My congrats for the royal wedding, Robert, along with best wishes, longevity etc.
In the Westminster abbey, no less, where babylonian Haydn enjoyed babylonian Handelbach's commemoration, 220 years ago.
Printable View
My congrats for the royal wedding, Robert, along with best wishes, longevity etc.
In the Westminster abbey, no less, where babylonian Haydn enjoyed babylonian Handelbach's commemoration, 220 years ago.
Patrick,
Is this the best you can do ?
An un-named source ? That's poor stuff, isn't it ?
For your information and education, Mozart in late 1780/early 1781 was NOT 'on tour' in Munich. Nor was he representing Salzburg. He had been there in Munich for several months already (arriving there during the winter of 1780 with no music ready for rehearsal) before he was given a further 6 weeks stay there in early 1781. The disastrous preparations and premiere of that opera 'Idomeneo' is clearly a subject you have never examined. Furthermore, the commission to write 'Idomeneo' (whose music is not actually by Mozart) did not come from Salzburg. And Mozart was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in Munich at any time. Nor was he, as said, on tour. Nor did he perform in Munich. He was, yet again, being granted permission to have a giant stay away from Salzburg and never once claimed to be 'representing' Salzburg. Nor did anyone else say differently at any time. Nor was he ever paid for 'composing' that opera (Idomeneo). Because, in truth, he never composed it.
He was still on the staff of the Salzburg Hofkapelle. As was his father. But he was certainly not 'representing' them. There is not a shred of evidence he was in Munich representing Salzburg. Nor any from any of his many musical tours that he was 'representing' the Salzburg Hofkapelle. He was of course representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who wanted to make him an iconic composer. And who did so. Several months after this opera fiasco in Munich he came to Vienna. After a few weeks of which he (officially) became a freelance composer. Having never, at any time till then, represented in any capacity whatsoever the musical court of Salzburg. If you can show us differently, please do so. Nor did W.A. Mozart, during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood, give a single concert in Salzburg. He was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in any sense. He was, as said, from the time of his childhood onwards until the day of his death representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who manufactured his career.
If, however, you can show us differently, please do. With some evidence. The entire touring career of Mozart has NOTHING to do with him 'representing' Salzburg. Indeed, nobody in Salzburg knew what all the fuss was about. The boy had never studied anything and had spent zero time at school. He was 'representing' only the fairy story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
Are you a complete ****tard??Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I am not specifically talking about him formally representing Salzburg and trying to win the town and Prince Bishop prestige. He was a court musician from Salzburg. Everything he did, every note he played, every commission he fulfilled was a reflection on Salzburg.
To say Idomeneo was a disaster is preposterous. Yes it only endured 3 performances that year but there is no shred of evidence that speaks of it being a great success or an epic failure.
We can only discern how it was received from a scarce few documents that offer some subjective opinions of contemporaries (mainly those involved in the production) On the whole the opera was praised and any serious criticism was likely due to the strange and new styles of music within the opera.
The singers found it to contain some of the most beautiful music they ever heard.
You still haven't addressed my evidence of Wolfgang's representing bishop and Salzaburg in Vienna at Colloredo's behest.
And the only evidence you provide is your dogmatic tone.
You have shown nothing to corroborate your charming little fiction
Thank you Yanni,
I am not a royal watcher myself. But, speaking of auspicious weddings -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oldsmiths.html
How touching !!
(This one got far less news coverage). The bloodlines are in full production in Babylonia !!
'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories'. (GWB)
Patrick,Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Thank you for your highly intelligent post.
And you are going to provide us with a bill board, an advertisement, an example, a proof (just one) of W.A. Mozart 'representing' Salzburg, aren't you ? From any time in his entire career. We are still waiting for even one piece of evidence. We have already abandoned his childhood and youth because that produces zero evidence. So much for the real purpose of 7 years of childhood touring, if the reason was to bring credit to Salzburg !!! (Silence - Commerical Break). There must surely be lots of such proofs from 1773 onwards, right ? Pity we can't find a single example also, isn't it ? Not one.
