The Manufacture of Mozart

Anyone who was truly interested in the facts would do well to explore any number of the numerous biographies on Mozart written by respected historians and musicologists and not by an amateur who lies about his credentials and formal education and sleuths and slithers around on internet sites in search of proof of a grandiose conspiracy theory. One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Of course these respected authors may just all be deluded fools... or even part of the continuing conspiracy that encircles Mozart and keeps our esteemed "musicologist" from any recognition from within academia or the publishing world. :rolleyes:

Still, Robert, you are having difficulty understanding the "rules of engagement" in an academic dispute. You are the one who has made an outlandish statement that runs contrary to accepted truth. The burden of proof is completely your own. I have no need to prove the contrary. There are others far more capable than myself who have done so. The fact that you have repeatedly avoided answering any difficult question that might put the least dent into your outlandish theory... (and it is nothing but a theory... and one held only by yourself)... is enough to completely undermine all you have presented here. So I will give you one last chance. Answer any of the following, if you can:

1. You suggest that Mozart could not have composed any of the works attributed to him because of the lack of any formal music education. By the same logic, what exactly is your formal education in music and history? Or do you suggest that we are to accept the possibility that one might become a respected expert upon Mozart without any formal education, while Mozart could not have become a talented composer under the same circumstances?

2. How do you explain the possibility of a group of largely unknown composers creating a body of music of unquestionable genius for not one... but at least two composers (Mozart and Haydn) each of which maintains a continuity of style? How do you explain that they composed nothing under their own names that nears the quality of this fraudulent work? How do you explain the absolute brilliance in creating a body of work which clearly exhibits the continual development of the individual composers? How do you explain why such effort and expense would have even been justified?

3. How do you explain the success of such a vast conspiracy which must have depended upon the participation of literally hundreds of individuals... anyone of whom might have slipped up and revealed the truth? Considering the fact that the composer of which we speak is one of the most studied in history, how do you explain that this vast fraud has not become public knowledge without resorting to the notion that there is still some great conspiracy at hand... or that music and Mozart studies are the one field of academia where rigorous research and alternative theories backed up with legitimate documentation are frowned upon?

{edit}

In the words of a famous american:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Anyone who was truly interested in the facts would do well to explore any number of the numerous biographies on Mozart written by respected historians and musicologists and not by an amateur who lies about his credentials and formal education and sleuths and slithers around on internet sites in search of proof of a grandiose conspiracy theory. One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Of course these respected authors may just all be deluded fools... or even part of the continuing conspiracy that encircles Mozart and keeps our esteemed "musicologist" from any recognition from within academia or the publishing world. :rolleyes:

Still, Robert, you are having difficulty understanding the "rules of engagement" in an academic dispute. You are the one who has made an outlandish statement that runs contrary to accepted truth. The burden of proof is completely your own. I have no need to prove the contrary. There are others far more capable than myself who have done so. The fact that you have repeatedly avoided answering any difficult question that might put the least dent into your outlandish theory... (and it is nothing but a theory... and one held only by yourself)... is enough to completely undermine all you have presented here. So I will give you one last chance. Answer any of the following, if you can:

1. You suggest that Mozart could not have composed any of the works attributed to him because of the lack of any formal music education. By the same logic, what exactly is your formal education in music and history? Or do you suggest that we are to accept the possibility that one might become a respected expert upon Mozart without any formal education, while Mozart could not have become a talented composer under the same circumstances?

2. How do you explain the possibility of a group of largely unknown composers creating a body of music of unquestionable genius for not one... but at least two composers (Mozart and Haydn) each of which maintains a continuity of style? How do you explain that they composed nothing under their own names that nears the quality of this fraudulent work? How do you explain the absolute brilliance in creating a body of work which clearly exhibits the continual development of the individual composers? How do you explain why such effort and expense would have even been justified?

3. How do you explain the success of such a vast conspiracy which must have depended upon the participation of literally hundreds of individuals... anyone of whom might have slipped up and revealed the truth? Considering the fact that the composer of which we speak is one of the most studied in history, how do you explain that this vast fraud has not become public knowledge without resorting to the notion that there is still some great conspiracy at hand... or that music and Mozart studies are the one field of academia where rigorous research and alternative theories backed up with legitimate documentation are frowned upon?

