.
The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI, Los Altos, Ca.)
has embarked on producing a facsimile edition
of the seven autograph scores. Mozart scholars,
libraries and of course all lovers of Mozart’s stage
works now have the opportunity of acquiring these
priceless manuscripts in flawless reproductions.
At the same time, all risks about preserving Mozart’s
legacy for the world of music are taken care of.
The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) charitable
foundation, known for its philanthropic programmes in
the arts and sciences, has forged an ideal cooperation
for the Mozart project. Under the scholarly direction of
an editorial board (Ulrich Konrad, David Packard,
Wolfgang Rehm, Christoph Wolff; General editor
Dietrich Berke) the International Mozarteum
Foundation Salzburg and the libraries where Mozart’s
manuscripts are held are working together with the
Packard Humanities Institute.
The production of the volumes is exquisite
for the digitalization of the manuscripts
has been undertaken using the latest
technology, which allows for an astounding
level of authenticity and precision in detail.
The printing follows the uncompromisingly
high standards demanded by the edition