The Manufacture of Mozart

Yanni,

The history is very clear. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) witnessed the rise of a huge new policy within the Roman Catholic Church to roll back the effects of the Reformation. A 'counter reformation'. Why do you think Bach had to be eventually 'rediscovered' ??? Entrusted to manage this vast process of suppression and exaggeration was the newly created Jesuit Order. Who literally dominated academic continental Europe over the next century in schools and colleges. Nobody argues with that plain fact. Nor do they deny that the Jesuit Order were the confessors of kings and princes. Nor do they deny that they controlled censorship and book/music publishing, right across the Holy Roman Empire. And they were managers of culture and of popular piety. For example, they presided over the painting of churches, new statues etc. in Germany and in Bohemia etc. Their CONTROL was almost total. That's the plain fact of history. And it lasted right up until they were finally evicted from Portugal, France and later banned completely, by the papacy in Rome. This huge span of Jesuit domination was very real. I am not exaggerating it. The history of opera can be understood by realising that its pioneers (in Italy, in France and elsewhere) were none other than the Jesuit Order. That too is a plain fact. Who pioneered opera and popular theatre more than the Jesuits ?

This same Jesuit Order, being unable to reply to the writings of the Reformers (such as Luther) could only pretend they did not exist. Could only work on a cultural/educational level to block out history. (The Jesuits did NOT teach history in their schools, for example). Nor did they allow students to speak in their own native language. They controlled the import of all books. They were the corporate control of our times. And the complaints got louder and louder. Their system of education was useless. And within a century this was common knowledge.

This same Jesuit Order KNEW they were deeply unpopular, even with the Holy Roman Empire. Their new strategy evolved (and it really began around 1720) which was to merge themselves (behind the scenes, of course) with a new movement in the Holy Roman Empire towards secularisation. That is why the pioneers of the later 'Englightenment' were themselves closely associated with the Jesuit Order. Voltaire, for example. Diderot. And many, many others. At the time of the French Revolution the Jesuit educated tyrant Robespierre was a great admirer of the 'Englightenment' Encyclopaedists, as already said. Because they all came from the same origin. The 'Englightenment' was a carefully controlled NEW strategy of the Jesuit Order. Which emerged fully after 1773. But which was constructed/organised in the decades BEFORE 1773. Using France as a cultural base. The influence of French things was huge, culturally, by the time of Mozart's arrival in Vienna. Again, what of Beaumarchais ?

The differences were simple. The Jesuits now allied themselves with the occultists of Europe. Infliltrating the Freemasons etc. and of course through the Rosicrucians and other secularised fraternities. Of course it was a Jesuit university which manufactured the Illuminati. Through Weishaupt. The dean of that university (a Jesuit university) was the patron of Weishaupt himself.

By the 1780's, with the Jesuit Order now officially ended and gone underground the Illuminati now took their place. Exactly. It was they, the Illuminati, who now started to control publishing and opera, exactly as the Jesuits had done before 1773. Because one was a continuation of the other.

You refer to Baron Grimm. But Grimm came from Regensburg. It was to Regensburg that Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, fled. The links between the Jesuit Order (now underground after 1773) and the Illuminati are clear, obvious, unmistakable. By the time of Mozart's arrival in Vienna in 1781 the Illuminati now controlled virtually EVERY music publishing firm in Germany. They controlled the 'Reading Societies'. Some of the most major publishers of 'Mozart's' music were indisputably Illuminati. Let me name just a few of them. In Vienna was Artaria. In Bonn was Simrock. In Vienna was also Hoffmeister (himself an Illuminatist). And so on. All of these central to 'Mozart's' career.

And yes, Grimm in Paris, was closely allied to the Encyclopaedists. But the closer you study the Encyclopaedists the clearer it becomes of their own Jesuit links. Voltaire, as already said. And Diderot. In fact, Rousseau was educated by the Jesuits. Not to see these things is to ignore the 'secularisation' that was now the fashion in the late 18th century Holy Roman Empire. Napoleon was created from Jesuit Corsica and was brought to power by the conservatives of the Jesuit Order to punish the nations who had banned them (e.g. France and Portugal, later Italy and Germany). And the entire career of Napoleon Bonaparte was supported by the now underground Jesuit Order. An Order which was revived in 1814 ! Because that is what the Napoleonic period was created to do. To restore Jesuit influence.

So, at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 the 'Holy Roman Empire' ended. But in its place now came the restoration of the Jesuit Order. Now operating instead of through schools and universities through secular fraternities and through the occultist aristocracy of Europe. For their 'New World Order'. A marriage of 'church and state' now became a marriage of 'Jesuitical church and occultism'. The new strategy of the Jesuit Order.

It is impossible, I believe to examine the history of music and of the fakery that was involved in those times (fakery in the name of music and culture) without understanding the sheer scale of the 'network' that existed across the Holy Roman Empire to achieve these things.

Yes, Grimm was central to the Enyclopaedists. He was also the patron of Mozart in Paris in 1778. Again, proving beyond reasonable doubt that Mozart's career is one facet of the so-called 'Englightenment' movement. The occultic control of publishing, of musical performance, even of the music industry was soon almost total. And they 'the music industry' soon began writing the textbooks, an integral part of which is the myth of W.A. Mozart. So that within a few decades the lies and forgeries were accepted as 'facts'.

The manufacture of Mozart was an essential weapon in expanding the control of culture and music in Europe by these occultic fraternities. After all, Mozart was their own creation. And its cost has been to suppress the facts of history.

Certainly, I am very interested in your views on this person known as Grimm. It was the same Grimm who, after Paris arranged for Mozart to get the commission in Munich for the opera 'Idomeneo'. Another work Mozart did NOT compose. It was actually written FOR Mozart. (In fact, the March in Idomeneo was written by J.M. Kraus, still another Jesuit educated composer).

One of the main managers of the whole fraudulent career of Mozart was Abbe Georg Vogler. Now, there's a story, for sure !

Regards

Musicology,

I'll only answer this exceptional "pearl" of yours:

The history of opera can be understood by realising that its pioneers (in Italy, in France and elsewhere) were none other than the Jesuit Order. That too is a plain fact. Who pioneered opera and popular theatre more than the Jesuits ?

Why, Florence, Venice and Naples of course, the very birth places of renaissance and neoclassicism and of the "Bourbons" and their later "pact" that started suppressing Jesuits as from 1750 (almost simultaneously to the beginnin of the "encyclopaedist" movement) until their final ban, 1773 (almost simultaneously with the Boston Tea Party.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14096a.htm

Have you heard of Count Durazzo of Italy ? The man who worked as a theatre manager in Vienna and the Venetian agent for the Austrian government ? The man who brought Andrea Luchesi to Bonn as its Kapellmeister in 1771 ? He was a principal agent of the Mozart phenomenon in Italy and in Vienna. It was all 'stage managed'.

Here is some music from 1771 by the Bohemian 'close friend' of the Mozart family Josef Myslivececk. Notice its remarkably 'Mozartean' style.

You refer to Venice. Yes, and on Mozart's arrival in Venice you see how he and his father slot into the occultist network (having been introduced in advance through the composer Hasse) to Abbe Ortes, the notorious occultist who wrote the first book on human population control. It was Abbe Ortes who met and spent days with the Mozart family there on their Venice visit.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ortes.htm

Josef Mysliveček (1737-1781)
Overture
'Il gran Tamerlano' (1771)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk

See also 'W.A. Mozart' by Abert (p.125) talking of the role of Ortes in the visit to Venice of the Mozarts.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l...mozart&f=false

The music of Myslivececk, together with dozens of others such as Vanhal, Righini and others must be 'airbrushed' out of history. And have been ever since. So that Mozart is presented to us in a virtual 'vacuum'. We think, we believe, we 'know' Mozart's style. In fact, the music industry keep us away from the true origins of this music.

I was quite specifically referring to your "hang it on the jesuits" fixation that led you to such a gross misinterpretation of the opera music origins.

BTW: Count Durazzo shares the same biography "mystery" (no info) with other personalities related to "Gluck", ie Cocchi-Rousseau-Grimm-Chastellux, ie Comte de Saint Germain. He may well be another alias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

I was quite specifically referring to your "hang it on the jesuits" fixation that led you to such a gross misinterpretation of the opera music origins.

BTW: Count Durazzo shares the same biography "mystery" (no info) with other personalities related to "Gluck", ie Cocchi-Rousseau-Grimm-Chastellux, ie Comte de Saint Germain. He may well be another alias.

---

I will make a special thread, Yanni, on the role of the Jesuit Order in early opera. Then readers can judge whether their huge role is a 'gross misinterpretation' of opera origins. I will quote from printed sources to show this is true beyond all doubt.

You now say Count Durazzo 'may well be another alias'. How many aliases do you believe in ? It seems the number of aliases is multiplying rapidly. So Gluck is Cocchini, Rousseau, Grimm, Compte de Saint Germain, and now Count Durazzo of Venice ?

Anyway, aliases are a factor. But you surely agree your scheme seems to be getting more complicated. Is that a fair comment ? Surely you should show us some evidence in support of this view ? What evidence have you that Count Durazzo is the same person as Rousseau ? Nothing is impossible. The issue is whether we can show evidence.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Durazzo -

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Rousseau died in 1778. Durazzo died in 1794. For a start.

But since this thread is on the 'Manufacture of Mozart' it may be a good idea to make another thread ?

I certainly agree with you that by the mid-1780's the British were a focal point of the Illuminati. Since Britain had developed strong links with the occultists of Venice. For centuries. From 1773 onwards the Jesuit order were busy infiltrating occultist groups. That is why 'Freemasony' came from England. It's why the Illuminatists infiltrated these Freemasonic lodges, and is how they came to control publishing during the time of Weishaupt. The creation of the Bank of England would have been impossible without the role of the Venetian oligarchs. So, yes, certainly, this is correct. England became a centre of occultism through its mercantile empire. Funded and even supported by Venice. Casanova and others were agents of this process. So too Beaumarchais and many others. Cagliostrio another.

The occultism which emerged after 1773 finally infiltrated England itself. And yes, the monarchy and the systems of the elites in Europe merged around the time of the Congress of Vienna. There are therefore two different strands. The Holy Roman Empire merging with the British Empire around 1814. Both controlled by the Jesuit Order. And part of this process was the 'Enlightenment'. Since the Englightenment was as welcomed in England as it was elsewhere.

Here are just 3 of about 1,000 references which I have to the huge role of the Jesuit Order in early European opera -

The Jesuits were in plain fact pioneers in opera. They pioneered opera in Italy, France, Germany, and elsewhere. But Yannni wants us to believe differently. Here are just a few of the many published sources -

1. ‘It is nevertheless clear that the Jesuit contribution to music in the 17th century was not insignificant. These worthy fathers created the conditions for composite art forms to flourish, they developed taste and a demand, and in their early presentations they often anticipated later developments, creating mixed dramatic forms before they were seriously considered by more professional theatres.’

‘The Origins of French Opera’ in ‘The New Oxford History of Music’ (Volume 5) p. 200.

2. ‘The Jesuits were very alive to the propaganda advantages of these opera performances and some of their displays could seriously be said to have rivalled the splendour of court occasions. For the royal entry of the King of France into Lyons in 1622 the College de la Trinite composed ‘Pastorale sur les victories de la Pucelle d’Orleans’. Dunkirk in 1640 was the venue for a half play/ballet publishing the glories and the world wide achievements of the Jesuits. And the examples could easily be multiplied’.

(p. 200)


3. ‘Oratorio in Italy must be considered in conjunction with the ‘Counter Reformation’ which aimed at disseminating Roman Catholic doctrine in vivid and arresting ways. The Spanish ‘autos sacramentales’ religious plays performed each year on Corpus Christi Day provided the direct stimulus, as did the 17th century Jesuit dramas’ - (p.324)

In Rome the Jesuits were the major institution in the development of early opera. And so on. The same was true in Bohemia, in Portugal, in large parts of Germany. In France, etc. etc.

I really don't know why Yanni says this is wrong.

But this thread is on the 'Manufacture of Mozart'.

Regards

I am less surprised by your choice to quote from those very same "sources" you previously labelled as distorted (or something similar, ie still controlled by those "forces" that manufactured Mozart) than by your apparent inability to distinguish between "Florence, Venice and Naples",originators of the poem lyrique ie melodrama ie "opera" (often enemies or in control of Rome as from the 16th century),and your allmighty Jesuits.

Having already revealed the links between-still much respected- jesuit father Nicolas Caussin (‘Pastorale sur les victories de la Pucelle d’Orleans’ ??), the Caccini, "Gluck" and Rossini (nr 2) I see no point in debating the subject further, sincerely expecting a stronger reply to your theory by italian musicologists.

For your information Wikipedia's "opera" does not, not once, include the word "Jesuit".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

I am less surprised by your choice to quote from those very same "sources" you previously labelled as distorted (or something similar, ie still controlled by those "forces" that manufactured Mozart) than by your apparent inability to distinguish between "Florence, Venice and Naples",originators of the poem lyrique ie melodrama ie "opera" (often enemies or in control of Rome as from the 16th century),and your allmighty Jesuits.

Having already revealed the links between-still much respected- jesuit father Nicolas Caussin (‘Pastorale sur les victories de la Pucelle d’Orleans’ ??), the Caccini, "Gluck" and Rossini (nr 2) I see no point in debating the subject further, sincerely expecting a stronger reply to your theory by italian musicologists.

For your information Wikipedia's "opera" does not, not once, include the word "Jesuit".

---

My 'almighty' Jesuits do not exist ! The term is your own invention. The plain fact is the Jesuit Order were the chief developers of Opera. So says every major study ever made on the history of European opera. I can provide dozens of titles on that subject alone. Care for some ? In Italy, France, Bohemia, large areas of Germany, and in Austria from the time of the Council of Trent onwards. From the late 16th century, in fact. That same Order had been created only a few years before. They were able to manage operatic and stage performances across the entire Holy Roman Empire. As a vital part of a continuing 'counter reformation'. They were managers in the arts and culture. They also presided over the teaching of music in countless colleges and universities. For virtually 2 centuries. They absolutely controlled music publishing and performance. A fact confirmed by countless evidences.

I am unsure why you have difficulty accepting such facts of musical history - that the development of opera in Italy (including Rome) was due to the 'Counter Reformation' and was presided over by Jesuit colleges and Jesuit centres of learning all over continental Europe. Including Rome. And from there Vienna, Bohemia and elsewhere. For well over a century and a half.

There is really no 'debate'. There is only this thread on the manufacture of Mozart (a subject hardly being discussed by you) which is strangely punctuated by your theory that Rousseau was Gluck or vice-versa and that he was also another person, Count Durazzo, and various other people. For which we are still waiting for some supporting evidence. It's an interesting theory, for sure ! But now you tell us the Jesuit Order were not the pioneers of European opera ! Who then was more important than they in its development ? When, in fact, no organisation was more pioneering than themselves. What is this so difficult to accept ? I have further explained Jesuit involvement in music extended even beyond their ban in 1773, when they became associated (through occultist groups such as the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians and the emerging Illuminati) with music/opera/performance/publishing during the period called the 'Englightenment' and that by your own admission a major patron of Mozart, Baron Grimm, was hugely influential with the Encyclopaedists. And who were the Encyclopaedists if they were not Jesuit educated themselves ?

None of these things are difficult and if you want to debate the scale of the Jesuit promotion of opera in early Europe (or even after 1773) please make a thread and I promise to post articles demonstrating this beyond all reasonable doubt. As for Gluck, he came from Bohemia and was born on the estate of one of Mozart's principle patrons. Prince Lobkowitz. Whose father was himself an early patron of Mozart and whose son staged and 'edited' 'Mozart' operas for years after Mozart's death. Along with two composers, Wranitsky and Cartellieri.

Here is a fair introduction -
You might try this -

Music, History, and Ideas
By Hugo Leichtentritt

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4...0music&f=false


Regards

Musicology,

“Opera” was first produced in Florence, late 16th century (see Wikipedia for:Florentine Camerata, Giovanni de' Bardi, Caccini,monody,chordal harmony
….a revolutionary departure from the polyphonic practice of the late Renaissance) to please and glorify -rather than chasten-the Medici. Soon after opera appears in Paris with Francesca Caccini (and possibly her father as well) in the all-sung stage works her father composed for the wedding of Henry IV of France and Maria de Medici in 1600. In 1604 when the entire Caccini family visited France, Henry praised her singing effusively—"you are the best singer in all of France"—and asked her to stay at his court;)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Caccini

Hence the contradictory doubletalk in your-moth infected?-references ….

It is nevertheless clear that the Jesuit contribution to music in the 17th century was not insignificant.

‘The Jesuits were very alive to the propaganda advantages of these opera performances and some of their displays could seriously be said to have rivalled the splendour of court occasions.

….supporting my theory (actually Wikipedia’s) rather than yours.


Having then presented evidence absolving Jesuits of post 1773 events as well and having pointed the finger to “The encyclopaedists” in general (and "sui generis" in particular), I see no reason to your subsequent asking….

But now you tell us the Jesuit Order were not the pioneers of European opera ! Who then was more important than they in its development ?

…other than an effort to introduce your next "explanation",a mix up all of “conspiring” fraternities in a soup (for reasons I dare not imagine!)

By titling your book “The manufacture of Mozart”-thus drawing your reader’s curiosity to the identity of the manufacturer rather than long exhausted “product Mozart”-you now need provide an explanation, don’t you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Musicology,

“Opera” was first produced in Florence, late 15th century (see Wikipedia for:Florentine Camerata, Giovanni de' Bardi, Caccini,monody,chordal harmony
….a revolutionary departure from the polyphonic practice of the late Renaissance) to please and glorify -rather than chasten-the Medici. Soon after opera appears in Paris with Francesca Caccini (and possibly her father as well) in the all-sung stage works her father composed for the wedding of Henry IV of France and Maria de Medici in 1600. In 1604 when the entire Caccini family visited France, Henry praised her singing effusively—"you are the best singer in all of France"—and asked her to stay at his court;)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Caccini

Hence the contradictory doubletalk in your-moth infected?-references ….

It is nevertheless clear that the Jesuit contribution to music in the 17th century was not insignificant.

‘The Jesuits were very alive to the propaganda advantages of these opera performances and some of their displays could seriously be said to have rivalled the splendour of court occasions.

….supporting my theory (actually Wikipedia’s) rather than yours.


Having then presented evidence absolving Jesuits of post 1773 events as well and having pointed the finger to “The encyclopaedists” in general (and "sui generis" in particular), I see no reason to your subsequent asking….

But now you tell us the Jesuit Order were not the pioneers of European opera ! Who then was more important than they in its development ?

…other than an effort to introduce your next "explanation",a mix up all of “conspiring” fraternities in a soup (for reasons I dare not imagine!)

By titling your book “The manufacture of Mozart”-thus drawing your reader’s curiosity to the identity of the manufacturer rather than long exhausted “product Mozart”-you now need provide an explanation, don’t you think?

---

Well, no, opera was NOT first produced in Italy in the 15th century. The ancient Greeks already had opera. Didn't they ? I am saying opera (as we know it) began around the time of the Council of Trent in the late 16th century and was, from the very outset, a valuable tool of musical propaganda for the Counter Reformation to roll back the great influence of the Reformation. Across the Holy Roman Empire. There are entire libraries of books on this subject of early opera around the time of the Counter Reformation that began at the Council of Trent. Why not spend a day confirming this for yourself ? Instead of doing a quick search of Wikipedia ?

Have you or any reader here seen/heard a 15th century opera recently ? Care to name one which is being performed at any of the opera houses of Europe or North America these days ? Just one. No ? Again, I am speaking of opera as we know it. The plain fact is the Jesuit Order, from the late 16th century onwards were pioneers in opera and in stage performances across the Holy Roman Empire. Amongst also becoming the schoolmasters of Europe in countless colleges and universities. If this is not true show us differently. As is proved by tons of evidence. Their sheer domination of counter-reformation art and culture in Germany and Austria is a plain, indisputable fact. It was the University of Vienna which was dominated by the Jesuit Order until well in to the 18th century, for a start - refusing to allow non-Catholics to study there. For a start. It was the Jesuit Order who arrived in Salzburg in 1729 with their 'shows' who were waging a Counter Reformation which led to the expulsion from Salzburg of 20,000 inhabitants there who refused to sign up to their programme. Such things are plain facts of European history. Mannheim was a city dominated by the musical regime of the Jesuits. Would you care to have a list of Jesuit educated composers who were influential in 18th century opera. Or, how about a list of Jesuit educated composers who worked in Vienna in the 18th century ? Again, you seem reluctant to accept plain facts.

You point to the period post 1773. But nobody was 'pioneering' opera beyond that year of 1773, were they ?

We are speaking here of the DEVELOPMENT of opera as we know it. An indisputably Jesuit affair in Italy, France, Catholic Germany, Bohemia, France and elsewhere. Which occurred before 1773. As everyone knows, except, perhaps, your goodself.

I note that you have still not started a thread on the development of early European opera. Despite me suggesting it twice. Shall I suggest it a third time ? I have already promised to contribute showing the scale of the Jesuit input in to that formative development. So, how about it ?

As for the 'Manufacture of Mozart' this tells the story of the large numbers of composers who collaborated in the creation of the Mozart myth. Both during his lifetime and posthumously. It's not so difficult to understand. Except, of course, if you wish to tell us that Rousseau was Grimm and about 3 other people at the same time.

The truth is that you are confused on this issue. In the case of Mozart, who was definitely only one person, lots of others contributed to making his status. I suggest that is the same solution. One man was not many people. In fact, many people made the reputation of Rousseau, Grimm and others. The same as happened in the case of Mozart. But you ARE going to show us they were one and the same person, aren't you ? So far, you haven't really shown us anything of the kind.

So, thanks, but my field is the history of music. And, with respect, the history of opera and Jesuit involvement in it is a subject you might profit from making a thread on. As already said 4 times.

As for Mozart, yes, I am happy to stay on the subject of his manufacture here on this thread.

Thanks for your conversation.

Regards

Musicology,

It's quite clear that a "sine qua non" prerequisite is blocking our conversation.

The truth is that opera was "pioneered" by the reformists in Florence and "they" manufactured Mozart as well (The question "who took him out and why" will remain unanswered I fear)

As for "Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Cocchi, Saint Germain etc etc etc", my relative threads are open to all disbelievers.

My compliments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Musicology,

It's quite clear that a "sine qua non" prerequisite is blocking our conversation.

The truth is that opera was "pioneered" by the reformists in Florence and "they" manufactured Mozart as well (The question "who took him out and why" will remain unanswered I fear)

As for "Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Cocchi, Saint Germain etc etc etc", my relative threads are open to all disbelievers.

My compliments.

---

There's really no 'block' to our conversation other than our ability/inability to deal with the title of the thread. Our conversation here is on 'The Manufacture of Mozart' (or should be). It's not on the history of European opera or the scale of the Jesuit Order's role in opera. Interesting as those subjects are. And yes, early opera existed before the formation of the Jesuit Order. But its greatest stimulus was undoubtedly the counter-reformation. Nor is this thread on the various aliases of Grimm/Rousseau/Gluck/Cocchi etc. - as interesting as all these subjects are also. Each would merit a thread and I would happily contribute to them as already said. But the subject of this thread is really its title.

The career of Mozart cannot be removed from the time in which he lived. That of the Holy Roman Empire. And of the prevailing ideas of his patrons and other vested interests of the time.

Mozart was the product of both the Holy Roman Empire and of a movement which emerged from it, known as the 'Enlightenment'. A musical Frankenstein. He undoubtedly emerged from the old 'status quo' of the Holy Roman Empire. The later movement known as the Englightenment came from within the conservative existing elites of those times. It was a movement which fused together different elements in the name of 'secularism' and it was patronised and invented by the same ruling classes of the European continent. Now joining with the occultists of Venice. Since the patrons of art in those days were these very elites. It also involved fraternity members of the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati and the whole machinery of propaganda in continental Europe and beyond over the decades which followed Mozart's death in late 1791. It merged occultism with conservatism and its products were exported, published and performed, often beyond the Holy Roman Empire. England is an obvious example. Mozart became the first 'globalist' composer. The creation by these globalists of a reputation which would soon come to dominate music, publishing and even the writings of textbooks on music history as we see today. Because the manufacture of Mozart is really based on a pack of lies, skillfully put together and hardly ever questioned in detail. Despite the fact that its contradictions are huge and even basic. That is why they virtually dominate our 'culture' today. The fact Mozart's musical reputation is based on the talents of many, many other composers is systematically marginalised or ignored altogether. This dumbing down process involves ignoring the lives and achievements of his own musical contemporaries. Who rarely get reference or acknowledgement. Mozart is idolised in a vacuum as a fantasy figure, transported away from the realities of his own time. So that the life, career and reputation of Mozart is rarely called in to serious question. And never has been. The 'consensus' view being that of the 'experts' who today preside over his myth. It's a vast industry. It's 'culture', so-called. The music industry cynically took over from musicology. And this was achieved by the early 19th century. As part of the dumbing down of society generally. So that we, today, read textbooks and we believe what we are reading of Mozart and his career is true. Supported, it seems, by a mass of documentary and other evidence. But, in fact, the documents are often blatantly biased, often fraudulent and plain wrong.

Mozart was not a musical genius. He was simply a stooge. Of no great talent. A musical Manchurian candidate. So says a fair and detailed study of the actual evidence. He was used and abused to achieve the takeover of music, performance, and of culture by the same people who worked to take over everything else. The fact that much of 'his' music is very fine is not disputed. What IS disputed is that he wrote it. He did not. It was supplied to him by others and was in many cases credited to him in the decades after his death. Not surprisingly, the many glowing reports of his talents come, almost wholly, from vested interests who were part of this scam. But they are contradicted by other facts. As for the manuscripts, these can be examined one by one. Many were copied in his own hand. Others forged. Still others manufactured later.

But judge for yourself by considering the evidence from both points of view. The history of music is truly as corrupted as any other area of human history. Within a few decades of the science of musicology having been established by men such as the German JN Forkel it had been eliminated, marginalised, almost ignored, by the rise of the music industry and its myths and fables. These focused on the Viennese trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

Certainly, Italy played a major role. Before, during and after Mozart's time. The Napoleonic period was highly supportive of the Mozart myth. Italian opera was almost completely wrecked by it. So too orchestral music from Italy of the 19th century. Asioli and others were involved in this. So too Salieri. And many others. It's not a nationalist issue. It's globalism and the propaganda of the globalist elites.

Musicology,

As I said, your book will not be true to its title if you do not reveal the identity of the "manufacturer": Mozart cannot be separated from the preceeding historical events and cultural (music included) developments leading to his "creation".

This leads to Gluck's "modern" music, to Grimm's "correspondence litteraire" on music definition and criticism , to Rousseau's social theories, to Chastellux, Dixmerie, Raynal, Graslin, P.M.Hennin etc, to the Encyclopedists and, ultimately, to the man behind "IT ALL" (and "them" all), comte de Saint Germain, ie Gioachino Cocchi, (son (?)of Antonio Cocchi, friend of Isaac Newton), Goethe's "Faustus".