{edit}

---

//

Thank you StLukesuild,

I am of course very familiar with each and every one of the 10 books you have just listed by name. In fact (unlike you) I have actually read them - many times. I've done more than this. I've obtained and studied hundreds of others on the same subject. And that's not all. I've examined diaries, letters, unpublished manuscripts and anecdotes of musicians and writers on music of the late 18th and 19th centuries. You see how useless I am in changing light bulbs, repairing engines, and brain surgery and how honest I am being on this subject of Mozart ? So the good readers of the USA, of Europe and other places will not consume your fairy story nonsense. (They are still waiting, by the way, for your answer to the question of Mozart's musical education and 'his' works before the end of 1769). Unlike your goodself, I do not merely quote the titles of well known books which anyone can find in 2 minutes by google search engine, but am able to give you their contents. (We really must stop feeding the trolls !)

A tradition has existed in 'Mozart research' for almost 200 years of writers quoting someone who has quoted someone else, who has quoted someone else, and who has quoted someone else. Whose original source is false.This nonsense is called in the Mozart industry 'expertise' and it is well funded. A farmer knows more of musical history than those fools. So the propaganda bubble, once it has started to be blown by the tourist industry and by these myth makers, has grown and grown in size over the last 200 years, and has taken on more and more new and beautiful colours for the public's entertainment and 'education', giving credit to those who write on the Mozart myth and seeming to give give them 'expertise' merely by quoting (as others did before them) the names and quotes of those who have themselves quoted before a million times. This rubbish, whose employees love footnotes and who are described as 'experts' have, we see, nothing to offer on the subject now under discussion. As you yourself prove right here on this thread. We still wait for the 'expertise' quoted by you on the musical and other education of Mozart. And we still wait for a list from you of Mozart's musical works before 1769. It's so funny ! Perhaps you should retire from the field claiming injury, having 'defended' your point of view by saying nothing at all ! And it would be very typical. You can even say your 'experts' have educated you.

The 10 writers you have listed above are not all 'deluded fools'. Far from it. But the 10 titles you have listed (and which you have clearly never read, not even once in your entire life) include such liars as F.X. Niemetscheck, whose early Mozart 'biography' which was published first in 1797 in Prague, which was then destroyed, and which was finally published again the year after). It contains the input of Mozart's lying widow, Constanze. Read it please. That 'biography' begins with Niemetscheck's claim to have known and been close to Mozart. When, in fact, Niemetscheck never met Mozart in his whole lifetime ! Niemetsheck's lies (including his claim to have heard Mozart in public performance in Prague) are very typical of so-called early Mozart biographies. Since Niemetscheck never visited Prague once until after the death of Mozart ! Massively distorted, fabulous, fictional episodes of Mozart's supposed musical career are features of the Niemetscheck 'biography' you have here listed for us as proofs. But you do not know this, do you, StLukesguild ?

Please let me educate you on this one issue of F.X. Niemetscheck and his 'biography' of Mozart so that you will not stop wasting the time of readers here and your own.

The fastest way would be for you to visit the following forum for the truth of F.X. Niemtscheck, author of one of the 'expert' works you have just quoted above. Author of what is generally called the earliest Mozart 'biography', in fact. The following link takes you to an article on that subject of F.X.Niemetschek. Its author was the well known writer on musical history Walther Brauneis. So it's highly relevant. Why not read it ? And the article I wish you to read before you post again in 'defence of Mozart' is entitled -

“Franz Xaver Niemetschek: Is his Association with Mozart only Legend?”

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

Now, after reading this article (and I can give you 900 more articles if you really wish to be informed) do finally tell us about Mozart's musical education and his musical achievements up until the end of his 12th year. That is, until 1769. Since you have, so far, only confirmed here the fairy story that is W.A. Mozart's musical career. And you've listed 10 works you've never read nor once quoted from.

You will not thank me for telling you these facts. Not for some time. You prefer to describe as a 'troll' those who have studied this subject. Your 'education' forces you to do this. Because, here on this forum, you are showing how ignorant of this subject you are. As everyone can see. You have never once suspected you have been grossly misinformed. In fact, you boast of being 'educated'. Of having expert support. You even describe me as a troll ! Such is your total argument.

As for the other titles you have just quoted, I am more than happy to discuss them one by one. Further showing you are nothing but a lover of fiction who cannot see the wood for the trees. And it shows.

But let's start with the Mozart biography you have given in the above list - that of F.X. Niemetscheck. If this subject gets too hot for you, let us have some evidence from your other sources of the musical education of W.A. Mozart and his achievements up until 1769.Which we are all STILL waiting to hear about from similarly 'expert' sources.

Readers of this thread already see how difficult this subject is for you. They see how absurd your arguments really are. Why not take my advice and join a library ? Then you can begin to answer questions instead of accusing others of being trolls. Since I've been presenting answers to your questions from the start. And am still doing so. But you have done nothing except post a list of books you've never even read.

