The Manufacture of Mozart

Hume to his brother John Home.

‘Lisle Street, March 22, 1766. Rousseau left me four days ago….
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27 (read through the letter exchange)

Grimm, Friedrich Melchior Autograph letter signed to [??]; Paris, 14 Mar 1766. 1s.(3p.) ........FAKE
http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~hou01430
15th March 1766 no 18 letter of Hennin to Bernandin de saint Pierre from Geneva....FAKE
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U...hl=el#PPA72,M1

Rousseau writes Hume his famous letter May 23rd (Early responses to Hume's life and reputation, Volume 1 By James Fieser,p145)

With the delicate quarrel Hume vs Rousseau(on Rousseau's music as basic reason-Fieser) ending the way it did (and the, impossible to decipher, cover up that followed by at least one side-as above) the most interesting conclusion deducted from my above post is the great "influence" exerted by "Rousseau" already in 1765 in Europe (London included) which leads us directly to his father(!), high ranking mason Antonio Cocchi who +1758:

Gioachino "Rossini-Rousseau" Cocchi somehow(!!) inherited his father's position.

BTW according to http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBo...e/raeLS14.html : Hume and Rousseau traveled ("returned" is a better term perhaps for "Rousseau") to England January 1766 which is the correct date (and not 1764 as previously mentioned-mea culpa)

(In answer to your "libertine" and earlier "charlattan" labels. I personaly avoid normaly easy conclusions!)

Yanni,

I agree with Samuel Johnson who said of Rousseau -

’I think him one of the worst of men; a rascal who ought to be hunted out of society, as he has been. Three or four nations have expelled him; and it is a shame that he is protected in this country…. Rousseau, Sir, is a very bad man. I would sooner sign a sentence for his transportation than that of any felon who has gone from the Old Bailey these many years. Yes, I should like to have him work in the plantations.”’

Boswell's 'Life of Johnson', ii. 11.

And why ? Because Rousseau, occultist, agent of the Jesuit/Venetian takeover of England through his paymaster, the East India Company, had just arrived in England from Paris with Scottish philosopher Hume to assist (like so many other artists, musicians, performers, writers, philosophers etc) in the continuing cultural takeover of the country already being achieved for decades in music, literature and the arts by attempted domination of publications and performances such as opera at the King's Threatre, and elsewhere. Rousseau's travelling colleague from 'Enlightenment' Paris, the philosopher Hume, one of the 3 noted philosophers of the emerging British Empire. (A British Empire that had of course been secretly created with the full assistance of the Venetians ever since the time of Henry 8th. Complete with founding the City of London and the Bank of England). The English 'Enlightenment' involved the cultural takeover of England using occultist fraternities that were being organised through leading members of the English aristocracy of that time. Cornelys, Gallini, Casanova, Rousseau, Voltaire and all the others were pawns in this process. The transformation of England in to the new craze of Venetian decadence. One of whose first products for the emerging middle classes of England was Freemasonry. Formulated from Venetian occultism by Venetians themselves in England and finally released in 1717 from London itself. And, later, virtual domination of the performing arts etc. A cultural crusade, in fact, of which Rousseau was definitely a part. Removing, in fact, any threat of any kind to the oligarchy that now ruled 'Enlightenment' England as a whole. Including even English talent. The composer Thomas Linley (1756-1778) is one such example. A scheme patronised by barons, prime ministers and other high ranking members of the English aristocracy.

This environment was the one that could and would defeat England where attempted military conquest had failed at the time of the Spanish Armada and was to fail again at the time of the Stuart rebellion of 1745. A cultural counter-reformation occurred, in fact. Out of which, finally, on the musical side, emerged the manufactured cult of Mozart.

(Johnson's suggestion that Rousseau should be sent to the plantations to work is a mocking allusion to Rousseau's notorious 'Social Contract', a book describing his ideas of the government he conceived of being useful for the enslavement of the future world - this modelled on the slave plantations of Jesuit Paraguay which he, Rousseau, is known to have greatly admired). And, to slave trading, opium trading, usury practicing barons in England, these ideas were welcomed within the British Empire itself.

Concerning 'Rousseau's' supposed system of musical notation (which he submitted to Paris in 1743) this really comes from Jean-Jacques Souhaitty, a 17th century French music theorist. Although his system (like various others of the time) appears not to have become popular, interest in it was briefly awakened through a dispute set off by musical writer Jean-Benjamin de La Borde (LaBordeE - 1783 ) who alleged that Jean-Jacques Rousseau (in his ‘Projet concernant de nouveaux signes pour la musique, lu par l’auteur à l’Académie des sciences, le 22 août 1742’) had plagiarized the ideas of Souhaitty in presenting the system as his own.

//

You are entitled of your opinion, of course, but if Boswell is your source, then:

Boswell returned to London in February 1766 accompanied by Rousseau's mistress, with whom he may have had a brief affair on the journey home.[3] After spending a few weeks in the capital, he returned to Scotland to take his final law exam. He passed the exam and became an advocate. He practised for over a decade, during which time he spent no more than a month every year with Johnson. Nevertheless, he returned to London annually to mingle with Johnson and the rest of the London literary crowd, and to escape his mundane existence in Scotland. He found enjoyment in playing the intellectual rhyming game crambo with his peers.

