Printable View
'They' can invent any musical 'history' they want. Does it survive cross-examination ? No, it doesn't. It isn't designed to be questioned. It falls apart from the very start. It keeps falling apart. It's the same in Mozart's Vienna years.
That's why 'they' can't answer. What sort of science is that ?? Pseudo-science. Occultist control and nonsense.
Meanwhile -
J.S. Bach
Cantata 11
Chorus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDWeT...eature=related
I want these emails that make experts shiver to their very coreQuote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Offer me SOMETHING that may change my mind about Mozart and you.
Patrick Bateman,
Which 'experts' are you refering to ? We still don't know. Do they exist ? You are chasing the Phantom of the Opera, perhaps ? I have corresponded at one time or another with leading propagandists of Mozart. On detailed points of 'his' alleged achievements. For over 20 years. So have others. Ask around if you like. There are numerous forums on Mozart. Surely, surely, there must be something in all of this posting. Either they are able to defend their conventional views or they are not. They are not. They never have been. It's a business. And it has its consumers. It's as fake as so much else of 'civilization'. Patronised in high places. Never cross-examined. As fake as political promises, fiat bankers, and unelected dynasties. And this is able to be demonstrated. Here, for sure, in general terms because our conversation is so far a general one.
I and others have been studying the life, career and iconic status of Mozart for many years. From all aspects. Several articles are here on this thread.
I will offer (once again) the 'something' you ask for. Tell us please such basic things as -
1. Where did Mozart go to school ? If at all.
2. When did Mozart learn music ?
3. Who taught him composition ? If at all.
4. Can you give a list of 'his' compositions up to, say, his teenage years, that stands cross-examination ? You can choose any year you like. Can it get more simple ?
5. Can you admit his music entrance exam to Bologna (1770) was faked ? An article on this by Bianchini has already been posted here. It's one of numerous examples. It's typical.
6. Can you name a single public concert given by W.A. Mozart in his home city of Salzburg ? At any time in his whole life ? There were none.
7. Can you tell us when Mozart studied keyboard playing ? And under which teacher ?
8. Have you actually examined the alleged musical career of Mozart in any detail ? And will you, when in Vienna, go to the Austrian National Library and examine the musical score used of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' at its premiere there on 1st May 1786 ? You will then see why this music was laughed at and hissed off the stage. It is a poor arrangement of music already composed by others to a German text that had been cobbled together by Mozart and given an Italian text by the rogue priest Lorenzo da Ponte. A pastiche, in fact. And virtually unperformable. Withdrawn a few performances later. Contemporary writers on music (such as JN Forkel, Da Ponte, Koch and others, all show 'Mozart' was virtually unknown, even in Vienna, during his last decade. Contrary to the fairy story. Do you want their actual statements on this ?). Do their statements mean anything to you ?
I could add dozens and dozens of similar questions. These are simple, basic questions. And, to date, there are no answers. This farce started in Salzburg and it continued decades after Mozart's death. It was calculated, deliberate and it involved many people. Why this was done (and how it was done) are subjects that I have been working on for many years. It's not even a question that it WAS done. And so, if you believe the story is genuine, fine. I know it is not and am saying why. With others. They hid their traces. But not well enough. It's all about control.
But this is the musical 'hero' you believe in. And millions of others the same. He literally dominates your musical paradigm. You have never questioned its truthfulness, have you ? Although, in fact, 'his' music was not composed by him. So say the actual facts. An examination of the evidence (biographical and musical) would confirm this to anyone who examines it. As for the false attribution to him of hundreds of works he never composed (published and often performed in his name) that's a plain fact also. In fact, it's a starting point. And it starts with 'his' first composition, KV1 and ends with 'his' last, KV 626. His actual achievements being those of a provincial musician of no real talent. So says the evidence.
So these, plus a thousand other reasons (during his lifetime and posthumously) convinces me that criticism, cross-examination, of the Mozart myth (musicological enquiry into them) is something you neither welcome nor can accept. That means you subscribe to a paradigm. That you like the artificial pantheon of 'great composers'. And it's proof, I believe, of Cognitive Dissonance. Since one (and only one) side is saying that when we examine the myth in the light of the actual evidence it proves to be a huge invention. And that side includes me. We are so sure of it that you can judge for yourself who is telling the truth. Month after month. Year after year. This has serious implications, don't you think ?