Try something new. Something really radical. Visit your local library and start reading.


Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

In the words of a famous american:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

---

You are so right. What is unpopular, unfashionable, and inconvenient, is often the most worthy of our appreciation.

So, yes, I completely agree. Please tell this to the dumbed-down consumers of the Mozart myth and to the Austrian tourist industry, the corporate music industry, and to those who manufacture images of Mozart in chocolate and in bronze for the adoring faithful. Mozart is the Fox News of the music industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Check out "The Comte de St. Germain" by Isabel Cooper-Oakley concerning "Myslivecek=Gluck=Comte de Saint Germain=Rousseau" and their relations to prince Lobkowitz (page 33 among others).

On same subject: Check out Tufano, Lucio (2006) Josef Mysliveček e l’esecuzione napoletana dell’Orfeo di Gluck (1774). Hudební věda, 43 (3). pp. 257-279. ISSN 0018-7003 (On Musli-vecek "manipulation, and execution of the score" of Gluck's 1762 piece)

Gluck's last Viennese opera was Paride ed Elena (3.11.1770 Wien B).
All his next works are staged in Paris, France.

Cheers.

---

Yes, Yanni, the manufacture of Mozart involved Gluck, Myslivecek and many others. You are completely correct. It also involved many, many others, including Vanhal and nearly 20 others such as Salieri, Luchesi, and others. I have said this early in my thread here. And, yes, Lobkowitz was one of the principal patrons of Mozart. (And his father before him). Both during his life and after Mozart's death in late 1791. This too has been refered to earlier here and in our exchanges. When the story is fully told I dare to say that your research and mine will be found to agree. And all the evidence agrees with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yes, Yanni, the manufacture of Mozart involved Gluck, Myslivecek and many others. You are completely correct. It also involved many, many others, including Vanhal and nearly 20 others such as Salieri, Luchesi, and others. I have said this early in my thread here. And, yes, Lobkowitz was one of the principal patrons of Mozart. (And his father before him). Both during his life and after Mozart's death in late 1791. This too has been refered to earlier here and in our exchanges. When the story is fully told I dare to say that your research and mine will be found to agree. And all the evidence agrees with this.

---

So, we are back to square 1 (actually my answer #2 to your post #1):

All know "everything" is an illusion, ie nobody is interested to simply learn that Mozart too "was manufactured" and your only chance to fame as an author is if you reveal the identity and intent of the "manufacturer".

Paraphrasing Mervyn King:

"Never in the field of musicology has so much truth been owed by so few to so many"

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

So, we are back to square 1 (actually my answer #2 to your post #1):

All know "everything" is an illusion, ie nobody is interested to simply learn that Mozart too "was manufactured" and your only chance to fame as an author is if you reveal the identity and intent of the "manufacturer".

Paraphrasing Mervyn King:

"Never in the field of musicology has so much truth been owed by so few to so many"

Cheers.

---

I have said from the beginning there are TWO parts to this situation. The first part is to realise that the story of Mozart is nonsense. The second is to know that something else is true. But you cannot appreciate the second part until first you appreciate the first.

The scientific method consists of first testing the 'consensus'. And testing the consensus is exactly what is happening here. In a small way. We are testing the consensus on such things as Mozart's musical education and on 'his' supposed musical achievements. So far, the results have been surprising. Nobody can produce the very 'evidence' they say is available in entire libraries of textbooks.

Now, this is not enough. Maybe they will produce them. But you see that so far nobody has. And this is for a reason. Judge it for yourself.

As for Part 1, I highly recommend that you read what I am writing on this subject. Which is still months away from completion. Because it's a very big subject. There are no 'off the shelf' answers. You will not, and cannot be convinced in short email posts. Part 2 is an attempt to explain what really happened, how, and to show that this version is far more consistent with the facts, with history, and with the documentary evidence.


Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I have said from the beginning there are TWO parts to this situation. The first part is to realise that the story of Mozart is nonsense. The second is to know that something else is true. But you cannot appreciate the second part until first you appreciate the first.

The scientific method consists of first testing the 'consensus'. And testing the consensus is exactly what is happening here. In a small way. We are testing the consensus on such things as Mozart's musical education and on 'his' supposed musical achievements. So far, the results have been surprising. Nobody can produce the very 'evidence' they say is available in entire libraries of textbooks.

Now, this is not enough. Maybe they will produce them. But you see that so far nobody has. And this is for a reason. Judge it for yourself.