Some of his journal entries and letters from this period describe his amatory exploits. Thus, in 1767, in a letter to W.J.Temple, he wrote, "I got myself quite intoxicated, went to a Bawdy-house and past a whole night in the arms of a Whore. She indeed was a fine strong spirited Girl, a Whore worthy of Boswell if Boswell must have a whore"[4] A few years earlier, he wrote that during a night with an actress named Louisa "five times was I fairly lost in supreme rapture. Louisa was madly fond of me; she declared I was a prodigy and asked me if this was not extraordinary for human nature."[5] Though he sometimes used a condom for protection[6], he contracted venereal disease at least seventeen times[7]

by Wikipedia

So, try producing facts only re Mozart's relations to Cocchi-Rousseau if you please!

Yanni,

Boswell is not really my source. The source was of course Samuel Johnson himself. But of Boswell, we know very well he lived a very different life than Johnson himself. He attached himself to Johnson. Rather than vice-versa. Yes, Boswell had links with Rousseau (!) and on the subject of J.J. Rousseau it's very clear the two men had strongly different views. Isn't it ? Which begs the question of where Boswell's loyalties really were.

Rousseau's arrival in England (with Hume) from Paris caused Hume to lie about the date of his arrival. In fact, they both arrived together although Hume separates the dates by 3 days. This because, officially, people were not to know that Hume and Rousseau were close associates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

You are entitled of your opinion, of course, but if Boswell is your source, then:

Boswell returned to London in February 1766 accompanied by Rousseau's mistress, with whom he may have had a brief affair on the journey home.[3] After spending a few weeks in the capital, he returned to Scotland to take his final law exam. He passed the exam and became an advocate. He practised for over a decade, during which time he spent no more than a month every year with Johnson. Nevertheless, he returned to London annually to mingle with Johnson and the rest of the London literary crowd, and to escape his mundane existence in Scotland. He found enjoyment in playing the intellectual rhyming game crambo with his peers.

Some of his journal entries and letters from this period describe his amatory exploits. Thus, in 1767, in a letter to W.J.Temple, he wrote, "I got myself quite intoxicated, went to a Bawdy-house and past a whole night in the arms of a Whore. She indeed was a fine strong spirited Girl, a Whore worthy of Boswell if Boswell must have a whore"[4] A few years earlier, he wrote that during a night with an actress named Louisa "five times was I fairly lost in supreme rapture. Louisa was madly fond of me; she declared I was a prodigy and asked me if this was not extraordinary for human nature."[5] Though he sometimes used a condom for protection[6], he contracted venereal disease at least seventeen times[7]

by Wikipedia

So, try producing facts only re Mozart's relations to Cocchi-Rousseau if you please!

---

I take the liberty to publish my view on Cocchi, already emailed to you some time ago, for the benefit of other readers


Here is my overall theory and “Cocchi”.(~1720-1820).

Following the collapse of the Medici, “multi cultural”, enlightened”, neoclaccisist” and “bankers paradise ” Florence is no more independent but under Austrian rule. From earlier times even, the Holy Roman Emperor’s interest to promote romancatholicism did not coincide with the interests of France, with their large hugenot population, the more so after the seven year war, because of their sharing,with lutheran Prussia and French loving(!) greekorthodox Russia, their spoils from Austria (today’s Poland).
This new central European equilibrium, headed by France, cannot be romancatholic, more now than ever before, because of their long views (and established presence-and mainly the trade potential) “across the Atlantique”, something they can only do united (cannot risk another war between themselves leaving England, their common enemy, have the whole cake).
The Bourbons in Spain have already the South, the others, France (along with Malta,collapsing Venice, Genoa and other parts of Italy), already controlling the Mediterranean and the Baltic, are shooting for the North, so, together with Prussia,they prepare the ground for 1773-74: American Revolution.
From that point on until post Napoleon, Rome is at the mercy of France and their allies. Rome does not dictate policy but obeys. Defeated Austria must stay content with Marie Antoinette’s marriage to the throne of France.
(After American Independence).
The period 1784-1815 is, from research point of view, one of the darkest historically: The rise of mercantilism and the use of “modern sciences” makes merchantmen rightly believe in their new “promised land” of milk and honey that unites them all in profit. Bankers are upgraded, jews are accepted socially. A great Masonic convention, 1785 Wilhelmsbad , agrees to divide ‘their world” in 10 parts, including Russia.
Military humiliated by the rebels Britain is ruled by a sick King, France is ruled by a weak young King who has trouble consummating his marriage and is controlled by his courtiers, a network of shrewd politicians..
The war between France and England goes underground, the social changes, fabricated by French
encyclopedists partly as the “new system” to govern USA and partly to weaken their opponents, blow up on the face of France.