Having already defined him as the force majeure of his time, I understand any reluctance to "judge" him as he really was, remove the veil of the "unknown prophet", see the man behind the opera phantom's mask.

I was simply hoping that through your Mozart research the hardest to explain part of my hero's life (1787-1814) and character could be better explained.

Moreover:

The Holy Roman Empire was "back stage" post 1773: Main actors in early globalism were England, France, Prussia and Russia.....and their bankers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Musicology,

As I said, your book will not be true to its title if you do not reveal the identity of the "manufacturer": Mozart cannot be separated from the preceeding historical events and cultural (music included) developments leading to his "creation".

This leads to Gluck's "modern" music, to Grimm's "correspondence litteraire" on music definition and criticism , to Rousseau's social theories, to Chastellux, Dixmerie, Raynal, Graslin, P.M.Hennin etc, to the Encyclopedists and, ultimately, to the man behind "IT ALL" (and "them" all), comte de Saint Germain, ie Gioachino Cocchi, (son (?)of Antonio Cocchi, friend of Isaac Newton), Goethe's "Faustus".

Having already defined him as the force majeure of his time, I understand any reluctance to "judge" him as he really was, remove the veil of the "unknown prophet", see the man behind the opera phantom's mask.

I was simply hoping that through your Mozart research the hardest to explain part of my hero's life (1787-1814) and character could be better explained.

Moreover:

The Holy Roman Empire was "back stage" post 1773: Main actors in early globalism where England, France, Prussia and Russia.....and their bankers.

---

Yes, Yanni,

I agree the 'Holy Roman Empire' was back stage post 1773. Which is precisely what I've been arguing from the start. 1773 changed everything. But the forces which led to that change were slow and deliberate. They were in motion long before Cocchi or Mozart were born. In fact, the Holy Roman Empire disappears from the radar screen at the Congress of Vienna around 1814 just as the Jesuit Order disappears from the radar screen in 1773 and re-emerges at the same time as the Holy Roman Empire disappears.

The period 1773-1814 sees the 'enlightenment' philosophy in full bloom. And during those decades we see the fusion between different fraternities such as the Roscicrucians, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, etc. including of course the Illluminati (who emerged from the Jesuits) and moves towards early globalism. After 1814 the power of monarchies and elite families becomes ever more obvious in human history.

As for revealing the names of those whose music became that of 'Mozart' I've already indicated various names of composers, such as Myslivececk, Vanhal, Luchesi, Cartellieri, Wranitsky, Maria Theresia von Paradis, and numerous others including Cocchi. But the main thing to be established here is not who manufactured the music of Mozart but to show it was manufactured in the first place. Which I can already do. And then to show how it was done. Including, of course, naming names. Beyond fair and reasonable doubt the Mozart story is one of a network of fraternities which existed widely across continental Europe and beyond before Mozart's time of birth. An elitist group who, by the early 19th century had even taken charge of music publishing, musicology (so-called) and who could and did spread the cult of Mozart very widely. To the point where it started to dominate in textbooks and in the wider society. The Cocchi subject is one in which we are both interested and it would be good if we could continue to exchange views on that.

Regards

"The Cocchi subject is one in which we are both interested and it would be good if we could continue to exchange views on that. "

Indeed but until then (until italian researchers do decide to uncover Gioachino Cocchi's true biography-including his family link to "first italian mason" Dr Antonio Cocchi, a friend of Isaac Newton, Horace Walpole etc etc- until my research on his multiple identities is proven wrong and until french historians decide to do away with their myths on Saint Germain, Rousseau, Grimm etc, until encyclopedias become Encyclopedias etc etc etc) the theory that Jesuits, post 1814, remained in control of "things", better be avoided.

It reads totally wrong to the average reader already and will propably harm your book (unless ofcourse you'll have it produced as a "creative art piece").

I strongly recommend you read on "enlightment" and today prevailing economic philosophy-laissez faire

(There are many sites such as http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/PROGRESS.HTM)

Best of luck anyway.

Since the Jesuit Order was created to lead the counter-Reformation, and since it, within 100 years, virtually dominated schools and colleges across continental Europe for almost 200 years, and since Jesuits were the confessors of kings, emperors, rulers and powerful rulers, and since Jesuits were in charge of all censorship, and all publication of books, since they managed arts and culture widely across the Holy Roman Empire before 1773 and since they, the Jesuits infiltrated England through earlier fraternities such as the Rosicrucians, and since they were involved in almost every intrigue possible (in America, South America and as far away as Asia) up until the time that the leaders of Europe finally got rid of them (including the Pope himself in 1773, though only temporarily) I feel entitled to say the 'counter-reformation' did not end in 1773 but simply went underground. Soon controlling Freemasonry and many other fraternities, and from which came the Illuminati. At the very time when they were officially banned themselves. These things are now so well documented that if 10,000 proofs of association of Jesuit intrigue at high level in government, banking, commerce, academia and the arts were provided you might still not see them.

These same Jesuits (despite being 'eternally banned') supported Napoleon from the start and they were restored in 1814, against even their 'eternal' ban from Rome ! Now, if that is not proof of their massive power and influence I do not know what power and influence means !!

Today Jesuit influence is even more massive in politics, the media, the academic world and beyond. They were intimately associated with the move towards a 'New World Order'. And still are. Such are the plain facts as countless sources confirm. Here is just one website dealing with some of their activities. And there are dozens. The immense power and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church in the intelligence community of the USA, the UK and many other nations is not even disputed. There is no 'conspiracy' more obvious and more easy to deny than that which is indisputable. Nor does anyone dispute that the Treaty of Rome, the EU, and the phenomenal wealth of the Vatican is a major factor in our modern times, internationally. That Jesuit universities and colleges provide some of the major politicians in the modern world and that their influence is enormous, almost without equal in the mass media.

All of these things are so plain, so indisputable, so much confirmed by history and are all derived from their influence during the 18th century and even before that time. I think the issue here is why Yanni finds it so hard to acknowledge these facts of plain history. How many leaders of the CIA, government, other intelligence agencies etc, need to be related to the Knights of Columbus, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and the Jesuit Order (who merged them under Weishaupt) that what is obvious may, in fact, not be obvious at all.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/


Regards

How many leaders of the CIA, government, other intelligence agencies etc, need to be related to the Knights of Columbus, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and the Jesuit Order (who merged them under Weishaupt) that what is obvious may, in fact, not be obvious at all.

Now, if that's not convincing argument, I don't know what is!

Strain yourself no further, Musicology, I had enough!

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Today Jesuit influence is even more massive in politics, the media, the academic world and beyond. They were intimately associated with the move towards a 'New World Order'. And still are. Such are the plain facts as countless sources confirm. Here is just one website dealing with some of their activities. And there are dozens. The immense power and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church in the intelligence community of the USA, the UK and many other nations is not even disputed. There is no 'conspiracy' more obvious and more easy to deny than that which is indisputable. Nor does anyone dispute that the Treaty of Rome, the EU, and the phenomenal wealth of the Vatican is a major factor in our modern times, internationally. That Jesuit universities and colleges provide some of the major politicians in the modern world and that their influence is enormous, almost without equal in the mass media.

---

Hmm..I suspect you are a member of this organization and with this you try to get some atention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VidaLoca

Hmm..I suspect you are a member of this organization and with this you try to get some atention.

---

And I suspect you are a member of this organisation yourself and with this you try to get some attention.

If I'm a member of this organisation would I be showing evidence of its collusion, it's massive influence within the cultural world (and other areas of human history) if my first loyalty is to defend them and to hide the facts of their involvement from view ? !!!

The links are so massive, so indisputable that they cannot be invented. They can only be buried, suppressed and denied. And that's pointless because the facts remain the facts.

I do not see the logic of your argument.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

How many leaders of the CIA, government, other intelligence agencies etc, need to be related to the Knights of Columbus, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and the Jesuit Order (who merged them under Weishaupt) that what is obvious may, in fact, not be obvious at all.

Now, if that's not convincing argument, I don't know what is!

Strain yourself no further, Musicology, I had enough!

Cheers.

---

You are right ! You've had enough. Some facts are as clear as the sun in the sky. They are ignored and remain meaningless if we stay inside hiding daylight by closing our curtains. In the case of the Jesuit Order (an order which, even today, runs dozens of universities and colleges in the USA alone), and whose history is routinely off the radar screen (so to speak) that we must ask why. A veil descends. It's almost as if we choose not to know. There is, as you say, nothing further to say except to hope you will at some point accomodate inconvenient history within your thinking.

We do not live in an age of conspiracy but in one which allows us to expose, to reveal, to declare in the light of day what has become obvious and plain and which has been for so very long systematically and even dogmatically suppressed.


Regards

Michael Jackson's movie "This Is It" will have simultaneous premieres in more than 15 cities around the world this month.

(Did some research in the meantime: The "Jesuit link" may be noticed in Kenny Ortega's early association with irish-Romancatholic born Gene Kelly.)

Myslivecek is therefore celebrating a sort of modern premiere outside his native land in Magdalena latest album. And that's saying something: the Bohemian composer who lived in Italy, and whose music stands clearly between Gluck and Mozart, could hardly have wished for a more committed advocate than the Czech mezzo. "With all their italianità, one hears Slavic echoes in his melodies. At a time when most composers wrote à la mode, that lent him a special distinction and earned him the nickname Il divino boemo." And that is just how he sounds - divine, with a hint of Bohemia about him. "But in comparison with the other two composers on the new album - Gluck and Mozart - he naturally has the most traditional style," the singer concedes, "although, like the other two, he made a real contribution to the reform of Baroque opera."

Is "Magdalena" a romancatholic name? :santasmil

...and yet another question, rhetoric as well in the meantime, must be raised:

Who was really this strange bohemian, Muslivecek,who had such an influence on young Amedeo during his stay in Munich, late 1777?

Quoting Wikipedia (Myslivecek):

In a letter to his father Leopold written from Munich on October 11, 1777, Mozart described his character as "full of fire, spirit and life." According to the same letter an incompetent surgeon burned off Mysliveček's nose while trying to treat a mysterious illness. A letter of Leopold Mozart to his son of October 1, 1777, refers to the illness as something shameful for which Mysliveček was deserving of social ostracism.
In the entire Mozart correspondence, no individual outside the Mozart family was ever the cause for so much outpouring of emotion as what is found in Wolfgang's letter of 11 October 1777.
Mysliveček never married and no names of lovers are recorded. Reports of romantic liaisons with the singers Caterina Gabrielli and Lucrezia Aguiari do not pre-date the publication of the fifth edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954). During the period of his activity as a composer of operas (1766-1780), Mysliveček succeeded in having more new opere serie brought into production than any other composer in Europe. Mysliveček and Gluck were the first composers raised in the Czech lands to become famous as operatic composers, but their operatic output exhibits few, if any, Czech characteristics. Mysliveček's operas were very much rooted in a style of Italian opera seria that prized above all the vocal artistry to be found in elaborate arias .

For an earlier version of Myslicevek's mysterious illness, see "Mozart: A Cultural Biography By Robert W. Gutman": Amadeo met the composer (a devoted jesuit no doubt), allegedly suffering from a venereal decease that had disfigured his face, in the garden of a Munich hospital. The source does not care to address the highly controversial issue of the "disabled czech's" enormous -as above and more-influence on young Mozart.

:angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

...and yet another question, rhetoric as well in the meantime, must be raised:

Who was really this strange bohemian, Muslivecek,who had such an influence on young Amedeo during his stay in Munich, late 1777?

Quoting Wikipedia (Myslivecek):

In a letter to his father Leopold written from Munich on October 11, 1777, Mozart described his character as "full of fire, spirit and life." According to the same letter an incompetent surgeon burned off Mysliveček's nose while trying to treat a mysterious illness. A letter of Leopold Mozart to his son of October 1, 1777, refers to the illness as something shameful for which Mysliveček was deserving of social ostracism.
In the entire Mozart correspondence, no individual outside the Mozart family was ever the cause for so much outpouring of emotion as what is found in Wolfgang's letter of 11 October 1777.
Mysliveček never married and no names of lovers are recorded. Reports of romantic liaisons with the singers Caterina Gabrielli and Lucrezia Aguiari do not pre-date the publication of the fifth edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954). During the period of his activity as a composer of operas (1766-1780), Mysliveček succeeded in having more new opere serie brought into production than any other composer in Europe. Mysliveček and Gluck were the first composers raised in the Czech lands to become famous as operatic composers, but their operatic output exhibits few, if any, Czech characteristics. Mysliveček's operas were very much rooted in a style of Italian opera seria that prized above all the vocal artistry to be found in elaborate arias .

For an earlier version of Myslicevek's mysterious illness, see "Mozart: A Cultural Biography By Robert W. Gutman": Amadeo met the composer (a devoted jesuit no doubt), allegedly suffering from a venereal decease that had disfigured his face, in the garden of a Munich hospital. The source does not care to address the highly controversial issue of the "disabled czech's" enormous -as above and more-influence on young Mozart.

:angel:

---

Yanni,

I don't know how much of 'Mozart's' music you know. Listen to this from 1771. It's indisputably the style we associate with Mozart. And it was written while Mozart had written NOTHING of this quality himself.

Josef Myslivececk
Operatic Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
Italy
1771


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk

Furthermore, the name of Myslivececk is mentioned more times in the Mozart family correspondence than ANY OTHER COMPOSER !

Finally, read any version of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. It will tell you (in the article on Myslivececk) that MANY works of Myslicececk are suspected as having been written for Mozart by Myslivececk. In fact, you will see in the footnotes the name of a Myslivececk biographer who says this himself ! Dozens and dozens of works. All part of the great scam, the great deception that is 'Mozart'. In fact, the number of works published in 'Mozart's' name that were later acknowledged to be by Josef Myslivececk is an issue also.

Is that enough ? Or shall we continue with living in fairyland ?

p.s. You might also read the notes on the Youtube address above. The debt of Mozart to Myslivecek is so plain that anyone honest can admit it. This IS the origin of much of 'his' music. And I know dozens of examples.

Here are the published comments to the above piece on Youtube -

Great composer! Myslievecek was the most prolific composer of opera seria in Europa (in his time). This opera seria was first performed on 26 December 1771 at the Teatro Regio Ducale in Milan. Undoubtedly Mozart in the 1770s adopted Myslivecek's stylilistic models (for example in his opera ''Mitridate, Re di Ponto'').

KingofNoldors (8 months ago) Myslivecek is a genius! I don't know why his music is fallen into obscurity for almost two century. And I've the suspect that Mozart could be copied something by the composition of the Divin Boemo.

Thrax1982 (8 months ago) No doubt he did, but in 18th century it was more of a compliment than a grave injury as it is seen today. I imagine that vast majority of composers of the era engaged in this sort of copying and borrowing to some extent.

KingofNoldors (8 months ago) Yes, you're right. Copyright doesn't exist in 18th century, and arrangement of a composition by another musicist it's not a shame. However I think that part of Mozart's genuis is due to the capital importance of other compositors, like the great Myslivecek.

egapnala65 (8 months ago) I'm waiting for somebody to post the "Aria in Dis", the main theme of which was used by Mozart as the main theme of one of his Flute Concertos. It even has a Horn obligato.

kirschhofbarokni (8 months ago) Show Hide - Yes, you're right, and I've read something that Mozart loved music of Hasse, and that it had some influence on him as well, but I remember from books, when Mozart said, that Italian opera of Hasse is all the same, only Myslivecek s the good one

kirschhofbarokni (8 months ago) Could you give me more information about the CD and especialy the interprets? I am interested in it very much.
Thrax1982 - I don't know anything abot any cd (it's likely some old radio broadcast), from the info I've managed to gather on the internet the opera was performed in Czech with castrato parts transposed to tenors and basses.
egapnala65 Incidentally the opening of Mozart's 21st Piano Concerto appears in the finale. Interesting eh?

egapnala65 (9 months ago) To think he has been stashed away in obscurity whilst the world has been in thrall to the later, inferior, overtures of Mozart.

Having jointly sailed past your "jesuit reef", Musicology, I was hoping we would be focusing next on Mozart's "manufacturer", hence my last two rhetoric questions (the first of which btw is purposely "the wrong question", a distraction!) on Musli-vecek (to honour his swiss links).

BTW Tamerlano was first performed not just anywhere in Italy, 1771, but in "Teatro Ducale"*, Milano on the 26th December of the year.
The same date marks the alleged death of "Claude Adrien Helvétius"- (December 26, 1771) founder of "La loge des "Neuf Soeurs....la fille posthume d'Helvétius"

For your information "Myslivecek" was just another alias of "Gluck-Helvetius" (...and "his", per above post, horns introduction was patented by Gluck if I rightly remember)!

Now please answer my first- "wrong"- question rightly!


*On 15 October 1771 Austrian duke Ferdinand married Maria Beatrice Ricciarda d'Este. Festivities arranged for this occasion also included the operas Ascanio in Alba by Mozart(??) and Il Ruggiero by Johann Adolph Hasse.

One may believe this conjecture my dearest musicology and I have to give you kudos for your remarkable amount of research. But can it not be that Mozart was manufactured by his circumstances and historical context no more than you and I are in ours? Surely he was subject to the cultural histories and idiosincracies that surrounded his circumstances, but can that conclusively prove that he himself did not at all create the music for which he is credited? Yes, they may have nods and threads to past historical events, religious circumstances and the like. But that is what makes up the human psyche, consciously or subconsciously and to a great degree makes us who we are. If his mind did not take all these things together and create musical masterworks from them, then who is to say that you did not come up with these conclusions but that they were planted in your mind by those who did research before? It seems like a psychological certainty that Mozart indeed did write his own texts though of course like the rest of us drew off of those masters that came before him, whose music he heard often in his own upbringing and training and which solidified into his subconscious.

While he may have repeated subconsciously or even consciously some of these it proves only that he is in fact a human being like the rest of us and was forged by the experiences and opportunities afforded him. No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Having jointly sailed past your "jesuit reef", Musicology, I was hoping we would be focusing next on Mozart's "manufacturer", hence my last two rhetoric questions (the first of which btw is purposely "the wrong question", a distraction!) on Musli-vecek (to honour his swiss links).

BTW Tamerlano was first performed not just anywhere in Italy, 1771, but in "Teatro Ducale"*, Milano on the 26th December of the year.
The same date marks the alleged death of "Claude Adrien Helvétius"- (December 26, 1771) founder of "La loge des "Neuf Soeurs....la fille posthume d'Helvétius"

For your information "Myslivecek" was just another alias of "Gluck-Helvetius" (...and "his", per above post, horns introduction was patented by Gluck if I rightly remember)!

Now please answer my first- "wrong"- question rightly!


*On 15 October 1771 Austrian duke Ferdinand married Maria Beatrice Ricciarda d'Este. Festivities arranged for this occasion also included the operas Ascanio in Alba by Mozart(??) and Il Ruggiero by Johann Adolph Hasse.

---

Yanni,

The subject under discussion is Josef Myslivececk. A person whom you have now decided is yet another alias.

I don't mind playing 'join up the dots' but you are so busy making dots readers must wonder if you have any lines to offer ?


Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isidro

One may believe this conjecture my dearest musicology and I have to give you kudos for your remarkable amount of research. But can it not be that Mozart was manufactured by his circumstances and historical context no more than you and I are in ours? Surely he was subject to the cultural histories and idiosincracies that surrounded his circumstances, but can that conclusively prove that he himself did not at all create the music for which he is credited? Yes, they may have nods and threads to past historical events, religious circumstances and the like. But that is what makes up the human psyche, consciously or subconsciously and to a great degree makes us who we are. If his mind did not take all these things together and create musical masterworks from them, then who is to say that you did not come up with these conclusions but that they were planted in your mind by those who did research before? It seems like a psychological certainty that Mozart indeed did write his own texts though of course like the rest of us drew off of those masters that came before him, whose music he heard often in his own upbringing and training and which solidified into his subconscious.

While he may have repeated subconsciously or even consciously some of these it proves only that he is in fact a human being like the rest of us and was forged by the experiences and opportunities afforded him. No?

---

Hi there Isidro,


The blind virtuoso pianist and composer, Theresia von Paradis (1759-1824). A Rondo for Piano and Orchestra. Falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart for almost 200 years. Like all the rest. Composer of almost 24 piano concertos (all stolen, all lost). One of the greatest pianists of the 18th century who toured for many years in Europe and was celebrated in Vienna, Paris and London. A woman who, shortly before her death in 1824 said to a friend -

'And do you suppose that I, a woman, would be believed, or that my music would survive, in some form when... But what point is there to dwell on the subject of its loss ? It is not lost - it survives - and you may always hear it'.

So it proves to be. She, (von Paradis) had a major part to play in the creation of 'Mozart's' piano concertos. One of the principal parts, in fact. Along with several others whose names are hardly known.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAyR-Soe4Ac

Regards

Robert (Newman)

Be a true sport, Musicology, and please answer my rhetoric question #1.

As for "losing the reader":

I was not the one who tried to hang it on the jesuits, neither did I "ommit" Gluck* from my list of bohemian composers, the "little prophet from Bohemia", so "close" to "Jesuits" Holbach(Gluck's mysterious Paris publisher alias, whose "System de la Nature" is often attributed to elder Mirabeau) and Rousseau!

Did you know that Musli-vecek had a twin brother?

Cheers!

*Or was it "Grimm" (who also played the harpsichord, see "Rousseau's" Confessions)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I enjoy listening to classical music, but freely admit I am not a student of the genre, and after reading all this nonsense, I am glad that I do not try to study everything.

---

Jozanny,

I'm glad you don't also ! With an attitude like yours classical music is the only field of human study that escaped corruption, falsehood, icon builders, hype and downright fiction.

Dream on !

All the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Be a true sport, Musicology, and please answer my rhetoric question #1.

As for "losing the reader":

I was not the one who tried to hang it on the jesuits, neither did I "ommit" Gluck from my list of bohemian composers, the "little prophet from Bohemia", so "close" to "Jesuits" Holbach(Gluck's mysterious Paris publisher alias, whose "System de la Nature" is often attributed to elder Mirabeau) and Rousseau!

Did you know that Musli-vecek had a twin brother?

Cheers!

---

Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known. You seem to agree with this. That Mozart was not a 'genius'. At any time.

Yes, Myslivececk had a twin brother. I won't mention that Myslivececk was educated by the Jesuits :eek2: In Prague - the same place where, after Mozart's death, hundreds of works nobody had ever heard of began to be published in 'Mozart's' name. (This took years to achieve. The selection process required a whole group of editors, music publishers and others). It took forgery, theft, invention, and even the writing of bogus biographies.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people. During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts, the careers of many others who are hardly known. This was achieved because the entire music industry was controlled. By the Jesuits and their supporters. Both before 1773 and after it. It involved the supply of music to an organisation who eventually published it in the name of Mozart. Whose story is almost unknown.

The story we have of Mozart's career is of course fiction. But fiction so persistant and so rarely cross-examined that it virtually controls textbooks on music history.

The music itself is often beautiful. That's why it became 'his'. But its story is that of the labours of people whose names (for different reasons) are today little known. Hidden by the 'music industry' and by the 'experts'.

What they wanted was control. Control of the music industry. Control of what is believed and taught. Control of Mozart's life and career at every stage. Even at the expense of reality itself. And they did it. By dominating the field of music publishing, books on music history, and musical performance. So the myth became 'history' and the truth was thrown in the trash. Easier to control a musical icon from Salzburg than to tell the real story of dozens of people.

Now, if people say you are not 'cultured', that you have not studied (and idolised) the music of W.A. Mozart, you can smile.

Why ! Any child who plays the piano these days is described as 'the next Mozart'. There are organisations who believe listening to Mozart increases your I.Q. and those of unborn babies. There are a thousand Korean Mozart wannabeees on Youtube who can play a sonata on the piano. This is 'proof' they are 'geniuses'. The industry loves such hype. It's like those pilgrimages of mediaeval times. Where the icon is carried around like the clay idols of Babylon.

In the late 18th century the founder of the science of musicology, a German named J.N. Forkel, was hated. Why ? Because he taught that the music really worthy of appreciation was not popular but was music that was of use to students of music. In all ages. Including the wonderful and ignored works of J.S. Bach. He warned that commerce was soon going to produce ignorance.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach. Why not ? Because their 'education' so-called, was built on heroic myths. He (Bach) had to be 'rediscovered' by them in the 19th century. It's laughable. The most wonderful master of harmony. God's answer to musical hyperbole. A man whose music was hardly known and who had even been ignored by most of his own generation. Who lived only to serve others. Unapplauded and yet sublime.

But that's what happens when an industry dominates what we believe and want to believe.


J.S. Bach
Cantata 140
Opening Movement

(Miraculous harmony and invention)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC35GS88OqA

and -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE3vIONoYWc

- DITTO -


Thanks

"Yes, Myslivececk had a twin brother."

So says Wikipedia but we both agree that the "manufacturing the truth" process-still at work-may well include Musli-vecek/Gluck/Rousseau/Grimm etc who had every reason to invent another convenient replica just in case.

"It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts, the careers of many others who are hardly known. This was achieved because the entire music industry was controlled. By the Jesuits and their supporters. Both before 1773 and after it."

You are jumping to hasty and illogical conclusions again to prove what exactly?

That the countereformists (Jesuits) created the reformists (in philosophy and art, including music) to keep on ruling the globe?

I suppose that's why Deutsche Grammophone (jesuits disguised as lutheran reformists perhaps?) are financing Magdalena's "Beauty of Transformation" favouring Mozart instead of his manufacturer (and top "transformer", Gluck/Muslicevek etc etc, the man with the thousand faces), huh?

http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/s...arias&DETAIL=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_Ko%C5%BEen%C3%A1

Not so, my dear Watson.

(and the same goes for you, dear Magdalena "K": There is no beauty in "our" particular "transformation", just a pile of lies!)

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known.

Please use the appropriate terms. This thread is built upon the THEORY (the FICTION or the FANTASY) accepted and promoted by virtually no one but yourself that Mozart's music was fabricated as part of some grandiose conspiracy ala Foucault's Pendulum or more appropriately, a Dan Brown novel. The "facts" that you post here can undoubtedly be easily discredited by any true musicologist which is one reason that you have chosen to promote at a literature site where you might be reasonably assured that the majority lack the ability to challenge your assertions. The other reasons for your postings are a promotion of your proposed book on this very topic (Spam?) and the fact you have been banned from virtually all music discussion boards.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people.

To what purpose? You propose some vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people and unquestionably a fortune... to what end? To simply establish a Viennese or German musical genius? To steal musical dominance away from the Italians (as if Bach, Telemann, Gluck, and others had not already achieved this). And how was this achieved? To control the music industry? As if that were a goal worthy of such efforts at that point in history.
And this was achieved through the combined efforts of some consortium of composers who miraculously had the ability to compose a body of work for Mozart and for Haydn that maintained a continuity and yet were distinct from each other. And this consortium was brilliant enough to create a body of music that clearly conveyed the development of the individual "fictive" composers from early immaturity to later profundity. Yet today... in Hollywood we have a collection of artists, film-makers, composers, etc... unlike anything the 18th century might have imagined... and yet... in most instances... they are unable to produce anything approaching the artistic brilliance of Mozart?

During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts...

If you were truly able to PROVE this, you would have already achieved the greatest breakthrough in the history of musicology and your proofs would have already be commonly discussed among musicians, music historians, etc... But of course you argue there is some great conspiracy still at work to suppress the facts. It makes for an unassailable position: You assert that a great part of what we know of musical history was completely fabricated as part of some vast conspiracy of which only you know the truth and then claim that the same grand conspiracy is still at work to suppress your facts from being accepted. In some camps this might be called delusional.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach.

You have stated this falsehood again and again. Mozart, himself composed several transcriptions of Bach's works, including that of Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II of the Well Tempered Clavier. Exposure to Bach (as well as Haydn) inspired Mozart's later efforts in the string quartets and can be especially seen in the fugal structure of the final section of the "Jupiter" symphony. Haydn was also knowledgeable and appreciative of Bach... although he was more influenced early on by the work of his son C.P.E. Bach. The reality is that baroque music in general became largely ignored during to "classical" period. Handel and Vivaldi were equally seen as "outdated". Indeed, Handel's operas (and most baroque operas in general) are only now receiving the sort of attention they deserve, while Vivaldi is now receiving the attention as a result of the current recordings of a vast cache of scores long housed away. The current situation in classical music in which we have access via recordings to a vast array of music from the present back through the middle-ages and beyond... and in which orchestras and operas focus a great deal of their repertoire upon the works of older composers is not the same situation as that of centuries past.

Of course... I may have taken it all wrong... you may be proposing a great fiction... in which this is all perfectly suited to a literature site. Of course nothing you have yet proposed suggests anything more than a variation on the DaVinci Codee. You might wish to read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum... the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories.

Read Marilyn_M_Barnewall's "Big Boys and Their Synthetic Political and Financial Toys", StLuke:

As "no true musicologist", she leaves out of her "conspiracy theory" the arts alltogether.

But she does include everything else!

Cheers!

virtually no one

In the name of all that's holy! Is this horse not sufficiently dead? This meciless beating is too much for mine eyes the bear. Let us all come together and accept the truth about the "day the music died" in Mexico City.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known.

Please use the appropriate terms. This thread is built upon the THEORY (the FICTION or the FANTASY) accepted and promoted by virtually no one but yourself that Mozart's music was fabricated as part of some grandiose conspiracy ala Foucault's Pendulum or more appropriately, a Dan Brown novel. The "facts" that you post here can undoubtedly be easily discredited by any true musicologist which is one reason that you have chosen to promote at a literature site where you might be reasonably assured that the majority lack the ability to challenge your assertions. The other reasons for your postings are a promotion of your proposed book on this very topic (Spam?) and the fact you have been banned from virtually all music discussion boards.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people.

To what purpose? You propose some vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people and unquestionably a fortune... to what end? To simply establish a Viennese or German musical genius? To steal musical dominance away from the Italians (as if Bach, Telemann, Gluck, and others had not already achieved this). And how was this achieved? To control the music industry? As if that were a goal worthy of such efforts at that point in history.
And this was achieved through the combined efforts of some consortium of composers who miraculously had the ability to compose a body of work for Mozart and for Haydn that maintained a continuity and yet were distinct from each other. And this consortium was brilliant enough to create a body of music that clearly conveyed the development of the individual "fictive" composers from early immaturity to later profundity. Yet today... in Hollywood we have a collection of artists, film-makers, composers, etc... unlike anything the 18th century might have imagined... and yet... in most instances... they are unable to produce anything approaching the artistic brilliance of Mozart?

During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts...

If you were truly able to PROVE this, you would have already achieved the greatest breakthrough in the history of musicology and your proofs would have already be commonly discussed among musicians, music historians, etc... But of course you argue there is some great conspiracy still at work to suppress the facts. It makes for an unassailable position: You assert that a great part of what we know of musical history was completely fabricated as part of some vast conspiracy of which only you know the truth and then claim that the same grand conspiracy is still at work to suppress your facts from being accepted. In some camps this might be called delusional.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach.

You have stated this falsehood again and again. Mozart, himself composed several transcriptions of Bach's works, including that of Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II of the Well Tempered Clavier. Exposure to Bach (as well as Haydn) inspired Mozart's later efforts in the string quartets and can be especially seen in the fugal structure of the final section of the "Jupiter" symphony. Haydn was also knowledgeable and appreciative of Bach... although he was more influenced early on by the work of his son C.P.E. Bach. The reality is that baroque music in general became largely ignored during to "classical" period. Handel and Vivaldi were equally seen as "outdated". Indeed, Handel's operas (and most baroque operas in general) are only now receiving the sort of attention they deserve, while Vivaldi is now receiving the attention as a result of the current recordings of a vast cache of scores long housed away. The current situation in classical music in which we have access via recordings to a vast array of music from the present back through the middle-ages and beyond... and in which orchestras and operas focus a great deal of their repertoire upon the works of older composers is not the same situation as that of centuries past.

Of course... I may have taken it all wrong... you may be proposing a great fiction... in which this is all perfectly suited to a literature site. Of course nothing you have yet proposed suggests anything more than a variation on the DaVinci Codee. You might wish to read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum... the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories.

---

stlukesguild,

I will answer your lengthy post below this. The 'labyrinthine conspiracy' is the official myth of Mozart. And always has been. As any fair person can see if they examine the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle

In the name of all that's holy! Is this horse not sufficiently dead? This meciless beating is too much for mine eyes the bear. Let us all come together and accept the truth about the "day the music died" in Mexico City.

---

Why not try another thread ? This one is on the fraudulent life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart ?

You can use other threads, can't you ?

Stlukesguild,

Would you kindly tell us where and when Mozart ever studied music theory and composition ? I've been studying this subject of Mozart for many years. I've found nothing. Maybe you can tell us ?

To which school did Wolfgang Mozart go as a child for his ordinary education ? And under what recognised teacher of music did Mozart study harmony, orchestration and composition during his whole lifetime ?

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him ?

Can you confirm the same is true of the first half dozen piano concertos of 'Mozart'

Can you confirm the fraud of the opera 'La Finta Semplice' (1768) which, after official investigation was found to be composed by others, and not by W.A. Mozart ! Thus cancelling an earlier commission of an opera given to him by the Emperor and Empress of Austria in Vienna and sending Mozart and his father home empty-handed. In shame. (This after weeks of him and his father being laughed at as musical frauds by the musicians in Vienna) ?

I could continue for many, many pages with the same sort of questions, but let's start there. Should be easy for you to answer. This will take us up to Mozart at the age of 12. And I promise to ask similar questions about the later years of his official life and career if you reply.

Let me end with your own words -

'the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories'.

The Mozart you believe in is a fairy story for adults. A fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but so say the actual facts. The documentary and historical evidences. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

As for the 'Bach arrangements' made by 'Mozart' they are not by Mozart at all. Nor are the 'Handel arrangements' They were actually made by Starzer, Luchesi and others. (Starzer also attended the musical gatherings of van Sweiten in Vienna where some of Bach's works finally came to Vienna. They remained unpublished and unperformed). Mozart was falsely attributed with these Bach arrangements and this is already widely acknowledged even in Mozart publications.

The number of performances of music by J.S. Bach in Vienna during the last decade of Mozart's life (1781-1791) is easily remembered. It was ZERO. As it was during the whole decade before Mozart's arrival there. Not forgetting the fact there was no performance of any work by J.S. Bach even during the decade after Mozart's death in Vienna also ! Ah, those musical Viennese, right ?

So much for the facts of history !

Regards


Thanks

Robert

Would you kindly tell us where and when Mozart ever studied music theory and composition ? I've been studying this subject of Mozart for many years. I've found nothing. Maybe you can tell us ?

Mozart studied music with his father... a mediocre composer, but a musician not exactly ignorant of music. Perhaps you can tell us where J.S. Bach studied music... oh yes, under the tutelage of his father initially, and later under his brother Johann Christoph. Perhaps you can also tell us where Picasso studied art? Oh yes... the answer to that would be that Picasso never had any real formal art education beyond that received from his father. He was accepted into the academy but quickly dropped out.

To which school did Wolfgang Mozart go as a child for his ordinary education ? And under what recognized teacher of music did Mozart study harmony, orchestration and composition during his whole lifetime ?

Again... under what recognized teacher did Bach develop his mastery of music? Under whom did William Blake develop the skills needed to become one of the greatest poets and visual artists in history? He never even attended public school. His only formal education was training as an apprentice under a print-maker. Where did Monet learn painting? The reality is that formal education is not the only route to knowledge. Most of those here will tell you that I know more than a little about literature, and yet I have had no formal literary education. My formal education was in art. However I have the ability to read and I can turn to others who have the knowledge or skills that I desire.

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him?

Whether I can prove through documentation the composition of any of Mozart's symphonies in no way supports your theory. Your theory is the one that challenges the accepted facts. It is YOU who must prove that Mozart did not write any of his symphonies, but you have not been able to convince the least musicologist or music historian. I can spout off some inane theory about how Picasso was really a Lesbian Albino from Yugoslavia and his paintings were done in secret by Elvis who was really Catherine the Great and I can support this by all sorts of fraudulent and misinterpreted documentation but it is the experts in art not literature whom I must convince... and you have repeatedly failed to do so with the experts in music. At the same time, whatever documentation is offered by those who do have expertise in this area will undoubtedly be dismissed by you as yet one more example of the grandiose conspiracy. As it stands, what you offer is but a comically diverting bit of fiction.

I could continue for many, many pages with the same sort of questions, but let's start there. Should be easy for you to answer. This will take us up to Mozart at the age of 12. And I promise to ask similar questions about the later years of his official life and career if you reply.

And if such answers are so easily proven why do you waste your time trying to convince members of a LITERATURE site who largely lack any real formal education in terms of music or music history let alone experience in researching historical documentation regarding music? Or is it because your ideas are so easily dismissed by those who do have such experience and knowledge? If you cannot convince the experts and the professionals let's attempt to convince the amateurs? Yet even most amateurs recognize absurdity when they see it.

The Mozart you believe in is a fairy story for adults. A fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but so say the actual facts. The documentary and historical evidences. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

Again... I don't need to prove differently. I am not an expert in musical history or musicology, and I am not asking an audience to believe a wild conspiracy theory that goes against all the facts passed on by those who are indeed experts in the field. You are the one who is asking us to suspend our belief... to challenge the accepted facts... and yet you have not convinced a single true expert in the field. Where are all the dozens of scholarly research papers and books upon your theory that would certainly accompany any theory that had convinced even a marginal few? There are dozens of such books confronting the Shakespeare attribution question. But then all this proves is that your theory is being suppressed by a vast conspiracy of the Illuminati, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Mormons, the The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, The Brotherhood of Eternal Love, and the the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.:lol:

Stlukesguild writes -


Mozart studied music with his father... a mediocre composer, but a musician not exactly ignorant of music.

No, that is not true. In fact, Leopold Mozart, was a failed student of law at the University of Salzburg. He was a liar, a fraud, and a member of the fraternities who masterminded his son's fraudulent career. Leopold Mozart was employed (eventually) as a 4th violinist in the orchestra of the Salzburg court - the lowest position possible ! And held that post for 12 years before he became a 3rd violinist. He became 'deputy kapellmeister' only weeks before he left for a 2 year tour of Europe ! His musical abilities were zero. The award was given to him purely to help the status of his son on tour. And bitterly resented in Salzburg. He published, in the year of Wolfgang's birth (1756) a violin treatise which had earlier been stolen from the Italian virtuoso Tartini. Leopold Mozart was a fraud. He taught nobody composition in his entire life, was never a teacher of harmony and orchestration in his entire life, and acted as a local agent for the sale of music with several music publishers. (Again, arranged by the fraternities who invented Wolfgang Mozart's career). Can it possibly be more clear ? Leopold himself admits that his son knew 'nothing' of composition or of music in a letter he wrote to Padre Martini in Italy from Salzburg, at the time when his son left for Italy. And the musical ignorance of Mozart was also confirmed by Mozart's employer in Salzburg, Prince Archbishop Firmian, who said the very same thing ! It too is refered to in that letter. Mozart knew NOTHING of composition and NOTHING was taught to him of music by his father. Such are the facts. Let's stop inventing things ! And do learn to be accountable for what you teach.

On Bach -

The deep study of music by J.S. Bach is described in all biographies of J.S. Bach. And yes, he studied under his brother and under many others of his time. If you fail to see the numerous references just let me know.

You cannot tell us where Mozart went to school ! Because you have no idea. And because Mozart NEVER went to any school in his entire life. Show us evidence to the contrary, please ! You cannot. Because Mozart was no student at any time. Unless you show us differently, of course.

I asked -

Can you confirm none of the first two dozen or so 'Mozart' symphonies show any documentary evidence of actually being by him?

And you again cannot answer me. Because those who have studied the musical scores of these early symphonies ALL agree there is NO evidence they were composed by Mozart. None. Let's say they were written by Ronald McDonald, or by someone else. Why Mozart ? Why not read textbooks on the subject and show us what you find. How about Solomon's 'Mozart' ? Or the work on Mozart's symphonies by Eisen ? None of them contradict what I say. The first few dozen 'Mozart' symphonies are NOT by Mozart. They were attributed to him only on the death of his father, in 1787, not before. And none were published in his entire lifetime. You simply have to accept the fact that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a legend for which you have NO documentary, musical and historical evidence. But you believe it all the same. It's a nice story. Right ?

So the actual, documentary evidence for the musical 'genius' of young Mozart (which includes 6 piano concertos actually by others) is nil. So says the actual documentary evidence. Unless you show us differently. This fiasco also includes the fraud of the opera 'La Finta Semplice' of 1768 in Vienna. A farce which led to an investigation and no payment.

How about this idea ? Find someone who can support your views. Anyone. Consult your mountain of Mozart literature and let's see the evidence.

You are believing a fairy story. But this fairy story is so popular you are amazed anyone should ever ask you to prove it correct. But you believe it all the same. And we have now examined Mozart up until his 12th year. Let's try later if you like ?

Regards

No, that is not true. In fact, Leopold Mozart, was a failed student of law at the University of Salzburg. He was a liar, a fraud, and a member of the fraternities who masterminded his son's fraudulent career. Such are the facts. Let's stop inventing things ! And do learn to be accountable for what you teach.

When one teaches something it is assumed that the "facts" are supported by documentation that is acknowledged and recognized by those who are specialists in the filed. I can certainly invent a whole fictive narrative of art history based upon personal delusions, but these will be recognized for what they are.

You cannot tell us where Mozart went to school ! Because you have no idea. And because Mozart NEVER went to any school in his entire life. Show us evidence to the contrary, please ! You cannot. Because Mozart was no student at any time. Unless you show us differently, of course.

And again your strategy is to demand that others (who are not specialists in the field) provide proof and documentation of facts which you and only you dispute... while rejecting as evidence the whole of musical history as written by those who actually are knowledgeable in the field. Such is about as inane as me demanding that you provide evidence that Picasso was not a lesbian Albino whose paintings were painted by Elvis without using any of the evidence provided by legitimate art historians. I do not need to prove a thing. It is you who are asking us to suspend our belief in the facts as passed down by history and experts in the field of music. It is you who insist that everyone else... even the experts on the topic in question... is either ignorant of the truth or part of the vast on-going conspiracy. Your theory lacks any credence or legitimacy until you can convince more than a few experts and not a group of book lovers.

And you again cannot answer me. Because those who have studied the musical scores of these early symphonies ALL agree there is NO evidence they were composed by Mozart. None. Let's say they were written by Ronald McDonald, or by someone else. Why Mozart ? Why not read textbooks on the subject and show us what you find. How about Solomon's 'Mozart' ? Or the work on Mozart's symphonies by Eisen ? None of them contradict what I say. The first few dozen 'Mozart' symphonies are NOT by Mozart. They were attributed to him only on the death of his father, in 1787, not before. And none were published in his entire lifetime. You simply have to accept the fact that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a legend for which you have NO documentary, musical and historical evidence. But you believe it all the same. It's a nice story. Right?

Again... I have no need to prove the facts because the facts are not disputed by anyone except yourself and in no way have you proven that I should lend the least credence to your great conspiracy theory or waste my time that might be put to better use in research to simply contradict you. There are those far better equipped to do so and you have not convinced a single one of them. Why do you think that is?

How about this idea ? Find someone who can support your views. Anyone. Consult your mountain of Mozart literature and let's see the evidence.

No... I have a better idea. Why don't you provide a single legitimate music historian or musicologist who is in support of your theory? Why don't you just get on Google and pull up the dozens of sites (that would surely accompany any legitimate theory) that support your theory.

You are believing a fairy story. But this fairy story is so popular you are amazed anyone should ever ask you to prove it correct. But you believe it all the same.

I believe in a fairy story... and you believe in what? A personal theory that is not shared or supported by a single legitimate music historian or musicologist. A personal theory that asks that we suspend all belief in the facts as passed down by legitimate music historians and musicologists. A personal theory that has been rejected repeatedly on any number of music discussion forums by those who are knowledgeable in the field. A personal theory that depends upon a single individual imagining that he and only he knows the truth and everyone one else is ignorant or part of the vast conspiracy to suppress this truth. Again the term delusional comes to mind.

I have not been following this thread, for wise reasons, but even though I only know the movie about Mozart, I believe in the genius of Mozart because I am the palsied poet, and I have been the palsied poet since I was nine years old, and if anyone comes along one hundred years from now saying I did not write my own work, I hope JBI's children will shoot them for me.

That there are people so full of hate that they have to destroy the gifts of an artist's legacy in the world causes me no small degree of sadness.