As for Part 1, I highly recommend that you read what I am writing on this subject. Which is still months away from completion. Because it's a very big subject. There are no 'off the shelf' answers. You will not, and cannot be convinced in short email posts. Part 2 is an attempt to explain what really happened, how, and to show that this version is far more consistent with the facts, with history, and with the documentary evidence.


Thank You

---

Continuing on the "Mervyn King" parallel:

When the few owe "so much" (of anything) to the "so many" for so long, simpleminded admissions (or "scientific methods" intended to prove a minor part of "the story") that "the debt" exists, is not what the public (who has already reached their concensus and expects nothing else but an early settlement) asks for!

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Continuing on the "Mervyn King" parallel:

When the few owe "so much" (of anything) to the "so many" for so long, simpleminded admissions (or "scientific methods" intended to prove a minor part of "the story") that "the debt" exists, is not what the public (who has already reached their concensus and expects nothing else but an early settlement) asks for!

Cheers.

---

Yes, and since when was reality determined by a circular argument ? The scientific method is very well described right here in this statement -

Try this recent example - from 2 minutes 08 seconds until 6 minutes 40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yes, and since when was reality determined by a circular argument ? The scientific method is very well described right here in this statement -

Try this recent example - from 2 minutes 08 seconds until 6 minutes 40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

---

I never doubted your method(to focus on the "Mozart" detail while falsely accusing the wrong "manufacturer") Robert, I simply paralleled it to the circular arguments used by the majority of the "talking heads".

...and I never did install speakers so I cannot hear the contents of the suggested video above.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

I never doubted your method(to focus on the "Mozart" detail while falsely accusing the wrong "manufacturer") Robert, I simply paralleled it to the circular arguments used by the majority of the "talking heads".

...and I never did install speakers so I cannot hear the contents of the suggested video above.

Cheers.

---

Yanni,

The truth is the 'experts' have gone silent. They have no evidence to show the musical education of Mozart. Nor can they show us the music supposedly composed by Mozart up until 1769.

I've asked, over, and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

The truth is the 'experts' have gone silent. They have no evidence to show the musical education of Mozart. Nor can they show us the music supposedly composed by Mozart up until 1769.

I've asked, over, and over again.

---

But is this "....the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (as any UK judge would ask you thus establishing a priori you are lying).

BTW You never did tell me your expert italian friends views on my findings on Cocchi!

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

But is this "....the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (as any UK judge would ask you thus establishing a priori you are lying).

BTW You never did tell me your expert italian friends views on my findings on Cocchi!

Cheers!

---

You ask whether this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Of course it's not. We are still trying to see if the Mozart story is able to be defended by evidence of any kind or simply by popular belief. So far it's only defended by popular belief. As everyone can see. Maybe somebody will finally produce evidence of Mozart's musical education. Let's allow it to run. Maybe some reader will come to the rescue of the Mozart story. Maybe someone will finally present evidence of 'his' works composed before 1769. Because this is a test case. (We could choose from many other examples from his life and career but we have chosen this one. And you see what happens ? This Can you see any answer, so far ? They have no answer. Until the Mozart industry and its supporters present here some evidence in support of their views on these basic issues we can see debate has not even started. Which is very strange, don't you agree ?

If we were to examine the life, career and supposed musical achievements of Mozart you would be suprised to find out this is really typical.

So a castle is constructed on what seems to be solid ground. But no sooner do we search for its foundations than we find it's a castle in the air.

The academic study of Mozart (musically, historically, culturally) is riddled with similar contradictions, errors, exaggerations, falsehoods and fictions. So that these are really typical examples.

"We are still trying to see if the Mozart story is able to be defended by evidence of any kind or simply by popular belief."

"We", are not! It's just you, evidently reducing the subject to an absurd minimum to avoid the one and only issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

"We are still trying to see if the Mozart story is able to be defended by evidence of any kind or simply by popular belief."

"We", are not! It's just you, evidently reducing the subject to an absurd minimum to avoid the one and only issue.

---

Yanni,

Yes, it's absurd to ask for evidence. You believe it and are not waiting for any evidence because you believe it anyway, right, Yanni ?

:brickwall

The historical evidence clearly shows Voltaire and Rousseau were BOTH agents of occultist Venice. That the libertine network of Europe of which they were a part (out of which came the falsely named 'Englightenment' of the Encyclopaedists in France) were clowns of the fraternities including the Rosicrucians, the Freemansons, the cabalists, hedonists, gamblers, necromancers, alchemists, charlatans and others such as Cagliostro, Casanova, Lorenzo da Ponte and others (ultimately educated by and controlled by the Jesuits and by Rome) and which also supported the careers of Gluck, Rousseau and Voltaire etc. from the beginning. And Mozart was a later part of this. That aspect of European 'cultural history' (so-called) is known today as the 'Englightenment'. In fact it was all nonsense.