In common agreement with friends, associates and other members of his huge family(many across the Atlantique) the most important, most active and most exposed member of the clan controlling France, Gioachino Cocchi, having already burried his “Helvetius,Rousseau, Gluck, Saint Germain(the war minister), Chastellux, Graslin, Cochin” aliases, remains in control of things politically- as Raynal(Napoleon’s mentor), P.M.Hennin (almost succeeding De Vergennes as French foreign affairs minister)* -and underground fraternities (Ami Reunis, Nine Muses, Philalalethes, Strict Observance** as “Dixmerie, Strogonov, von Gleichen and Saint Germain the occultist)”until after the terror reigns in France and the royal family is decapitated. He then leaves France and settles in Russia where he is very active politically(under quite a few more “Russian” aliases) to his end, 1819 or 20.
Promoting the d’Orleans succession, he faithfully served “his” France to his last, regicide not excluded.
As chief architect of today’s “world”, he remained a well kept secret until 2005, when a senile greek decided to trace his roots online and find why his grandfather, a “very active” tenor (1870-1925) drank himself to death a very cold January in Saloniki.

* and "german" Grimm, historian

** The "Orthodox Scottish Rite of Strict Observance"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

Boswell is not really my source. The source was of course Samuel Johnson himself. But of Boswell, we know very well he lived a very different life than Johnson himself. He attached himself to Johnson. Rather than vice-versa. Yes, Boswell had links with Rousseau (!) and on the subject of J.J. Rousseau it's very clear the two men had strongly different views. Isn't it ? Which begs the question of where Boswell's loyalties really were.

Rousseau's arrival in England (with Hume) from Paris caused Hume to lie about the date of his arrival. In fact, they both arrived together although Hume separates the dates by 3 days. This because, officially, people were not to know that Hume and Rousseau were close associates.

---

Boswell "quoting Johnson" on Rousseau is your source and therefore as unreliable as everything else written on "Rousseau" so far (including his own fake "Confessions", used by most of his biographers-commentators as "source", LOL!)

Boswell propably "burries" Rousseau (with "Rousseau's" own accord, post 1778) while trying to raise Johnson to the level of another Goethe or perhaps Mozart etc, ie to give each "community" their national-cultural model. Problem is, Boswell lacks "grace" and, instead of achieving his goal on Johnson, he takes him down as well!

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Why do we believe as we do ? In the case of Mozart it's because nobody has ever examined and cross-examined the whole story. Till now.

---

you may examine, cross-examine or even penetrate into the whole story, but chances are nobody knows whether you have touched upon the reality or not. Evidence may lead to falsehood more likely than you wish. The hidden truth lay buried forever.
I love the film Amadeus, and I will consider Mozard in a way all people have considered him till now. It is rude to make a slanderous guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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.

---

Sorry I have to shed some light upon an undesirable fact, which might have escaped you for a long while indeed. You can read as much as you like, but you may not get closer to the reality by reading, investigating, or doing whatever you think may lead you to the truth. The amount of books you've read concerning this topic only indicates the strenuous effort you've made, but that's got nothing to do with the real Mozard. It is simply because you are not Mozard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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.

---

Then it is a real wonder that you know it is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

This nonsense is called in the Mozart industry 'expertise' and it is well funded. A farmer knows more of musical history than those fools.

---

Obviously you've read more books on this topic than a mere farmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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.

---

To say nothing is the best policy for a subject, which all people can only fuss around wild guesses they've made by investigating into the distant past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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 !

---

You can never know whether Niemetscheck has ever seen Mozard or not because you're not him. The fact may have escaped the eye of the keenest spy in his time. How can you know anything about it? Sorry, but your tone sounds so funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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.

---

What? You want to educate people with mere guesses? Perhaps Niemetscheck may want to jump out of his grave and educate you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Readers of this thread already see how difficult this subject is for you. They see how absurd your arguments really are.

---

Many readers will enjoy your humor, in making exaggerations about something pretty much in the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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

---

Do I have a bad memory? You just told us that people quoted and requoted about things that are fake? How you know your library won't deceive you?

Virginiawang,

Thank you for volunteering to help us in our quest to know what is true and what is a fairy story on the life, career and musical reputation of the great icon that is Mozart. Because we live on our cultural island. An island like Easter Island. And, towering over us are idols. One of which, culturally, is Mozart. But nobody can tell us anything about the facts surrounding his mythical reputation. Which, we are told, are contained in textbooks and in manuscripts. So we want to see them.

I don't know if you've actually read this thread but we have spent weeks trying to find out from 'Mozart research' the answer to the basic question of where W.A. Mozart studied music (harmony, orchestration, etc) as a child and as a youth, during which time (according to legend) he managed to write hundreds of symphonies, concertos, masses, operas, sonatas, trios and other marvels of musical art. Maybe he studied this on his coach trips. You know ? While bumbing around the roads of Europe. Or in between his 'genius' activities as a performer. Maybe you can help us with this basic question on his musical education and can tell us his teacher and where he actually studied music and for how long ? This is just a gentle question from thousands that exist on this towering icon of western musical culture. We will be very grateful if you can help us since none of the 10 published sources cited above say anything about it. Please show us differently if you can. And we will be forever grateful.

But, more importantly, musicology (unlike soap operas and their stories) is a science. This means it accepts and even welcomes criticism of its teachings. But the history of 'Mozart research' consists solely of presenting and re-presenting dogmas and gross exaggerations on this character, Mozart, which allow little if any criticism. The musical 'education' of Mozart is only one such case. And it shows.

Please dig deep in to your sources and provide some evidence for what is popularly taught and believed on him and his 'genius' career. You will find, after your detailed studies, that the small number of criticisms given here on the 'genius of Salzburg' are fair, honest and accurate. That these criticisms are contradicted only by the well known fairy story of Mozart, sponsored by and pumped out by the Mozart industry and recording industry over the past 200 years, by the tourist industry, and by dogmatists who control and have controlled in all that time the teaching and learning of music history (so-called). Since the facts of musical history are strangely alien to the pilgrims and devotees of 'Mozart studies' (so-called). And always have been. So we want to pin them down to some basic questions, such as these.

All we want to see is some of the 'evidence'. Not much to ask for, is it ? Maybe you've been hiding it from us ?

There is a story of 5 year old child who could fly Jumbo jets from Chicago to Washington. His father told us that he was born with this gift. And who are we to doubt it ? And another child who could do brain surgery. And still another who could design suspension bridges before he went to school. The sort of things which we credit to Mozart, in fact.

Regards

Don't fight it, Robert, Dennis Pajot's study "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas" leaves little doubt that Mozart, age 8, could compose and adapt music for both piano and violin (and harpsichord) before learning to write his own name!

...and don't forget to tell your readers who were included in Mozart's long list of contacts in London. (For Paris and Versailles, 1764 and 1766, don't bother, they are irrelevant!)

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Don't fight it, Robert, Dennis Pajot's study "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas" leaves little doubt that Mozart, age 8, could compose and adapt music for both piano and violin (and harpsichord) before learning to write his own name!

...and don't forget to tell your readers who were included in Mozart's long list of contacts in London. (For Paris and Versailles, 1764 and 1766, don't bother, they are irrelevant!)

Cheers

---

Yes Yanni,

We all know Mozart was composing a piano concerto while he was still in the womb of his mother. And an opera before he could walk. The only problem is these early manuscripts of W.A. Mozart are literally riddled with the handwriting of his father, his older sister (Nannerl) and in many cases where the musical handwriting is actually his it is filled with crude musical errors.

This situation had definitely not improved by the time he reaches the age of 14. At which time he has been sent to Italy. By whom ? By the Prince Archishop of Salzburg at that time. Whose name was Firmian. The letter from Salzburg to Bologna's music director, Padre Martini, is very revealing. It says that Wolfgang has 'learned nothing' of music. So that he is being sent to Italy to learn the basics.

Needless to say, this letter appears in no biography. And nor does any detailed study of 'Mozart's' music up until this time.

On 9th October 1770 (almost 15 years old) Mozart, in Bologna for a day at the time takes an admission test for the Bologna Accademia dei Filarmonici, a prestigious musical institute in Italy. The test Mozart was set to solve there was to compose a 4-part piece on an anonymous piece of church music, a gregorian antiphon, 'Quaerite Primum Regnum Dei' : "Seek ye first the kingdom of God". The results of this test, which lasted 3 hours, were disastrous. In fact, they were musically so bad the test question was altered. And the 14 year old boy was given a second chance with an easier example. One which, eventually, Martini provides TO Mozart himself ! And it gets worse. Since this second 'test' is far more simple than the first. So W.A. Mozart sets to work for a second time. And even here, in his second exam, the results are very poor.

Those who have studied this subject (including experts in 18th century music such as Professors Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta, this over the past few years) have also found the administrator's remarks of that 'exam'. Which says that in spite of all the help provided to Mozart (with the answers virtually given to him on a plate) the panel of musicians were NOT unanimous in giving him a pass. In fact, the second exam paper is also filled with basic errors.

But no problem ! The second version of the test is the one you will see in biographies. From the highly sympathetic Padre Martini of Bologna.

Where does this 'road show' finally end ? The answer is that it never does. It continues back in Austria. Where Mozart had already been laughed out of Vienna in 1768 (2 years earlier) for trying to defraud the Emperor that he, Wolfgang had written an opera). A shameful incident which led to the opera being cancelled. (Whose name was 'La finta semplice').

And still the fictions continued. They continued up to the time when, in 1781 he begins to live in Vienna. At which time 'his' first Vienna opera, 'The Abduction from the Seraglio' is exposed as a fraud by a music writer of the time, Count Zinzendorf. And this fraudulent career continues, despite hype surrounding his fabled career in the press of that time. It continues further to him producing a version of Figaro in 1786 which was nothing more than an an arrangement of music written by others. And it continues with his mythical composition of hundreds of 'masterpieces' by him. Virtually all of which were published for the first time long after his death. This comedy of errors and exaggerations ends with the 'Requiem'. A work which, even by 1825, was exposed as having been written by a series of other composers.

But the legend has not even started yet. The music publishers, the patrons, and a series of fraternal writers now started to pump up the fairy story even more. The result ? By the early 19th century this wholesale fraud was now 'music history' and the true origins of this music was buried, concealed, fabricated. So that the iconic status of the 'genius of Salzburg' was created. And the legend of Mozart, 'musical superman' was born.

Fortunately facts matter. Detailed study of manuscripts, journal articles, letters and publications makes it possible (with difficulty) to slowly challenge the myth.

Now, you would expect this sort of criticism to be already happening in 'Mozart studies', wouldn't you ?

The short answer is this. The music industry is one thing. And musicology is another.

You may ask how we can prove Mozart did not compose, say, the 10 operas of his last decade (1781-91) or how he did not compose the 27 piano concertos or, say, the last dozen symphonies etc.

The answers in each case take time and I hope people take the time to read the final story. But the short answer is simple. Mozart's career was manufactured and so is the legend of his musical abilities.

My confidence on the science of musicology is growing as of late:

Quoting from Mr Pajot's article on "K449 Piano Concerto in Eb"

Mozart's autograph of this Concerto reads "Di Wolfgango Amadeo Mozart per la Sigre Barbara de Ployer Viena il 9 di Febro 1784". It is also the first entry in Mozart's thematic catalogue, dated again February 9, 1784. On February 20, 1784 Wolfgang wrote to his father: "The concerto [in Eb] you may have copied. Remember, do not show it to a single soul, for I composed it for Fräulein Ployer, who paid me handsomely..".

........

Now enter another interesting tidbit on the Concerto. In a recent article by Gerhard Croll in Essays in Honor of Laszlo Somfai we are informed of a theme similarity between the beginning of the 2nd movement of K449 and the beginning of the aria "Oggi Amor fra lacci miel" from Christoph Wiliblad Gluck's opera Tetide. Croll gives us the first 8 measures of both compositions and the similarity is striking. As Wolfgang Plath told Croll, "a simple coincidence is out of the question". For a detailed account the article should be read.

Gluck's "serenata" was written on the occasion of Crown Prince Joseph's first marriage and the only staged performances we know are on October 10 and 15, 1760. A concert performance is documented on February 8, 1761. Croll states it is unlikely any more performances ever took place.

How Mozart would have come across this Aria can only be speculated at. Again, a reading of Croll's article will give his "guesswork", as he admits it is. What we do know is that Mozart visited Gluck in his home in August of 1782 and March of 1783. The influence of Gluck on Mozart has been stated many times in the literature, and we know Mozart used a Gluck theme for the variations K455, as well as for the Andantino for Piano K236. The Gluck influence may be stronger than previously thought

With "Gluck" being the same man as "Grimm" (who, according to Pajot's "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas", introduced the Mozarts to the Luis XV court and somehow "assisted" Wolfgang in engraving his outofnowhere first masterpieces and also wrote himself the wunderkind's greeting cards to members of the french royal family), "Rousseau", "Rossini the first", ie Gioachino Cocchi, the "provenance of Mozart's music" problem is, or rather will soon be, solved*, bearing in mind "Gluck's" other personalities and their duties pre and post his alleged 1787 death in Vienna.

*Gluck to padre Martini, 26th October 1773:
This is assuredly a bold undertaking and there will be serious obstacles, for we must face up to national prejudices against which reason is of no avail.

(Robert: Your contribution to this thread will be the more precious once you provide us with answers on Cocchi's biography, unpublished details on his London presence and the Mozarts "long -long list of contacts" while in London 1764-65.
Alternatively:
Please advise details (name of theater, actors etc) on Mysliveček's Orfeo ed Euridice performance "wieder in Italien, wo er noch einmal Mozart traf. Am 4. November 1773 leitete er die Aufführung von Orfeo ed Euridice von Christoph Willibald Gluck."-Wikipedia)

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

But nobody can tell us anything about the facts surrounding his mythical reputation.

---

This sentence speaks the true wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I don't know if you've actually read this thread but we have spent weeks trying to find out from 'Mozart research' the answer to the basic question of where W.A. Mozart studied music (harmony, orchestration, etc) as a child and as a youth, during which time (according to legend) he managed to write hundreds of symphonies, concertos, masses, operas, sonatas, trios and other marvels of musical art. Maybe he studied this on his coach trips. You know ? While bumbing around the roads of Europe. Or in between his 'genius' activities as a performer. Maybe you can help us with this basic question on his musical education and can tell us his teacher and where he actually studied music and for how long ? This is just a gentle question from thousands that exist on this towering icon of western musical culture. We will be very grateful if you can help us since none of the 10 published sources cited above say anything about it. Please show us differently if you can. And we will be forever grateful.

---

There have been too many wonders in the world that may shock unprepared people into idiocy at any moment of their lives. For example, you asked me where did Mozard study music. How can I tell? I can wagger that you can cannot tell either because we are both not Mozard. Even his own father could not tell at which particular moment an inspiration of miraculous melody dawned upon him. Some people don't need to attend schools to acquire an ability or a skill. Schools are tangible structures you see with your eyes that make you believe as the only way towards capabilitities. I wonder if you only believe what you can see with your eyes, why did you dig into the distant past to rummage for something you cannot even see with a telescope?

Too many possibilities might have occurred that led you to the strong beliefs you've held for such a long time. Let me jot down a few of them. Mozard might have studied with a teacher in a subterranean room beyond the knowledge of even his own father for whatever reasons nobody knows, and he might have quit the study for some time to nourish his feelings for music after learning for a while. It is also likely that a stone that tripped up his carriage when he was on his way to Europe stirred up his inner surge of emotions which guided him to write the fantastic operas that the world knew. Perhaps the fact that he once went to Europe was a fake story. Who knows?
I can give you thousands of answers to your question if you like, and you can also give a million different answers to it yourself. If you think you've read more than I did on Mozard, I am ready to consent, but that didn't lead you closer to reality, which has gone already. Nobody can touch a trace of it.

I do wonder at your confidence in this subject. If you believe what you've read so far is nothing but falsehood because you think you know more, how do you know that nobody has delved deeper into Mozard than you've done so far? Perhaps Mozard couldn't have given you a definite answer as to where and how he learned music, if he had been given such a question. Some people don't really know how they've been endowed with great facilities in a particular art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

But the history of 'Mozart research' consists solely of presenting and re-presenting dogmas and gross exaggerations on this character, Mozart, which allow little if any criticism. The musical 'education' of Mozart is only one such case. And it shows.

Please dig deep in to your sources and provide some evidence for what is popularly taught and believed on him and his 'genius' career. You will find, after your detailed studies, that the small number of criticisms given here on the 'genius of Salzburg' are fair, honest and accurate.

---

It seems that you've contradicted yourself. If all the materials I can find laud Mozard more than you like, how can I get evidence against it?
Sorry, I think the word, criticism, you used is not appropriate. A better one will be, doubts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

All we want to see is some of the 'evidence'. Not much to ask for, is it ? Maybe you've been hiding it from us ?

---

As far as I know, evidence does not not indicate anything. People can get a great deal of evidence that point to a fabricated event. The reality of Mozard has already gone, high above into the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

There is a story of 5 year old child who could fly Jumbo jets from Chicago to Washington. His father told us that he was born with this gift. And who are we to doubt it ? And another child who could do brain surgery. And still another who could design suspension bridges before he went to school. The sort of things which we credit to Mozart, in fact.

---

You only want to believe those you can see with your eyes, reason with your head, but the problem is your head cannot contain everything.

Virginiawang,

Why are we surprised your post contains no evidence to support the colossal career status of the 'Salzburg genius' ? Maybe I should take up truck driving or making burgers but I've always been told the hard evidence of Mozart's musical achievements and the scale of evidence in support of him composing them is huge - existing in a mass of documentary evidence (which we can find in great libraries and archives) and is actually said to be larger than that of virtually any other composer in musical history. With tens of thousands of family and personal letters, hundreds of musical manuscripts, anecdotes, testimonies, biographies, journal articles and almost 200 years of specialist research. Here, surely, if we read these documents and study them closely is proof beyond reasonable doubt that we are not believing a fairy story. That Mozart is really one of the most well documented miracles in music history - or so we believe. Why, even J.S. Bach was virtually unknown. Even to the Viennese more than half a century after his death ! But Mozart was the pride of Europe. Paraded around Europe for no less than 7 years. Surely, surely, his musical legend 'must' be true. Right ?

It is the equivalent of seeing a mountain on the horizon and arguing that no such mountain exists. And yet, when we examine it closely, we find it to be a mirage.

You might ask how it's possible that, for example, 'his' 10 great operas of his last decade are not by him. -

Idomeneo
Abduction from the Seraglio
L'Oca del Cairo
Lo Sposo Deluso
The Impresario
Le Nozze di Figaro
Don Giovanni
Cosi Fan Tutte
The Magic Flute
La Clemenza di Tito

'Surely', you will say, 'only a man who has studied too much could argue like this'. And what of the hundreds of other works ?

But let me put forward something for you to consider. Imagine the Mozart story as a sort of bubble. One that was blown from an early age. A fascinating bubble, for sure. One that expands as time passes. Aided and abetted by his patrons, his publishers, his propagandists, his music publishers, his early biographers, his fraternity friends, his family etc etc. As improbable as this may seem, I'd like you to consider it. After all, what is the 'probability' of the genius of Mozart ? It is the same as the probability that it's an elaborate hoax. So, if you will, start with a clean slate. Consider these things fairly.

And how is this to be done ? One of the best ways is to examine Mozart in a sort of heretical way. Studying him within the context of his own time. That is, outside of the 'industry', if you will. Let me give you a few names of opera composers of around that time -

Josef Myslivececk, Fabrizi, Anfossi, Cimarosa, Alessandri, Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Bianchi, Paisiello, Pittichio, Martin Y Soler, Salieri, (to name just a few). Consider next a famous and earlier composer such as Pergolesi (1710-36) whose 300 works are, today, reduced to less than 30 because of massive falsification of his career by propagandists, publishers, writers on music history etc. There's a precedent for us to be aware of ! In short, Mozart is examined in an objective manner. With proper attention given to the musical world of his own time. So that things like letters of his intimate circle are closely examined with a questioning mind and their contents are compared with other evidence. Does that sound fair to you ? And yet it's radical to look at it that way. The truth is the average Mozartean knows virtually nothing of the music and musicians of those times. And it shows.

The Mozart story is certainly amazing. It's not unique. But it's very, very unusual. But the answer to it is equally amazing. (If someone had asked me 15 years ago whether I would ever spend years and years on that one subject I would have laughed).

Anyway, thank you for holding your views. They are shared by thousands and thousands of talented researchers and teachers.

Here's a short track by the virtually unknown Cartellieri -

Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772 - 1807
Flute Concerto in G Major
3rd Movement

http://www.mediafire.com/?vznzct1htmm

I mention Cartellieri to illustrate a point. Cartellieri first appeared in Vienna at exactly the same concert as the newly arrived Beethoven. His works performed there included a great symphony. He was, for a number of years as well known as Beethoven himself. But Cartellieri was to spend the remaining years of his life in service to a patron in Bohemia. Doing what ? Helping with the still unpublished operas of 'Mozart'. (One of many musicians who did so). Having also helped Beethoven. Working in Bohemia with others in advance of eventual publication of 'Mozart's' operas. Since, in fact, not a single opera of 'Mozart' was published in his lifetime. They all appeared posthumously. Some many years after his death. And, of Cartellieri's works (some of which are extremely fine music), virtually none are known today.

Anyway, thanks again -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Don't fight it, Robert, Dennis Pajot's study "K006 - K009: Mozart's Op.I and Op.II Piano/Violin Sonatas" leaves little doubt that Mozart, age 8, could compose and adapt music for both piano and violin (and harpsichord) before learning to write his own name!

...and don't forget to tell your readers who were included in Mozart's long list of contacts in London. (For Paris and Versailles, 1764 and 1766, don't bother, they are irrelevant!)

Cheers

---

Yes Yanni,

Dennis Pajot is one of those very good researchers who tells what he finds. In recent years he has written lots of excellent things on this music of 'Mozart'. I've always found him to be a very good source of interesting material. Pajot does not move out of the generally held view. But he has discovered many, many interesting paradoxes and contradictions. One of the few researchers of real integrity on these things.

As for the list of contacts Mozart had in London I will post shortly. I'm sure you will find it interesting. In fact, one of the best sources is as follows - the travel diary of Leopold Mozart -

http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+...isten,+Musiker

And other excellent Cocchi material here -

http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=cocchi&k=Bibliothek

And, of London/Mozart/Cocchi etc. (starting from page 12 to 17 etc). Cocchi appears here in these London pages.

http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+...+33+-+Tafel+12

Regards

Have researched in the past www.zeno: The only reference there to Maestro Cocchi by Leopold Mozart is on Seite 35 - Tafel 14 propably at Cornelys, no date noted.

Of great interest the theater where Myslicevek staged his (Gluck's) Orfeo ed Euridice, November 4th, 1773. Try locating it, if you please.

Wish you a good weekend!

True. The only reference to Cocchi there is on Tafel 14. But if you examine closely this list of Leopold Mozart's London contacts and their careers we see further the vast scale of organisation that must have existed even before their arrival. Part of the further 'Englightenment' (or what some would call 'counter-reformation') or others would call the transformation of the British and European musical scene by cultural oligarchs and patrons who began to dominate the musical scene of Europe through Venice and Rome. Using Paris as a base at this time. We see this very clearly in the development of opera in London at the King's Theatre and elsewhere.

You may be interested in knowing of a remarkable book - which I recommend strongly.

‘’The Impresario’s 10 Commandments’’ - By Curtis Alexander Price, Judith Milhous, Robert D. Hume. Which is described by its publishers (rightly) as -

The extraordinary correspondence between impresario Felice Giardini and his friend Gabriele Leone lies at the centre of this study of Italian opera in London in the eighteenth century. Hired by Giardini in 1763 to engage Italian performers for a season of opera and ballet at The King's Theatre, Leone was sued by the impresario when the performers he had recruited proved to be second rate. His response was to publish the letters and instructions that Giardini had sent to him, which feature the impresario's ten commandments for the novice foreign opera agent. These letters are transcribed and translated in this volume. As the authors reveal, the documents provide a vivid and detailed source of information about the world of eighteenth-century Italian opera, both in London and in Italy.

This massive crusade of musical, operatic and artistic culture on London, which involved recruiting singers, opera managers, composers etc.from Italy, Germany and elsewhere and virtually taking over the theatrical life of England from the time of Handel onwards was evidence of England, culturally, being already in the hands of Venetian bankers and merchants. And that's the true context of musical development there and elsewhere in contintental Europe during the mid to late 18th century.

You ask me to search for the venue of Myslivececk's opera, 'Ofeo ed Euridice' of November 1773.

Before trying to answer your question I might point out that 6 symphonies of Josef Myslivececk were published in London in the 1760's. Here is a track from one of these, and you will note the familiar, youthful 'Mozartean' style. Very attractive music, yes ? The patron of the Bohemian Josef Myslivececk at this time in Italy was Earl Cowper of Florence. A vitally important figure, in fact, in the development and patronage of opera during much of 'Mozart's' career. Especially in London. From Italy and France Cowper was one of the great figures behind the scenes of musical developments in Europe. In fact, one of the most vital figures to study. He later became a baron of the Holy Roman Empire.

I will try to answer you on the venue of that 1773 opera later today. In the meantime -

Josef Myslivececk (1737-81)
Symphony in C Major
1st Movement
F26
c. 1761/2

This, while Mozart was less than 5 years old !

http://www.mediafire.com/?zymmzuyjt2m

Rgds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Have researched in the past www.zeno: The only reference there to Maestro Cocchi by Leopold Mozart is on Seite 35 - Tafel 14 propably at Cornelys, no date noted.

Of great interest the theater where Myslicevek staged his (Gluck's) Orfeo ed Euridice, November 4th, 1773. Try locating it, if you please.

Wish you a good weekend!

---

In answer to your question, you are of course refering to the 1773 performance of 'Orfeo' which was attributed to Gluck at the King's Theatre in London. An excellent subject !

Indeed, the advertising page for that London production survives for this mysterious work which is described there as -

'Altered as it was originally performed at Vienna. The music composed by Signor Gluch. With new dances adapted to the Opera, intermixed with Grand Choruses'.

This strange production has certainly caused many headaches over the years. First, because it was supposedly premiered in Vienna in 1762. It was advertised in London newspapers and on playbills for prouduction at the King's Theatre during March of 1773. First performed on 9th March there that year. And further performances given there in May. One researcher says it was performed in London as early as 1770.

But how is this linked to Myslivececk who was in Italy at this time. His operas that year were as follows -

'Il Demetrio' – Metastasio – May 1773
'Romolo ed Eruilia' – Metastasio – Naples – August 1773
'Antigona' – Turin – Dec 1773

That Gluck's career was massively falsified is easily proved. But I see no obvious link here between this King's Theatre production and Josef Myslivececk. Except the fact that Gluck's career in Paris is closely associated with the same people who controlled Cocchi, Mozart and Myslivececk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

You ask me to search for the venue of Myslivececk's opera, 'Ofeo ed Euridice' of November 1773.

Before trying to answer your question I might point out that 6 symphonies of Josef Myslivececk were published in London in the 1760's. Here is a track from one of these, and you will note the familiar, youthful 'Mozartean' style. Very attractive music, yes ? The patron of the Bohemian Josef Myslivececk at this time in Italy was Earl Cowper of Florence. A vitally important figure, in fact, in the development and patronage of opera during much of 'Mozart's' career. Especially in London. From Italy and France Cowper was one of the great figures behind the scenes of musical developments in Europe. In fact, one of the most vital figures to study. He later became a baron of the Holy Roman Empire.

I will try to answer you on the venue of that 1773 opera later today. In the meantime -

Rgds

---

Lacking both interest on classical music and loudspeakers for my computer too, I cannot really appreciate “Myslivecek’s” youthfull style, paralleled undoubtably to “Gluck’s” own, “Rousseau” and Cocchi’s as well (btw I already edited a previous comment on one only Cocchi music manuscript in existence in London, there are many more, nine in the British Library alone) as all these “maestri” were one and the same (unless Cocchi had a twin brother, hence my question on 1773 “Orfeo ed Euridice” by “Myslivecek”).

Lord Cowper’s Florence links (1760 to 1789) as well as his titles by Bavaria in 1777 and Austria (Joseph II) 1778 are indicatory of his links to the “English lodge” in Florence and as such to its head, “first Italian mason” Antonio Cocchi, or rather his “heir”, Gioachino Cocchi. His patronage of “Myslivecek” and the latters publishing of six symphonies in London in the 1760's (while Cocchi is managing
Haymarket Theater and later hosting the Mozarts) is a further indication of the multiple identities of G.Cocchi.

Cowper’s own lifelong patronage by King George III alongside the Regent’s (later George IV) first ever “royal grand entry” to a Masonic Lodge have certainly be already explained historically, one way or another (myself included, in this here forum) and as such I will not be drawn in discussing the remaining part of your “view of things” other than to say that “Enlightment” originated in Florence, music included, whereas the roots of Masonry are still highly disputed and, higher still, controversial.

Of note that Myslivecek is not mentioned in …

…Le Delizie dell'Opere. Being a Collection of all the Favourite Songs in Score, collected from the Operas compos'd by Bach, Perez, Cocchi, Ciampi, Jomelli, Giardini, Galuppi, Vinci, Pergolesi, Leo, Lampugnani, Terradellas, Hasse, Porpora, C. St Germain, Pescetti, Veracini, Bononcini
ISBN: B0000CV06Q / Unknown Binding
Publisher: Printed for I. Walsh / 1776
http://www.bookfinder4u.co.uk/book_...2/D_Cocchi.html

…whereas Cocchi appears, first time ever, alongside “C.St Germain”, his alias (who, following the declaration of independence of USA in July which he allegedly attended, gets married (to my swiss ggggmother no less) assumes the name count Welldone for a while, goes to Dresden, while serving as war minister of France (27 October 1775 -27 September 1777-but already disgraced in May 77).

So, lets stick to music only!

Will answer your next post next.