Those who HAVE studied these matters in the light of day say you and others are believing an elaborate fairy story. As did I myself for many years. Woven around a family of liars. Aided and abetted by men who wanted to control what is taught and believed of musical history. We are so sure of it we are writing various articles on his official career. And have been doing so for many years.
The answer so far is silence. There ! That is mythology for you !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman
'This farce started in Salzburg and it continued decades after Mozart's death.',Robert writes, purposely misleading the reader by limiting the forgery exclusively on Mozart and diverting his focus away from the Hannover alliance's HQs in London!
The musicology fakery started,thru Amyandhandelbachkoch in London and still continues today, with Mozart used as a cover, a role he accepted to play in his lifetime, as 'Mozart' and 'Nissen', faking among others his alleged correspondence with his father Leopold!
So, instead of foot-dragging, Robert is requested to deliver on his 'Why this was done (and how it was done) are subjects that I have been working on for many years' statement!
Yanni,
You ask why Mozart's career (and that of Handel, Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven was faked). I will offer a very simple answer. But since this thread focuses on Mozart this will be my only post on the subject on this thread.
Get your history books out. The papacy was a deliberate marriage of church and state that emerged in the last years of the 4th century. Inflitrated from the start by men who wanted to rule over manking and who depended on the hiearchy of empire of which they were a part. And who already had their own estates in Europe. Centuries before. Men whose ancestors had been migrating east from the huge expansion of the Assyrian Empire for over 1,000 years. In the centuries before Christ. With the same belief systems as those ancient Assyrians. (Themselves copied from Sumer and Babylonia). These migrating peoples and their religious systems had many centuries earlier taken over Egypt also and had been for centuries an influence in Palestine and even in Greece. (Added to which eventually, came Talmudism). The 'new religion' of Christianity was an obvious target for them. It's why Imperial Rome invented a hiearchical church system. Which emerged out of the ashes of its own collapse. Inflitrated from the start by these pagan influences. Including the mystery religions believed by the ancient Greeks and Etruscans. (Out of the latter came the papacy made by Imperial Rome). Prior to which the pagan priest of ancient Rome had held the office of Pontifex Maximus. An office that continued. There is the real origin of freemasonry. Being transfered at the time of Julius Caesar from being a different man there in Rome to the Emperor himself (Julius Caesar himself being a pagan). The Emperors then hold that pagan priestly office themselves, for several centuries. Until that same office of pagan priest of the pagan Roman state was finally transfered by the dying Roman Empire to the papacy itself. Pontifex Maximus. There is the start of it.
Look at Odoacer. A general who finally took over all Italy and much of Europe. Some time later. There is the same thing.
Early 'Christian' music is falsely said in textbooks to have come from the Temple in Jerusalem. To be modelled upon it. Centuries after, in fact, Christianity was already in the west. So say the textbooks. But that is false. In fact, the influence of these dignitaries within the Roman Imperial system introduced that music into their organised papal church. With Mozarbic Chant and Gregorian Chant etc etc. These have nothing to do with western music. They are imports of the eastern mystery religions.
The history of western music as we know it is a giant fake. Starting with the fact that for centuries there were no 'great' composers. They too had to be invented. Giant gaps are ususal in such 'history'. The 'third' religion arranged that too, through Venice (the colony of Byzantium in modern Italy) and their continuing links with occultism. That is also the start of opera (with its themes of the ancient pagan world revived in the renaissance - lit. 'the rebirth' - of the pagan world). By the 18th century the fake moved on to invent secularised gods of the state in 'great' individual composers such as Hasse, Gluck, Handel, Haydn, and even Mozart. All of them fake products. Engineered by the controllers of that pagan belief system, by its patrons, whose success was shared by their own bloodlines and their own rulers. Thus, out of 10,000 composers and their music who have lived and achieved in western history we end up with around a dozen. Who dominate the subject of 'musical history' in the same way that corporate interests and unelected dynasties today dominate so much else in western civilization. Musical history as it is taught is, of course, a highly sanitised, grossly invented and little criticised fairy story. Invented by stealing and obtaining the music of countless men, publishing it in the name of a handful of slaves, especially from the 'Enlightenment' period onwards, grossly eulogising their biographies, and celebrating the process in the name of culture and education. While the ocean of musical achievement lies unperformed, unappreciated and virtually ignored, generation after generation.
