Mozart in English

"The career of Mozart" is of minor concern to me whereas 1762 is important for my hero (who apparently patronised Mozart all along having Leopold, his trusted associate, propably substituting for him and that's why Leopold does not record the event, "Bernasconi" being an invention perhaps).

Cocchi: Alessandor nell'Indie (13.10.1761 London KT)
Gluck: Le Cadi dupé (9.12.1761 Wien B)

Mozarts in Munnich/Bernasconi

Cocchi:Le nozze di Dorina (spr.1762 London KT)
Cocchi:La famiglia in scompiglio (spr.1762 London KT) (he then dissappears from London until 1771)


"It was for Andrea Bernasconi that Gluck is said to have written his opera ‘Alceste’."

You mean Antonia?

The career of Mozart is important in my opinion, because this thread is devoted to Mozart.
The pdf by Robert I see is not just about a year in general, but about a month in particular, and focuses on three weeks in that year. Interesting, because nobody studied this part of the Mozart's biography until now.
In Munich I think Leopold Mozart eventually met some important people, who probably helped him to promote Wolfgang. Who knows.............
I searched for Minuetto K1 on Kochel and in NMA edition. I see the piece is VERY simple and also short, there are others of them, all the same, and not so good. Somebody I've read in some other articles is also not sure they are written by Wolfgang Mozart.

It's very strange that Mozart was a perfomer at that time. And I wonder why in the following years nobody would remember Mozart would have performed a Concert in Munich in that Jauary 1762. Very strange indeed. What do you think Yanni?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

"The career of Mozart" is of minor concern to me whereas 1762 is important for my hero (who apparently patronised Mozart all along having Leopold, his trusted associate, propably substituting for him and that's why Leopold does not record the event, "Bernasconi" being an invention perhaps).

---

Hi there Pyras,

Thanks for that. Wurttemberg and Schwetzingen were major in the public career of young Mozart also. Yes, 1762 was a crucial year. Hopefully it shows from the very start the myth and the reality were completely different. The Minuet in F Major (KV2) must be one of the greatest works ever written by mankind. That explains it. Yes ?

:nopity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbComO-51Fk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyras

Thank you Robert for the link. I've read your pdf.

I think you're right. This year 1762 is very important also, for the career of Mozart. I've never thougth about that. I see that Mozart had just composed a Minuetto, or very few things, and then he did a concert in the residence of the Emperor :lol:. How could it be possible? And also what Nannerl had written is very misterious.

---

"This thread is devoted to Mozart" and, soon as 1770 showed its teeth, it(thread) jumped to 1762, pyr-as*!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Hi there Pyras,

Thanks for that. Wurttemberg and Schwetzingen were major in the public career of young Mozart also. Yes, 1762 was a crucial year. Hopefully it shows from the very start the myth and the reality were completely different. The Minuet in F Major (KV2) must be one of the greatest works ever written by mankind. That explains it. Yes ?

:nopity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbComO-51Fk

---

Yes Robert,

it's extraordinary, just because I see that these pieces are not Minuetti at all. They are not complete, also, and are very simplified versions. I think also this K1a K1b etc. were composed in 1761 or 1762 (before or after the trip to Munich?), they don't know. I suppose they seem to be, in my opinion, a sort of a kind of orchestral music simplified by Leopold, who took a piece form the violins, a piece from the Basso, and so on, just to provide a simplified and childish version. It would have been very usefull to exercice the young boy. Actually these compositions are too small to have a meaning, without a trio and so on. And too strange, for they have no context at all. They are not composed in the notebook. They are just copied in the notebook. There is no sign of mistakes, no changes were made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

"This thread is devoted to Mozart" and, soon as 1770 showed its teeth, it(thread) jumped to 1762, pyr-as*!

---

Hi Yanni, I wonder why did you change my name.
I'm not English, but I suppose this is not the way I've answered to you. I also suppose that what do you mean is VERY impolite. So, please if you want to tell me something you cannot write here, send to me please a private message and explain me directly what do you want and why do you think I'm not allowed to write here.
I was polite with you, try to consider I'm here just because I'm interested in this topic about Mozart. If you don't like my posts, please just ignore them, ok. If you'll ask me, I'll do the same with your messages. Thank you, and consider that, because I'm not English, I have some difficulties to express my ideas.

1762 and 1770 are intersting the same, in my opinion, for these years are intended to be related to Mozart. So I thank Robert for his messages, that are giving me some links, I consider them very important and interesting.
I'd like also read your message, Yanni. But I do not understand what they have to do with Mozart and with the pdf provided by Musicologist

Ofcourse you are allowed to write here and express your thanks to Robert for the wonderfull job he is doing, switching subject and/or year, expanding or minimizing limits and focus, everytime the going gets tough. He has been doing it eversince coming to this forum.

We were discussing 1770 when, all of a sudden, he felt his pants were in flames (pyr in grk) and thought, wrongly as usual, he could find comfort in 1762!

Robert does have a detailed timeline afterall but uses it selectively, never going beyond Mozart's diapers.

Ta-ta!