'Idomeneo' (1781) and aged 25 was a total disaster. It was a farce. For example, Mozart was never paid for 'composing' it (unless, of course, you have some evidence otherwise). Nor have you read local newspaper reports of it being staged there from the time. The records of who was paid what in the months leading up to this farce still exist today in Munich. Why not read them ? There is however no record of W.A. Mozart being paid to compose that opera in Munich in those records. Unless, of course, you can show us differently. All very strange, isn't it ?
The Archbishops of Salzburg (and there were several) colluded in this fairy story of a manufactured Salzburg musical genius. It was very Babylonian. They allowed his father and himself (and his sister also) years of paid absence from Salzburg with neither of those children ever having learned composition, music theory, performance on keyboard or even an ordinary education during their entire life in Salzburg. Strange also, yes ? This is what we should expect, of course, isn't it ? Nor is there a single record of a public musical concert ever given by W.A. Mozart in Salzburg before the public. Unless you can show us differently. Strange, yes ? He who was 'representing Salzburg' didn't even perform in Salzburg !! And we find, in fact, even as late as 1770 (at the age of 14) faked music exams at Bolgona in Italy. Already given on this thread. And a series of musical works being repeatedly and falsely attributed to Mozart which, in fact, he never wrote. This continues all of his life.
Would it not be best for you to accept your Mozart mythology flies in the face of the actual, verifiable evidence ? Yes, it would.
Cognitive Dissonance is we see having its (predictable) effects on your posts. Because we keep asking you for evidence to support what you believe and we never get any. But I realise you love the fairy story. This I respect. Please do not confuse it with reality, however.
P.S. We DO have a playbill from Vienna 1786 (the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro') which describes W.A. Mozart as a Kapellmeister. Well !! That proves he was 'serving Salzburg', doesn't it ? No, it doesn't. W.A. Mozart lied on that playbill about being employed as a Kapellmeister just like his father lied about being a Kapellmeister during their 3 tours of Italy. 'Like father, like son', of course. LOL !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
Yep, I see what you mean.
Have been asking myself a lot on the Rothchilds bloodline lately, their origins (Wiki) only beginning 1750's or so.
Anyhow, about Mozart, Colloredo and late 1780: One should really highlight Fiala with his lame biography(as lame as Koechel's whose father was a treasurer.)
Yes, Yanni, Josef Fiala is an interesting character. Recruited from Munich and he ends up living in Mozart's own home in Salzburg. For years. Along with several other composers. It's just a coincidence, of course. I mean, it becomes laughable.
On the playbill of a virtually unknown performance of 'Figaro' (11th April, Frankfurt, 1785) we see the name of Madame Fiala, his wife. Who was an actress and singer of the time. Just a coincidence, of course.
This a year before the premiere of 'Mozart's' own 'Figaro'. (Itself an arrangement of already existing music, as said).
As we have read before -
'We must not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
And here is the playbill for the 'Figaro' that was staged at Frankfurt fully a year before 'Mozart's' opera in Italian. (April 1785).
You cannot read the names clearly on this print but one of the performing company at that Frankfurt performance is a certain Madame Fiala, who, by one of those amazing coincidences, just happens to have been living in Salzburg in the home of a certain W.A. Mozart at that very time - with her husband, the composer, Josef Fiala. Refered to by Yanni. Nothing strange about that, of course !!! :crazy:
(She was employed at the time by Grossmann, whose theatre group was on tour in Germany. The Grossmann group having for many years been employed by Bonn for staging shows and theatrical productions). The very place where Mozart boasted that he would soon become Kapellmeister. But never did. So they 'owed' Mozart a favour. They gave him one, staging various of 'his' operas during the 1780's. It was all very successful. And we believe it, don't we ?
Ah, we all love great fairy stories, don't we ?
And some say Mozart did not compose the Requiem !! Why, it's so rude of them !!!
http://www.mediafire.com/?mizhcymjyzj
'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)
G. Wolter (1901)
Records of the Grossmann Theatre Group
Entry for 11th April 1785
Frankfurt am Main
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?acw8fk5ifcaihaf
(The very performance involving Madame Fiala, wife of the composer Josef Fiala, a year prior to the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro').
He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II
after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator
Good day
QUESTIONS TO PATRICK BATEMAN
1. Who was paid 450 Florins by Josef 2nd ?
2. When ?
3. For what ?
Since you never tell us your sources or provide details of exactly what you are speaking about let others judge who is an imbecile and an agitator. But let's avoid silly comments. We are interested in evidence, aren't we ? Do you have some ??