The manufacture of Mozart was a vital part of that process. Since Salzburg, from an early date in the Holy Roman Empire, was the very frontier of that Holy Roman Empire. How appropriate, therefore, that Mozart, 'a musical genius' would be born in the very city which, for centuries before he was born, sent Roman missionaries east.
Mozart was/is a fairy story. Part of the giant but clever fraud that is our conventional western history of music.
I hope this helps.
Yes, that was your initial interpretation, the one that I called your 'Mozart's diapers fixation', I know.
It is wrong!
We started with Mozart's early years for the simple reason we should start an examination of the Mozart phenomenon from the beginning. We have briefly examined the years 1756-1770 so far. It gets even more interesting in the years that follow. And there is so much more that has not even been posted here.
Mozart offers an excellent test of 'western musical history' as we know it. That is its value, it's signficance. It's a test case, in fact. And now you have a broad outline of Mozart's place within the entire faked 'history of western music'. It's a huge subject. But this, at least, is a sketch.
Concerto BWV 1055/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qinD...eature=related
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
'The musicology fakery started,thru Amyandhandelbachkoch in London and still continues today, with Mozart used as a cover, a role he accepted to play in his lifetime, as 'Mozart' and 'Nissen', faking among others his alleged correspondence with his father Leopold!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
If a subject is so rigid, so dogmatic, that people get offended when it is called in to question there is something wrong with it. We have had 200 years of non-criticism as far as W.A. Mozart is concerned. That's just a plain fact. Why ? The answer is simple. Mythology. The myth is elaborate but it cannot stand criticism. It has been invented. Using the resources of those who could, and still do, control what is taught and believed.
Are you aware if any musicologist, ever, has compared Handel's Osanna to Bach's and or 'their' Osannas to Haydn's/van Swieten's Hosanna(Creation), english provenance included?
This is not the case. People are not offended because the subject has been called into question, it's because they don't like the implied corollary that they have been duped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Emil Miller
The subject of Mozart is almost never called in to serious question. Musically and biographically. On such points as those listed above. For a start. That's just a fact. It has been a fact for almost 200 years.
As for people being duped, let them judge on the evidence that is presented. Isn't that the fair way of judging anything ? And let them see if the supposed 'experts' are available. And whether they are accountable for what they write.
The truth is the emperor has no clothes. The history of music is as corrupted as that of banking, finance, warfare, politics or virtually any other area of human existence. This should be our starting point. Only a child would complain about this being our starting position.
So, one sees if the 'experts' have anything to say. It has gone very silent.
Hi Philip,Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
You asked for piece of music from an almost unknown name which can be compared to that of Beethoven. A symphonic movement.
What of this ?
George Onslow (1784-1853)
Symphony No. 4, Op. 71
First Movement
Hanover NDR Orchestra
Onslow's association with the British aristocracy (he being a British aristocrat resident in France) and Beethoven's late symphonic links with the musical world of London are subjects well worth examing. Something strange was going on there, for sure. (In one account Onslow is even said to have studied music in Vienna with Beethoven. This hastily denied by his biographers. The likelihood is they were connected in some way). This music is certainly associated with Onslow. He was for some time as musically famous in Germany as Beethoven. A remarkable fact in itself. Anyway -
http://www.mediafire.com/?nz2nommdm4b
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Well I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.
Me too !! :smilewinkgrin:
G. Onslow
Symphony No. 4
3rd Movement
Andantino Molto Cantabile
http://www.mediafire.com/?2ntzty2ni4h
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)