Mozart was a fraud in the same way that Voltaire and Rousseau were frauds. The 'Englightenment' (so-called) was nothing but the secularised face of a globalist empire formerly controlled by the Jesuit Order. There is no evidence of Mozart's musical education because he never had a musical education. It, like everything else about him, is an invention. A cultural fairy story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

Yes, it's absurd to ask for evidence. You believe it and are not waiting for any evidence because you believe it anyway, right, Yanni ?

:brickwall

The historical evidence clearly shows Voltaire and Rousseau were BOTH agents of occultist Venice. That the libertine network of Europe of which they were a part (out of which came the falsely named 'Englightenment' of the Encyclopaedists in France) were clowns of the fraternities including the Rosicrucians, the Freemansons, the cabalists, hedonists, gamblers, necromancers, alchemists, charlatans and others such as Cagliostro, Casanova, Lorenzo da Ponte and others (ultimately educated by and controlled by the Jesuits and by Rome) and which also supported the careers of Gluck, Rousseau and Voltaire etc. from the beginning. And Mozart was a later part of this. That aspect of European 'cultural history' (so-called) is known today as the 'Englightenment'. In fact it was all nonsense.

Mozart was a fraud in the same way that Voltaire and Rousseau were frauds. The 'Englightenment' (so-called) was nothing but the secularised face of a globalist empire formerly controlled by the Jesuit Order. There is no evidence of Mozart's musical education because he never had a musical education. It, like everything else about him, is an invention. A cultural fairy story.

---

Re "producing evidence", I have to agree with the majority's request asking you, the challenger of "conventional truth", to provide same (as I did -who never asked you for evidence btw-in all my threads on "the manufacturer" that remain still unchallenged!).

Your explanation of events leading to Mozart's manufacture is immature: You are centering the blame on the instruments instead of the conductor of an orchestra , you are condemning hands instead of their owners-perpetrators.
Thus, you use "historical evidence" while knowing full well that everything of relevance, not just Mozart, is "manufactured" and you blame all "occult, libertine, jesuit, venetian, Rosicrucians, Freemansons, cabalists, hedonists, gamblers, necromancers, alchemists, charlatans" instead of focusing on the top men (guiding such mindcontrolled "fraternities of idiots") and their private interests, leading them already at the time (and long before) to go against "convention"-ie "national" interests and "religious dogmas", if they ever existed as such!

Having lost many good hours on the subject "who is to blame?" (and many more after discovering my own blood relation to one of the leading performers, perhaps the top man), I have come to the conclusion that such is man's nature, unfortunately, to seek the easy road forward, to guide others wrong and/or conquer, thus serving his own interests, to exploit nature until depletion and destruction as if "Creation" itself is man's enemy.

Rousseau's "Social Contract" and Chastellux's "Essay on public happiness" started "it all" and, eversince, many little men, many little grocers, with little "know all" reformist brains, have brought us where we today stand, overproducing, overconsumming, overdestroying, overbankrupt, overarmed and ready as always to do still more damage to eachother and to what has been "God's" gift to us, "mother nature", whose "modus operandi" man still continues to misinterpret as his greedy ignorance sees fit!

The irony of it all:

While I do essentially agree with the author of….

“Pope Benedict is the man on the money.The best analysis yet of the global economic crisis tells how people, not just rules, must change” From The Times July 13, 2009http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6695104.ece

….on the rather urgent need (conveniently transferred to "people") to seek “God’s mercy” for "our” perpetual blundering "sins", I am also quite alarmed by the fact that he signs as “Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach is a trustee of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Trust and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International”.

Repentance was never meant to be "comfortable" by definition!

Cheers.

Yanni,

And the relevance of your last post to the supposed life and career of W.A. Mozart is ??????????????

Why not accept there is NO hard evidence that W.A. Mozart studied composition, harmony, orchestration during his childhood and youth ? Why not accept that 'his' works up to 1769 are not actually 'his'. Or is this too easy ?

You see how simple questions cause such confusion amongst dogmatists ?

If my question is 'immature' it should be simple for you to answer it. Readers here are still waiting for some evidence in support of the 'official' version of Mozart's musical education and 'his' early music. And guess what ?Nothing but silence. Instead of answers from 'expert' publications we have only your posts on issues that have nothing to do with these basic questions !

Let readers draw their own conclusions.