So we are waiting, once again, for details of what you are talking about. This is not your strongest ability, is it ? And, from a young age (and who can doubt it ?) you were a consumer of myths. But these, when you reached adulthood, were still the best show in town. And thus, as a purveyor of myths (and as a wholesale consumer of them yourself) you blundered on. Saying something and nothing at the same time. Never staying on one point nor once questioning their truthfulness but firing off posts like a sawn off shotgun. Or, as has been written elsewhere, 'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools'.
(If I told you Ronald Macdonald was paid a million dollars by Frank Sinatra you would expect me to provide evidence of when, where, and for what). If that was under discussion. Is your universe differently constructed from ours ? Evidence please. Thank You.
You have of course abandoned your argument that Mozart 'represented Salzburg' haven't you ? It has been lost in the haze of your mythology. We have not missed this fact.
The debilitating effects of Cognitive Dissonance afford us no better example than the form and substance of your wayward posts.
I consider you to be among the most gifted, talented, and brave Mozarteans I have had exchanges with. Which says a lot for you. But God knows what it says of Mozarteans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
Now, that's a convincing argument!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.
That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.
Musicology has reached the same conclusion as I did, following a totally different methodology.
He is absolutely right on Mozart, has in the meantime accepted that the 'manufacture' included other composers as well, but is still fixed to keep out from the 'manufactured' pool, his safehaven, JSBach, even if he repeatedly failed to provide relative evidence (of Bach being a different man than Handel).
He spent 20 years working on Mozart research (as compared to my ten years on 'roots').
We are both apparently much older than you are!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
Patrick,
It's a strange world you want us to believe in. A man can amass dozens/hundreds of discrepancies in the official fairy story of Mozart's musical career. Starting with the unresolved basic questions (still unanswered) such as who taught him music, and composition, where he went to school, where he started to play keyboard, when and where he composed music that has been attributed falsely on a wholesale scale to him at each and every point in his life (and beyond it). The posthumous rise to iconic status of a legend. Controlled by the fraternal editors of musical 'education'. Why his music exam in Bologna was clearly faked. Why dozens, even hundreds of works were attributed to him, published in his name, and said to be his that were not, in fact, composed by him. You can show example after example of fakery, exaggeration and mythology. And they never, ever have an answer. They never will. Because the truth is Mozart Studies don't work like that. They never have. They are 'pseudo musicology'. For a pseudo civilization of their invention.
The only reason Patrick Bateman subscribes to the Mozart story is he cannot imagine anything except Mozart's popular myth. He has never examined these issues. He never provides evidence. His alleged 'true authorities' on that topic are never actually named. He has yet to provide us here with a single source. He changes the subject with every post. And yet he claims to have put forward a 'convincing argument'. Where, but in the fairlyland world of Mozart Research would anyone give him credibility ? Nowhere. And this is the nonsense which is said to be the best documented, factual record of western musical history ! It's laughable.
You should stay with your myths. And let others stay with actual, verifiable, detailed evidence. The sort you have obviously never read. That it the antidote to your admitted 'rapacious' idolisation of Mozart.
(Cognitive Dissonance is an inability to handle things outside of your paradigm). We wish you a speedy recovery !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
Here I agree with Yanni.
On this subject the Mozarteans are utterly unable to support their fairy story when its basic details are called in to question. It stinks. It always has. It's 'pseduo musicology' and it's a fairy story dressed up as musical history. So says the evidence. One side presents evidence after evidence. The other side produces nothing.
I agree with Yanni on that fact. Food for thought for the writers of textbooks, for lecturers and for the spreaders of corporate fiction. It is, in fact, part of the cultural side of Babylonian globalism. It always was. 200 years of fiction. Constructed before your eyes and loved by the gullible. At the expense of reality. They wanted control of a vital subject. Music. And they got it. The pantheon of great composers was manufactured by them. So say the facts. The rest was/is invention, myth making, deals made by patrons, publishers, and occultist slaves. The gods of the state. They don't like reality.
As for Mozart, stick around. We examine this nonsense year by year. Let's see which side is presenting evidence and which is not. I think you have your answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni