How to attach strings to simplicity!
You have improved your story (your answer to Babba) Robert, I must admit, still amazed by your ommision of the old Jesuit culprits now changed to "The Holy Roman Empire"!
I still find it however much too "simple" for my liking and wish to improve it adding comments and questions in your text (All answered in fact by me in previous posts herein).
Here goes:
It was considered to be culturally vital by the patrons and elites of the time (what year exactly?) that Vienna, capital of the Holy Roman Empire, would develop and celebrate its own indigenous musical 'geniuses'. Its own musical icons. (Only Vienna? The same holds true for most other European courts but starting when exactly?) Controlling the culture was as vital then as it is today. The emerging music industry needed to invent these characters. (name them!) Vienna 'city of music'. (Again, only Vienna?) As for the reality, it could be 'altered' to suit them (Whose “Reality”? History has always been lying to glorify winners only). But the reality, of course, was Italy, Bohemia and other places literally dominated musical achievements. Even in Austria and Germany.The Kapellmeisters of Germany and Austria were, for decades, almost entirely Italian. Bohemian musicians and their achievements were applauded and soon forgottten.(You forgot to mention "german" Grimm’s Little prophet-violinist from Bohemia and how he relates to the whole scheme in view of his relations to Mozart-among many other "grim mysteries" . Explain!! ) Opera was dominated by Italy(But Northern Italy, ie Florence, was "Austria" as from early 18th. Did florentine Music not flourish under austrian rule and,if so, where did it ?). A musician who wished to get a good musical education was shipped off to Italy (Myslivecek, however, himself a bohemian yet trained in Naples, tried to ship Wolfgang to same Naples, NOT Praque, in 1777 but Leopold Mozart insisted junior better join "ridiculous" Bagge’s amateurs. Explain). Those are the plain facts (eehhhhmmmm). Italy literally dominated the musical scene (not anymore in 1778, explain why!). From Italy came opera(came where, when??), the symphony, the string quartet and many, many soloists and performers. It was embarrasing.(To whom? and: As from?) And, as for careers such as those of J.S. Bach etc., these were inconvenient subjects and their achievements were suppressed, unperformed, ignored altogether. The Viennese of around 1790(finally a date!congrats!!) were amazed to finally learn of them. The music of Bach was never once performed publicly in Vienna decades after his death. It took J.N. Forkel, father of musicology(You forget earlier French musicologists, such as Rousseau for instance, and Koch another “german”, as well as "Grimm", all of the reform party), to recognise and finally publicise these achievements of the late baroque. This is the same Forkel (How did he come about if german music was in the making still?) who mocked the Viennese for their musical ignorance. Suppressed too from posterity and appreciation were the achievements of the Bohemians.(Fortunately, a “Kotzena” is now reviving bohemian music achievements)The manufactured careers of Josef Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had become culturally vital(As from???) Besides, Austria had suffered setback after setback, militarily, for decades. Some good news was vital.(After, perhaps, 1783-4?) And it came in the form of the works of these managed 'composers'. So-called. Of which Mozart was the most outrageous example. Manufactured with the assistance of patrons, propagandists and a network of other composers spanning the entire European continent and beyond. A project of cultural deception. (Mozart was rejected- as simple piano player-from the cultural center of Europe at the time, in 1778, and was then only dreaming composing an opera. How do you explain this sudden surge in his “creativity” thereafter? How do you relate it to political agreements and, practically universal, peace treaties thereafter until the French revolution(1782-1791)? How was Vienna influenced musicaly by these events? Where is your detailed timeline for this period to explain the provenance and transfer of all this music material to Mozart’s hands???)
Yes, Mozart's career was planned. Long, long before his birth in 1756. (prove it!) His career was of course that of the 'enlightenment' which was to dominate musicology throughout the 19th century (exceptional jump from the 18th to the 19th : Mozart was a faithfull roman catholic until at least 1778 and, other than piano playing, lacked any education or manners and had nothing to do with enlightment other than his promotion by Grimm till then, which was however for somereason, terminated. A lot must be explained here. Try!!) . Aided by the fraternities and by vested interests of the time. Transcending national borders. The first globalist composer. (You contradict yourself since, as you say earlier on, he was meant to promote Austria’s national music) And the academic study of music, of 'music history' now controlled by the successors of the same patrons. (name the patrons, before and after and define date of transfer of authority.) So that 'Mozart studies' would literally dominate our musical landscape. The truth hidden. (again, define year: "Global Mozart" was “manufactured” as from 1814 onwards, ie when Britain, supporting Austria throughout 1791-1814, ruled).
You refer to the 'Paris' Symphony (No. 31, KV297) which is said to be 'a symphony composed by Mozart in 1778'. But this too is false. It was published first in his name, in Paris, after he returned to Mannheim.(How did it come to his hands?) For sure. In fact (and you can see the evidence in music archives such as that of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg and also the copy today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) that both copies of this work show this symphony is not by Mozart. It was actually supplied TO Mozart. As was the 'Haffner' (35) and others. The copy today at Modena exists in an earlier form. Scored differently than the version we are familiar with. Again, at Regensburg its slow movement is different. This work, stylistically, is not musically typical of what we call Mozart. (As has often been said). It was supplied TO Mozart in Mannheim before he left for Paris. (By whom, who did Mozart meet there who could have helped him???) The paper type shows this clearly. And when Mozart was asked to supply an alternative slow movement to this same work in Paris by the manager of the Concert Spirituel, Le Gros, before its premiere, he was found to be out of his depth.(Ah, say a word or two here on Baron de Bache, the ridiculous amateur musician who managed the “Concert Spirituel”, find his relations to LeGros,Piccinini, Gluck, Grimm and Rousseau at least!) The same Paris where, years earlier, the first 7 'Mozart' piano concertos were actually pastiches of works by other Paris-based composers (name them and corresponding works). That 1778 tour was a total disaster.(Why did Grimm fail to support Mozart at the time? Explain!!!) Those who have studied the musical score of this 'Paris' symphony at Modena and Regensburg (e.g. Prof. Anna Trombetta, Luca Bianchini and others-have they aired their Cocchis in the meantime?)) have shown this work, this symphony, existed years before 1778. It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too (Prove it was Luchesi himself who supplied Mozart with his music and explain why would Bonn Kappelmeister Luchesi give poor junior Mozart his music!!). Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'. And, as for 'Mozart's' earlier symphonies none of them is actually by Mozart.
The following image comes from the score of that same 'Paris' symphony today held at Regensburg. It rarely gets any mention in 'Mozart studies'. You see the name of 'Mozart' has clearly been later added to this score, obscuring what was originally written there. At Modena, as said, this same work exists in a version scored for a different orchestra. It too is older than 1778. Multiply this by a thousand and you have some idea of how massive this musical deception was.(IE Mozart was provided with a huge “master archive” including, as you correctly say previously, the works of many masters. Who was it’s previous owner and, again, when, how, why did it come to Mozart’s hands?
And, of course, Junior as "reform opera composer" -totally inadequate as such-is left out of your story alltogether, hah-hah!
Cheers!