Hi Musicology

Do you think, as Yanni apparently told me, that you finished to publish chapters about 1770, or are you and Mr. Bianchini planning to talk more about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Hi there Pyras,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbComO-51Fk

---

Hi there Pyras,

No, there are many subjects we can still discuss here on this thread on the subject of Mozart 1770. (Mozart was certainly not wearing 'diapers' in that year). The years between his 'first tour' to Munich of 1762 and his decade long life in Vienna (for the last 10 years of his life) in 1781 (aged 25) is (as is now able to be shown) one enormous pile of exaggerations, falsehoods, half truths, and errors, published over 200 years. Musically, culturally and historically. With virtually no cross-examination or criticism. So the fact of this may be shared freely here. This is able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. With detailed evidence. Which anyone can criticise if they wish. Or not. On issue after issue. Musically and in other ways. That is how these things are done. Or ought to be.

The best thing to do has always been to present detailed evidence. You will notice nobody has denied these little known things because they are really not able to be refuted. This is what Luca Bianchini with his extraordinary musical analysis and myself (historically and in other ways) have started to do. Freely, for readers here. With article after article to show there IS a huge problem. When this basic fact is established we can suggest how this nonsense ever came to be a standard part of our musical and cultural 'education'. A few examples from the early years of Mozart are obviously not enough and never have been. Dozens are not enough also. But there is a cutoff point (perhaps after the 3rd tour of Italy by Mozart which ended in March 1773 ? ) where it may be best to pause and offer a detailed reason for what was going on and the rise to iconic status of this still ongoing, giant fiction. A fiction which (believe it or not) continued in Vienna between 1781 and 1791. And which continued for decades after Mozart's death in 1791. (In fact, it accelerated).

Mozart and his father toured Italy three times. Their first trip (December 1769 - March 1771) introduced them to the Italian upper class, the noblesse, the higher nobility and church dignitaries and even the Pope. He met there an old friend from London, the castrate Manzuoli, and another 'wunderkind' of his own age in Florence, the English boy Thomas Linley. These two boys developed a close friendship. Pope Clement XIV conferred on W. A. Mozart the Order of the Golden Spur, making the composer "Sir Wolfgang, Signore Cavaliere Mozart". In Bologna Mozart is even said to have studied counterpoint with the Franciscan Padre Martini. Which, as we have already seen, is simply not true. He later conducted 'his' opera Mitridate, Re di Ponto Milan. Details of we will also examine here on this thread.

Father and son set off again from Salzburg for Milan in August 1771. Mozart is then credited with writing "Ascanio di Alba" as a wedding gift for the Archduke Ferdinand to Princess Beatrice of Modena. The Mozarts again returned to Italy from October 1772 to March 1773. Mozart having been commissioned by Milan to write another opera. The premiere of "Lucio Silla" was itself catastrophic. As a consequence, Mozart failed to receive any further commissions from Italy.

Close to 20 articles could be written on the Italian years alone. Proving beyond fair and reasonable doubt the 'genius of Salzburg' is literally riddled with major problems. His later visit to Paris of the same kind as is the background to the Munich opera of 1780'Idomeneo'.

And all of this before Mozart even comes to live in Vienna for his final decade.

If you have questions on 1770 and Mozart please post them here and I will see if we can help.

Best wishes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyras

Hi Musicology

Do you think, as Yanni apparently told me, that you finished to publish chapters about 1770, or are you and Mr. Bianchini planning to talk more about that?

---

one enormous pile of exaggerations, falsehoods, half truths, and errors, published over 200 years

There is indeed one Mozart pile, as you say.....

....and then there are the "Cocceji", "Koch", "Melchior Grimm", "Jean Jacques Rousseau", "Pierre Michel Hennin","Marquiss de Chastellux", Gioachino Cocchi, "W.C.Gluck", "Franz Joseph Haydn", "Frederick de Nicolay", "Immanuel Kant", "Martin Wieland", "Casanova", "Philidor", "JA Hasse", "baron Stroganov", Antonio Cocchi, "Amyand", "Fr.Handel", "J.S.Bach", "Gerhard van Swieten", "Desaguliers", ....."padre Martini" (three piles), "abbe Galiani", "Muslivecek", "Durazzo"(two), "Pallavicini", "Cowper", "Marquiss de Ligninville", "C.Burney" .....etc etc piles (quoting from memory, never really bothered listing all "comte de Saint Germain's" aliases, nor his father's). And you can't really separate the Mozart pile from the rest because the Mozarts were absolutely dependent from "them all".

to present detailed evidence. ....This is what Luca Bianchini with his extraordinary musical analysis and myself (historically and in other ways) have started to do

Keep up the good work and here is a whitewash recipy to help you along for a piu bianco bianchino for your goats: http://fiascofarm.com/recipes/whitewash.html

And which continued for decades after Mozart's death in 1791.

Wolfie didn't die in 1791, as you well know (ie you are "at it", rather "in it", throat deep again). He lived happily as Niessen* with his wifie and was busy curing his (your, our) manure to the end of his life, along with his life-long sponsor "C.L.von Nicolai"/Saint Germain, living at the time (1815 plus) across the pond in Vyborg. Everything, all memoirs, letter exchange, testimonies, later studies, was and still is 'manufactured'.

It all started early 18th century in masonic/banking lodges in german ruled London, it's the most revolting, disgusting story of THE conspiracy of crooked greedy fools who, after stealing eastern 'gnosis' in every possible manner, further developed it, industrially, for their own profit, while playing God and cheating others, their own people or their 'enemies', provoking wars for profit, blackmail, usury, world governance. They called it "philosophy" and "democracy", "new social contract" and "the people's freedom". Rome (a part at least) played along after 1770 or so.

It's "our" only "story", I fear, "we" have no other....but it was- and still is-an evil farce!

:nopity:

*See post 343 and later of http://www.online-literature.com/for...sen#post836028

In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases :lol:?) wrote the Opera "Demifoonte."
Also, Vanhal's popularity, shortly after some of his symphonies were published, was such that his music was performed in the Colonies.

Is it true that Vanhal's output (he wrote ~ 1,200 works) inexplicably "paused" when he lived near Mozart?

Hi there ERS,

The opera 'Mitradate' that is attributed to Mozart and which was premiered in his name in Milan in 1770 during his first tour contains music by at least two composers, Josef Myslivececk (1737-81) and Francesco Gasparini (1661-1721).

As for the Bohemian composer GB Vanhal, yes, he stopped publishing his music in Vienna shortly after 1781 and the story was invented in Vienna he was mentally ill. This conveniently removes from access a major composer of huge importance to Mozart (as he had been since long before he arrived in Vienna). At the library of the Gesselschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna is a short, handwritten (and unpublished) biography of Vanhal's career written soon after his death which tells us he personally went to meet Mozart at the time Mozart arrived to live in Vienna in 1781 and presented him at that meeting with a keyboard sonata of his own composition. (A practice which, for W.A. Mozart, appears to have been rather common ! ). Numerous church works by Vanhal made during this Mozart decade are remarkably 'Mozartean' and have, until recently, not been performed or at all appreciated. The fact Vanhal lived as a virtual next door neighbour to Mozart during his Vienna decade (and particularly around the time of the premiere of Le Nozze di Figaro' in 1786) is of course a sheer coincidence. The kind which we get used to in this area of research. The lists of published music by this remarkable composer (mostly symphonies and chamber music) by Viennese publishers of the 1770's and their popularity at the time will confirm the above. There are also (I am told) almost 9 remarkable masses by Vanhal from this silent period of 1780 and beyond, only 2 of which I have heard.

I hope that an article on 'Mitridate' can be published here before long.

G.B. Vanhal
Symphony in D Major
c. 1775-6

1st Movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMa_...eature=related

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERS

In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases :lol:?) wrote the Opera "Demifoonte."
Also, Vanhal's popularity, shortly after some of his symphonies were published, was such that his music was performed in the Colonies.

Is it true that Vanhal's output (he wrote ~ 1,200 works) inexplicably "paused" when he lived near Mozart?

---

By all indications the answer is yes but I'll be able to confirm 'alias Vanhal' if the exact date and place where .....English music historian Charles Burney visited Vanhal in 1772 (Wiki) ......is provided by any daring/truth-seeking english musicologist, once recovered. But then he, our ideal musicologist, would have to first respond somehow to the puzzle of "Concerto for Two Lyres" attributed to "Maestro A. Mozart" [Ms. 5829-Naples] , bring Rosetti and Ordonez into the 1770 picture, to then speak about the Sturm und Drang period of Vienna* and F.J.Haydn/Vanhal/Ordonez/Rosetti's:lol: relative change of style (running in parallel to the Cocchi-to-'Gluck' tranformation) etc etc.

And then address Michael Kelly's credibility as "source"!

PS It's "Demofonte" actuallly!

*'The first golden age of the Viennese symphony: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert' by A. Peter Brown

:nopity:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERS

In Milan, Mozart wrote the opera "Mitridate, re di Ponto" (1770); that same year, Vanhal (another one of Cocchi's aliases :lol:?) wrote the Opera "Demifoonte."

---

There are numerous other posts available on other aspects of Mozart's first tour of Italy in 1770 and some of these can be made soon.

Will Johann Georg Sulzer and his book 'Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, Leipzig 1771' be included in your forthcoming endeavours?

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

There are numerous other posts available on other aspects of Mozart's first tour of Italy in 1770 and some of these can be made soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

There are numerous other posts available on other aspects of Mozart's first tour of Italy in 1770 and some of these can be made soon.

---

Yes I think it is a good idea, just to talk about few things, not to mix all together.

This K.44 is related to Antiphon K.86 that's because this K.44 was used to prove Mozart that Martini was his teacher.
I suppose K.44 is piece well written, but I see that it is not by Mozart. It is a piece of later Renaissance, not a 1770 composition as it is written in my CD :).

But I also see that, according to the examples given in pdf, there are also mistakes in the Antiphon K.86, the one written by Mozart. That's the reason Martini wrote another version of this Antiphon. So I wonder why Mozart cannot control voices inside a vocal piece? That's strange. I see there are also errors, braking the rules of Philarmonic Academy, in the parts. I see Mozart cannot write simple imitations in K.86, he cannot control parts that produce parallel octaves, and parallelism in conducting parts, is a way to show that the composer actually wrote voices that are not indipendent. Mozart I see cannot prepare and resolve dissonancies. He used an instrumental language, but he was requested to write a vocal piece in ancient style. At least I see so in the example provided in .pdf. I see the piece also in Mozart Critical Edition. It is so, no doubts. That's very strange.

Thanks Pyras,

Yes, KV44 is routinely used to 'prove' Martini was Mozart's teacher. And yes, it's an arrangement of a late Renaissance work written by him in Salzburg before he ever got to Italy. Do you think they are going to tell you that ?? No, you are right. And why is that ? It's because they deserve work mopping floors or baking bread. This is systematic fiction.

As for the Antifon KV86 it's a shameless piece of work. But most amazing is the fact this boy could not possibly have written anything of musical quality before or after this exam for voices or independent parts. Which is precisely what we find months and many years later in the actual evidence !

Take, as one great example, Mozart's canons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(music)

http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/ca_12.html

(Some of these were produced when he was more than 30 years old in Vienna). But virtually all are written in octaves, in unison. For soprano voices. And virtually every single published reference source discussing these same canons of Mozart describes them as being wonderful works from a 'genius' composer ! The truth is any 14 year old music student could do better. But the same nonsense celebration of those works is even found in the Critical Edition of Mozarts works. (A standard work read everywhere on Mozart). Here is a list of Mozart's canons -

Really, it's laughable nonsense ! It's dishonest. It's untrue. And yet nobody ever tells the truth about this. Why ?

Is there are single music teacher or music writer who can show us the musical value of Mozart's musical canons ? Let him/her post here. Any of them ? No, of course not. They have urgent appointments elsewhere. Because they're all nonsense. Most of these works are musical canons stolen from others. And they are still nonsense even in Mozart's plagiarised versions of them !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyras

Yes I think it is a good idea, just to talk about few things, not to mix all together.

This K.44 is related to Antiphon K.86 that's because this K.44 was used to prove Mozart that Martini was his teacher.
I suppose K.44 is piece well written, but I see that it is not by Mozart. It is a piece of later Renaissance, not a 1770 composition as it is written in my CD :).

But I also see that, according to the examples given in pdf, there are also mistakes in the Antiphon K.86, the one written by Mozart. That's the reason Martini wrote another version of this Antiphon. So I wonder why Mozart cannot control voices inside a vocal piece? That's strange. I see there are also errors, braking the rules of Philarmonic Academy, in the parts. I see Mozart cannot write simple imitations in K.86, he cannot control parts that produce parallel octaves, and parallelism in conducting parts, is a way to show that the composer actually wrote voices that are not indipendent. Mozart I see cannot prepare and resolve dissonancies. He used an instrumental language, but he was requested to write a vocal piece in ancient style. At least I see so in the example provided in .pdf. I see the piece also in Mozart Critical Edition. It is so, no doubts. That's very strange.

---

Can an abstract theory of Empfindsamkeit aesthetics have any value to a musician wishing to study composition in the classical style(?). The eighteenth-century German theorist and pedagogue Heinrich Koch showed how this question could be answered with a resounding yes. Starting with the systematic aesthetic theory of the Swiss encyclopedist Johann Sulzer, Koch was creatively able to adapt Sulzer's conservative ideas on ethical mimesis and rhetoric to concrete problems of music analysis and composition. In this collaborative study, Thomas Christensen and Nancy Baker have translated and analysed selected writings of Sulzer and Koch respectively, bringing to life a little-known confluence of philosophical and musical thought from the German Enlightenment. Koch's appropriation of Sulzer's ideas to the service of music represents an important development in the evolution of Western musical thought.

So it is really essential to reestablish and reconfirm the absolutely 'central european' origins of "Johann Georg Sulzer" even if his portrait mirrors our very own 'Frederic de Nicolay' or 'Friedrich Nicolai', his absolutely anglosaxon publisher!

Much like J.S.Bach's/Fr. Handel's likeness to Antonio Cocchi's 'friend', Bernardo Tanucci, host of the Mozarts etc in Naples, 1770: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ta...ernardo_01.jpg

Uomo, come io sono,non puo mancare, e s'io non fossi, un altro sarebe sulla scena in cui sono io, con poca differenza sello spetacolo. Tanucci to Antonio Cocchi 29 July 1755.
'A man like me cannot lie and (but) if I don't another will be on stage with little difference to the show'

IE

"Johann Sebastian Bach/Georg Friedrich Handel/Claudius Amyand/Desaguliers/Gerhard van Swieten" ie Antonio Cocchi* died as 'marchese Bernardo Tanucci', (see http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew...s/Tanucci.html and http://www.archive.org/stream/histor...7past_djvu.txt), 1783 or 1793.

*For an early, Florence about 1734, portrait of Antonio Cocchi see http://www.chimera160.it/pdf/accad.pdf : His later 'portliness' is already evident (and so is his likeness to later 'Bach/Handel' portraits).


:lol::lol::lol::lol: ('Koch' chorus).

There are just a few more questions still to answer on 18th century classical music masters, but for the moment our ideal english musicologist should focus on H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, on 'Cowpers' first and last visit to London and then grace us with his re conclusions.

Yanni,

Since we are focused on W.A. Mozart, and especially on Mozart during the year 1770 (during his first of three Italian tours) the question of the aliases who were associated with furthering his career at that time or any other, whether there were three, five, or twenty nine is really of secondary importance. Of prime importance is to establish for anyone who wishes to see it (by documentary, historical and musical proof) that there is a subject worthy of study by anyone. Namely, the false/manufactured musical career of W.A. Mozart. Without the scale of this falsified career being shown by evidence it would be pointless to drift in to discussions such as the role of this man, or that man, or any other men. Alias or not. Nor would it be appropriate to discuss how the fairy story was achieved, by whom, and why. Aliases are a major factor in the ‘show business’ world of 18th century opera. That is a fact. Nobody disagrees with that. But there are a series of music related articles still to come on 1770 and music that is (and always has been) attributed to him. By the end of which (on 1770 and on the early years) you can indulge yourself in discussing as many aliases or supposed aliases as you please. Since rule number one in an area as controversial as this is to first establish that there is a subject worthy of examination. And there is. But many believe differently. That is why the priority remains to provide a series of proofs on the actual music, the actual track record of it being attributed (wrongly) to the ‘genius’ of Mozart. Which, I believe (and so do others) is able to speak for itself. But which first needs to be demonstrated with more of the same.

And let us see if critics can reply to what is presented. I think you see the answer. And, if not, you soon will.

You have complained in the past of 'switching' from period to period, and from subject to subject. Fine. That was because the subject is a large one. So we are now focused on music attributed to W.A. Mozart from the time of his first tour to Italy. We are fixed upon it. And, as you see, there is no answer to what has been presented. Because it speaks for itself. 'They' have no answer. Why is this ? Because it is the actual evidence.

Oh no, not back to the diapers again!

You tend to forget that
-Mozart's manufacture never was disputed by me and that
-my disagreement was on the identity of his manufacturer.

This condition of yours seems to worsten the more facts are known on the manufacturer, the more aliases are identified, the more info is made available on his links to british diplomacy, on his financial ties and allegiance to Britain!

Such is the case with 'Cowper' and H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, which, believe it or not, is very much related to 1770 and the Mozarts.

You just don't -wish to-know it!

Yanni, believe it or not there are many people who do NOT know that the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart is a plain, verifiable fact. And since they require more than games with multiple personalities and aliases that is what is the priority. But you are free to make a thread of your own on that subject. At any time. This thread is on Mozart, and it is dealing with the music that is attributed to him from the time of his first tour to Italy. On which you (and anyone else) can see documentary and other evidence.

If you wish to provide us with evidence of multiple aliases please do so. Nobody has ever stopped you.

I am well aware of Cowper's relationship to Britain and to the Holy Roman Empire. More than you may realise. (He became an aristocrat of the Holy Roman Empire himself and almost never visited England after his arrival in Italy). And I am well aware of Walpole's correspondence with Horace Mann.

If you wish to tell us about H. Walpole's letter to Horace Mann of 29th May 1786 please do so. Especially if it relates to Mozart and 1770.

What I wish to know is why you don't tell us ? So that we can all see it for ourselves.

Here are the most revealing parts of Horace Walpole's letter of May 29, 1786:

....to see an English Earl who has passed thirty years in Florence and is more proud of a Pinchbeck principality and a paltry order from Wirtenberg than he was of being a peer of Great Britain when Britain was something....

He answered very well to my idea, for I should have taken his Highness for a Doge of Genoa;he has the awkward dignity of a temporary representative of temporal powers.

What is Walpole writing about?

Did 'your Cowper' ever receive his orders from Wirtenberg, pretend to be a Doge of Genoa or temporarily represented a temporal power?

'Mine' did!

Ta-ta!

PS As for Cowper's 'principality', I'll leave it for later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I am well aware of Cowper's relationship to Britain and to the Holy Roman Empire. More than you may realise. (He became an aristocrat of the Holy Roman Empire himself and almost never visited England after his arrival in Italy). And I am well aware of Walpole's correspondence with Horace Mann.

If you wish to tell us about H. Walpole's letter to Horace Mann of 29th May 1786 please do so. Especially if it relates to Mozart and 1770.

What I wish to know is why you don't tell us ? So that we can all see it for ourselves.

---

Yanni wrote this in his previous post -

''Such is the case with 'Cowper' and H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, which, believe it or not, is very much related to 1770 and the Mozarts''

Great ! Please tell us the details of the relationship between this letter of May 29th 1786 and Mozart's visit to Italy of 1770 !! We are STILL waiting. This is request number 3.

I think you are becoming an obscurantist, once again. Try walking in the sunshine.

And now we see how wise it is to stay on our subject of Mozart. Since your letter does NOT 'very much' relate to Mozart and 1770. Does it ? You have showed no such relationship. As everyone can see. Do some homework please !

If we cannot deal with simple things, how can we deal with harder ones ? I stay with what is already being done - the early tours on Mozart. Which lead, step by step in to areas which cannot be (and were not) by Mozart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfdI6...eature=related

'And who would credit that ? None. One works. And I have already. And yet you will hear them always '

(Maria Theresia von Paradis)
1759-1824

You skipped answering my previous post by referring to the one before.

I repeat:

Did 'your Cowper' ever receive his orders from Wirtenberg, pretend to be a Doge of Genoa or temporarily represented a temporal power?

If you have difficulty answering, ie Walpole's- 'pearl' of a- letter is 'all greek to you', why don't you just admit it?

Ta-ta!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni wrote this in his previous post -

''Such is the case with 'Cowper' and H.Walpole's letter to Horace Mann, May 29, 1786, which, believe it or not, is very much related to 1770 and the Mozarts''

Great ! Please tell us the details of the relationship between this letter of May 29th 1786 and Mozart's visit to Italy of 1770 !! We are STILL waiting. This is request number 3.

I think you are becoming an obscurantist, once again. Try walking in the sunshine.

And now we see how wise it is to stay on our subject of Mozart. Since your letter does NOT 'very much' relate to Mozart and 1770. Does it ? You have showed no such relationship. As everyone can see. Do some homework please !

If we cannot deal with simple things, how can we deal with harder ones ? I stay with what is already being done - the early tours on Mozart. Which lead, step by step in to areas which cannot be (and were not) by Mozart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfdI6...eature=related

'And who would credit that ? None. One works. And I have already. And yet you will hear them always '

(Maria Theresia von Paradis)
1759-1824

---

You are talking of Cowper and a letter he received in 1786. But this thread is talking about Mozart of 1770 in Italy and subjects related to it. Isn't it ? And you are going to show us connections between these two different things, aren't you ? That is what you have told us here on this thread. In fact, you have repeated it over and over. So here is request number 4. Please show us the connections. Can you do it ? Or is it yet another example of you talking in riddles ?

I have better things to do than be diverted from the actual subject of this thread by endless obscurantism that leads nowhere. We deserve better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALeCjl70m58

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

You skipped answering my previous post by referring to the one before.

I repeat:

Did 'your Cowper' ever receive his orders from Wirtenberg, pretend to be a Doge of Genoa or temporarily represented a temporal power?

If you have difficulty answering, ie Walpole's- 'pearl' of a- letter is 'all greek to you', why don't you just admit it?

Ta-ta!

---

And while we wait for Yanni's reply - a little dance music -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ten_1...eature=related

Followed by several more articles on Mozart 1770.

See what you can do then with your "Mozart in Italy, 1770-71"

Here is what Walpole was referring to in May, 1786:

'Doge of Genoa'=Marcello Durazzo* (February 3, 1767 to February 16, 1769)
'orders from Wirtenberg'=Ferdinand Friedrich von Nicolai*(commissioned Wurtemberg's general, 1786)
'temporarily representative'=Marquiss de Chastelux*
'temporal power'=USA
'Pinchbeck principality'=Monaco (under chevalier Antoine de Grimaldi* until 1784).

early 1771 timeline

January 22 Prince Henry of Prussia visits Russia and proposes partition of Poland.

Jean-Frédéric-Henri baron de Cocceji* lieutenant-colonel et adjudant du Roi, nommé envoyé extraordinaire de Prusse à Stockholm le 17 novembre 1763, rappelé le 28 janvier 1771.

9 February 1771 King=s Semiramide Riconosciuta.By Giovan Gualberto Bottarelli (librettist) and Gioacchino Cocchi (composer).Opera.

March 3, 1771 Leopold (51) and Wolfgang Amadeus (15) meet with Count Giacomo Durazzo*,Imperial ambassador to Venice.

March 4-13th Mozart receives a commission for a second Milan opera, to be performed in 1772. It will be Lucio Silla (K. 135). Mozart receives commission for La Betulia liberata (K. 118).


*Alias of Gioachino Cocchi/Saint Germain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

You are talking of Cowper and a letter he received in 1786. But this thread is talking about Mozart of 1770 in Italy and subjects related to it. Isn't it ? And you are going to show us connections between these two different things, aren't you ? That is what you have told us here on this thread. In fact, you have repeated it over and over. So here is request number 4. Please show us the connections. Can you do it ? Or is it yet another example of you talking in riddles ?

I have better things to do than be diverted from the actual subject of this thread by endless obscurantism that leads nowhere. We deserve better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALeCjl70m58

---

Here is the real story of still another musical work, the 'Miserere', falsely attributed today to W.A. Mozart from his first tour of Italy in 1770. (Known in the Mozart catalogue as KV 85).

See this article by Luca Bianchini -

''Considerations on the Supposed Musical Teaching of Mozart by Padre Martini of Bologna''

http://www.mediafire.com/?8agr218yx5ae8db

Thank you,

I've just read the pdf. Yes. It's also an important document that helps me to understand the problematic situation. I wonder how it is possible the considered experts in Mozart not only took ‘Cibavit’ written around 1600 as a piece by Mozart and have even confused the Antifona provided to Mozart by Martini (KV86) with one made by Mozart himself, and confuse music written around 1840 with Martini's music.
:willy_nilly:

About Mozart
I completely agree with Johann Simon Mayr, contemporary of Mozart (I think) (quoted at the very beginning of the pdf) that «Real genius is sacred, not drunken, is educated, not born, is inflamed by sentiment, purified by intellect, endowed by nature and developed by study. That which is rumoured as being blind genius is nothing but a fabulous legend. In Music knowledge gained by musicians has nothing to do with carefree students who are empty of any schooling or art»

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Here is the real story of still another musical work, the 'Miserere', falsely attributed today to W.A. Mozart from his first tour of Italy in 1770. (Known in the Mozart catalogue as KV 85).

See this article by Luca Bianchini -

''Considerations on the Supposed Musical Teaching of Mozart by Padre Martini of Bologna''

http://www.mediafire.com/?8agr218yx5ae8db

---

This charade has been extended beyond endurance. I never thought that Elvis Presley could be useful for anything, except making money out of suckers, but I was wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzV_0l5ILI

Thank you Pyras,

In our brief study of the early touring years of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) we have taken the unusual (unprecedented) step of presenting actual evidence (musical, biographical and other kinds) for readers on a few musical works related to Munich and the first made with his father Leopold to Italy in 1770. Which have been contradicted by nobody. Not even the Austrian Tourist Board ! Providing (in a style intended to survive apathy and scrutiny) information on the documentary and other evidence on which, as we see, gross contradiction, institutionalised falsehood, new levels of exaggeration and downright fabrication have been until now its substitute. And we have sailed fearlessly against a tide of indifference, misinformation, eulogy, and science fiction. In pursuit of a history of music based upon reality.

You are right to ask how the progress of this young musical genius will continue to unfold in a land (Italy) which, of course, has been as speechless of the 'Salzburg phenomenon' as anywhere else. Any errors found in standard textbooks on Mozart (his life and career) are of course merely accidental and understandable on an issue which defies human comprehension and even which defies criticism. We have modestly not yet discussed the details of the famous first concert given by Mozart in Mantua (which is itself part of this folklore) and nor have we yet examined the legendary feats of memory shown by this ''wunderkind'' in Rome, (when he is reputed to have copied from memory an entire church piece of Signor Allegri at the Sistine Chapel). Nor have we covered the presentation to this young prodigy, this Graduate of the Academy of Bologna, of the Order of the Golden Spur with the approval and admiration of the papacy. (Which was a feat in itself). But these facts (it is said) would settle any controversy on the talents and abilities of this young genius. Any suggestion we are being 'led down the garden path' on musical history over the past 200 years should of course be rejected. Since everyone knows 'everything we have heard is true'.

I have the suspicion that another series of articles on the tour of 1770 (including these legendary events mentioned above) will add to our picture in removing from our landscape a megalith of grotesque size which has deliberately obscured the musical sunlight and has made fools of us all. Till now.

Further revelations will continue to unfold on the musical career of the said Mozart in the years 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780 and his entire last decade (1781-1791) on which the findings of equally detailed study shall receive a fair hearing.

You are perfectly right to ask how, if Mozart's first years are so riddled with falsehood he should be automatically attributed with the hundreds of musical masterpieces which we stoically believe he wrote from this time onwards. The answer to which, of course, humbles all of us who have examined it and which reminds that truth is free of charge and is a natural product of musicology. Indeed, the findings of real research are the natural and unwelcome andidote to folklore and institutionalised fiction. As is a necessary criticism of convention itself. The sole controversy being the fact that criticism of this monument to human gullibility has never had a fair hearing of this kind. Till now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyras

Thank you,

I've just read the pdf. Yes. It's also an important document that helps me to understand the problematic situation. I wonder how it is possible the considered experts in Mozart not only took ‘Cibavit’ written around 1600 as a piece by Mozart and have even confused the Antifona provided to Mozart by Martini (KV86) with one made by Mozart himself, and confuse music written around 1840 with Martini's music.
:willy_nilly:

About Mozart
I completely agree with Johann Simon Mayr, contemporary of Mozart (I think) (quoted at the very beginning of the pdf) that «Real genius is sacred, not drunken, is educated, not born, is inflamed by sentiment, purified by intellect, endowed by nature and developed by study. That which is rumoured as being blind genius is nothing but a fabulous legend. In Music knowledge gained by musicians has nothing to do with carefree students who are empty of any schooling or art»

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Thank you Pyras,

And we have sailed fearlessly against a tide of indifference, misinformation, eulogy, and science fiction. In pursuit of a history of music based upon reality.

....the fact that criticism of this monument to human gullibility has never had a fair hearing of this kind. Till now.

---

When you finally sail past Mozart's diapers, let me know!

:lol:

I would not dream of asking when you stopped wearing diapers Yanni. Although it's my duty to point out that Mozart, in 1770, was 14 years old. (Having been born in 1756).

And you believe he was still wearing diapers at that time, don't you ?

:nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

When you finally sail past Mozart's diapers, let me know!

:lol:

---

Reading this, I've just realised there might be something to this argument after all:

Amadeus Wolfgang Mozart was arguably the world's first rock star and his father was his road manager. His birth name, Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Theophilus, was changed to Amadeus, the Latin translation of Theophilus, and as it sounded quite cool, his wise old dad picked it for his signature or stage name. Eat your heart out Madonna and all you other aliases.
Instead of a rattle, he was given a musical talent at birth. This he played loudly and frequently for the duration of his short life. He was a child protegee, virtually at birth, and beat out masterpieces with his spoon on his bowl of mashed veggies, to the great admiration of his father who set out to make him a star. So great was his old man's resolve and so skillful his marketing ability to promote his son's genius, that Mozart is still with us. He lives on, not only in concert halls, but also on stage and the big screen where we indulge him the odd fart.

Yes Brian,

Which brings to mind that advertisement for a well known Danish beer ''able to reach parts that others cannot''. Since it's an established fact that the dulcit tones of Wolfgang can increase the IQ of the unborn child, can increase yields for tomato growers, even pacify patients at dental surgeries etc. since it has ingredients which have no genetically modified contents or artificial sweeteners whatsover.

I had been so busy gazing at this subject, and for so long - (one which has the ability to change colour and expand like a bubble floating on the academic and public imagination high above the 18th century musical landscape and transcending it at every honest attempt to pin it down) that I wondered how it first came to assume such a mystical/trascendental glow and could to this day so easily escape from criticism. So that I was faced with a number of options -

1. To think of Mozart as a Proteus, a slippery eel, to whom we must all bend the knee if we are to be musically educated or even cultured. Or, alternatively,

2. To think of Mozart as something else that I and all others must accept if we are prepared to examine the actual evidence.

The only other option being to believe -

3. That Mozart falls in to that category (newly invented at the time of himself) called 'genius', which we must never cross-examine nor question in any meangingful sense if we wish to be invited to garden parties. A paradigm, in fact, and of a specially seductive kind.

And thus, in this bewildered state, when trawling through books and articles that have been published on him and his life for close to 200 years I was drawn to the heretical idea that the facts of the case may have survived all these attempts to suppress or distort them. Though I kept my mind open on that possibility for many years. Discovering only in recent years (and to my great surprise) some highly talented researchers have been doing the very same. With the same results.

None of which alters the fact this body of music (much of it being of wonderful quality) exists. Though nobody has ever doubted that. But from which critical perspective it was possible to consider the manufacture of a virtual pantheon of great composers by patrons, managers and later biographers of whom Mozart (and a handful of others) were deliberately designed to be members - with all the resources of the emerging music industry etc - the net effect of which has been as we see - the silencing of all criticism and the effective hijacking of musicology as we know it. The slopes of the vast and now familiar Mozartean mountain towering upwards to include 'unchallengable' works such as dozens of mature symphonies, masses, operas, concertos and sonatas.

How and why this was done are questions which flow from the above and on which, again, I think we, today, are able to provide some answers. Though it is only a part of the whole process. It must first be established there is a subject worthy of study before we attempt to provide an explanation for it. Here, in early 2011, I am not alone in thinking virtually nothing attributed to W.A. Mozart was actually composed by him. The implications of which differ depending on whom we talk to. The interests of others being a factor in them remaining silent on it.

Examining these early years of Mozart may be compared to being at the shoreline of that great ocean which is 'Mozart study'. Although I have found nothing from his middle and later years which causes me or others to change our considered verdict. I can only suppose that expertise exists (in a biographical or musical sense) which is about to leap unitedly to his defence. Having exhausted its supply of smoke and mirrors.

'They' have literally invented musical history. Most certainly 'they' have.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Reading this, I've just realised there might be something to this argument after all:

Amadeus Wolfgang Mozart was arguably the world's first rock star and his father was his road manager. His birth name, Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Theophilus, was changed to Amadeus, the Latin translation of Theophilus, and as it sounded quite cool, his wise old dad picked it for his signature or stage name. Eat your heart out Madonna and all you other aliases.
Instead of a rattle, he was given a musical talent at birth. This he played loudly and frequently for the duration of his short life. He was a child protegee, virtually at birth, and beat out masterpieces with his spoon on his bowl of mashed veggies, to the great admiration of his father who set out to make him a star. So great was his old man's resolve and so skillful his marketing ability to promote his son's genius, that Mozart is still with us. He lives on, not only in concert halls, but also on stage and the big screen where we indulge him the odd fart.

---

I thought I was being ironic but, then again, perhaps you are being so too.
In connection with my post, I thought it appropriate to include a quotation from my novel A Tangled Web which deals, inter alia, with the promotion of pop music.

“Well Mozart wrote background music and the electric guitar is the favoured choice of instrument nowadays. In my day it was the clarinet or the trumpet,” said Mr Silberman.

“Mozart did write Tafelmusik but it was composed and notated, not sung along to an electric guitar. Moreover, he didn’t walk about in a pair of jeans with his knees hanging out like a farm labourer and revel in the vernacular. Of course the electric guitar is the favoured instrument today rather than the clarinet or trumpet, and why? I’ll tell you why, it’s because you can’t strum a reed or a brass instrument, both of which have to be learned,” said Jolyon contemptuously.

After Mozart's diapers, Robert, you might as well start cleaning 'Burney's' Crotch*

Ta-ta.

*C. Burney(Wikipedia): In 1779 he wrote for the Royal Society an account of the young William Crotch, his next wunderkind, at the time aged five.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I would not dream of asking when you stopped wearing diapers Yanni. Although it's my duty to point out that Mozart, in 1770, was 14 years old. (Having been born in 1756).

And you believe he was still wearing diapers at that time, don't you ?

:nod:

---

Yes, Yanni

This is a good example. William Crotch (1775-1847) is certainly another example of Charles Burney and the 'Enlightenment' obssession with what soon became known as musical genius. The talents of Crotch were equally exaggerated from the start. Baron Knigge (a leader of the German llluminati) was involved in first publishing Charles Burney's Musical Tour book into the German language. The same Knigge who is credited with writing the first German libretto of the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Whose association with the house of Hanover is, of course, merely coincidental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

After Mozart's diapers, Robert, you might as well start cleaning 'Burney's' Crotch*

Ta-ta.

*C. Burney(Wikipedia): In 1779 he wrote for the Royal Society an account of the young William Crotch, his next wunderkind, at the time aged five.

---

Yes, just don't use bleach!

Ta-ta!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yes, Yanni

This is a good example. William Crotch (1775-1847) is certainly another example of Charles Burney and the 'Enlightenment' obssession with what soon became known as musical genius. The talents of Crotch were equally exaggerated from the start. Baron Knigge (a leader of the German llluminati) was involved in first publishing Charles Burney's Musical Tour book into the German language. The same Knigge who is credited with writing the first German libretto of the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Whose association with the house of Hanover is, of course, merely coincidental.

---

Yanni,

No additives or artificial sweeteners !! And no bleach also.

J.S. Bach (1685-1750)
Fantasie
BWV 903/1

Masaaki Suzuki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHtgL...eature=related

Handel/Bach died as Bernardo Tanucci, sometime after 1784.

Ta-ta!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

No additives or artificial sweeteners !! And no bleach also.

J.S. Bach (1685-1750)
Fantasie
BWV 903/1

Masaaki Suzuki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHtgL...eature=related

---