Printable View
When deeply held philosophies collapse there will always be the lingering smell of burning rubber and a period of amnesia. While services return to normal.
J.S. Bach
Concerto in A Minor
BWV 1044/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA3pbSBHR2E
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
We covered your amnesia on earlier posts, Robert; Re the smell of burning rubber: Move your feet away from the fireplace before your slippers ignite turning you into a vam-pyre (medieval grk for "walks on fire").
Services returning to normal depends on the goodwill of this new frost wave hitting UK.
Here is some Handel/Bach music for you: "Their" variations:
http://new.music.yahoo.com/michael-p...ions--23187045
Ta ta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
THE GENIUS OF MOZART
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) has been universally and almost unanimously described as ‘a musical genius’ by generations of musicologists, biographers, publicists and the music loving public. For so long, in fact, his name is considered to be synonymous with genius itself. At least musically. So the idea of a book that is critical of him and one which questions the accepted details of his career, achievements and iconic status has not surprisingly provoked a fair amount of controversy and disbelief during its preparation, among those who learned of it and who have already rallied to his defence in describing themselves as members of his adoring faithful. Nor has the appearance of a work which challenges the Mozart of convention been welcomed by those accustomed to a figure who towers over the western musical and cultural landscape and whom we believe is a musical icon. One who has been eulogised and revered to such an extent that no-one denies his colossal musical and cultural status.
If we examine surviving records (subjects still being studied worldwide) we ourselves seem obliged to surrender to the 'fact' of his genius. The lack of theoretical, potential criticism, the easy neutralising of a few wayward critics (who may dare to raise their ugly heads on individual points related to his life and career) are considered to have achieved nothing more significant than those who may, from time to time, question the status of any great man). Occasional complaints have not torn the seamless robe of Mozart Studies or affected the education and innate conservatism of teachers. Critics of Mozartean convention are a rare species discouraged from causing controversy in respect of his convention. And a revision process, if one exists, would easily be dismissed as a misguided kind of venture. Mozart’s reputation has been fortified behind banks of solid, erudite, self-correcting and patina laden scholarship, this being the verdict of the adoring public and by a consensus on him that is truly remarkable. Our conversion to the cult of Mozart is achieved in the name of global culture and education and has been encouraged by experts over the better part of 200 years. The water of the ocean is saline and, in the same way, W.A. Mozart, is a musical genius, a paradigm, and one of the great composers of western musical history.A privileged member of an elite pantheon of great western composers, in fact, who, biographically and musically dominates, even controls our understanding and appreciation of musical achievement during a crucial period of its history. Of the Classical Period. And Mozart and his music are said to be a vital, even integral part of it. Monuments that have been so painstakingly built of academic and cultural concrete must be ‘protected‘ if criticised. Our study of the documentary evidence and the hearing his music is said to justify, beyond any fair and reasonable doubt, this almost unanimous and positive verdict. A view which has underpinned Mozart Studies virtually since the time he and the music attributed to him first entered in to the public domain.
We may hold different opinions when our subject began to transcend the world of Mozart’s patrons and his family. We may agree to disagree on the time he as a musical phenomenon began to be overseen and managed during his largely posthumous rise to giant and iconic status. But the fact this process occurred with near unanimous approval and astonishment by members of the musical and public world is indisputable. Mozart - musical genius, phenomenon of nature and transcendentally gifted composer is believed in virtually every sense to be a verifiable and historical fact.
To criticise the Mozart of convention we may begin with a description of what convention is. And must acknowledge that this phenomenon is among the most successful examples of consensus that has ever existed between the academic, cultural and public sectors in a musical sense. We who would criticise him in any meaningful sense will face a series of severe challenges, some of such size and complexity our task may seem at times almost inconceivable. Nor can we be surprised if conservatives have already predicted that a modern re-assessment of the Mozart phenomenon will only have the result of consolidating their own beliefs.
This work will criticise the life, career and musical achievements of W.A. Mozart. But not before the scope of our subject is agreed and not before the conventions that surround Mozart Studies have been described and agreed upon. The aim of this first chapter is justify this rare process and to examine this issue in some detail over the rest of this work. To show that what may seem ‘inconceivable’ is a standard, necessary product of musicology and even a matter of academic integrity. Especially where our knowledge of 18th century musical achievement has been virtually monopolised and defined by defenders of a musical pantheon of which he, W.A. Mozart, is considered such a vital an integral part.
PRELUDE
We who are interested in the history of western music and culture are impressed by the testimony of source documents. Their contents can carry great weight and we believe the evidence they provide here has been conclusive. Nothing, we are told, is more natural. And, in the case of Mozart, we consume those documents wholesale. So we may imagine being invited to a special event where all aspects of Mozart’s life, career and musical status are about to be discussed in detail. To a Mozart conference, in fact. At which we are to witness a rare process whose aim is to establish for modern teachers, students and the general public the truth or otherwise of the Mozart phenomenon. Biographically and musically. By our discussion and examination of the available evidence. With we, as members of a large and invited audience about to take our seats in a hall, together with interested experts and amateurs, journalists, biographers, students and others, all of whom have been invited to deliver considered verdicts on those proceedings. And all sharing in common the fact we are lovers of music.
We take our seats before a stage on which have been arranged a number of tables and chairs. With a lectern from which the various speakers will shortly deliver a series of Mozart related lectures. So this subject can be defended and seen to be defended. With these various speakers having been invited by a chairman who will shortly open the conference. Men and women, considered to be experts on particular areas of this subject will speak on their findings, each having agreed to be cross-examined, if required, on the content of what they say, and in a respectful and public way. With these remarkable proceedings overseen by the chairman, himself a man of integrity. With no expense having been spared in giving legitimacy to this rare event by copies of the entire body of Mozart literature (musical and biographical) having been brought to the hall and many other documents to hand that are considered to be prime sources. These arranged on shelves at the back of the stage and able to be accessed by anyone who contributes. This whole event scheduled to have a duration of as many days as there are chapters in this book. The aim being to establish the truth or otherwise of the W.A. Mozart of convention.
The success of these proceedings is made more probable by agreement having been reached between all parties that such a scenario is almost ideal for that purpose. With audio recordings of music attributed to W.A. Mozart also made available to be played and which may be accessed by anyone during this rare and important event.
(The hall of this unlikely conference fills with delegates and we, as privileged members of its audience have now taken our places to witness its first session. Its chairman gives his opening speech and a series of experts begin to remind us of Mozart’s legendary life and musical achievements, supplementing their lectures by details of recent findings on aspects of his life and career and by frequent reference to textbooks, journal articles and illustrations from the source literature already described above. In several cases movements of musical works are played, to general applause. These as illustrations of Mozart’s achievements. So the morning of the first day of this conference can be described as a celebration of convention, endorsed by each of the early speakers.
Lunch time arrives. As does the prospect of an unusual afternoon session. At which critics of convention are due to speak for the first time, having declined their chance to cross-examine these morning speakers or the contents of their lectures. And, following a fine lunch, our conference resumes with its chairman inviting the first speech from Mozart’s critics. The arrival of the first speaker being welcomed with muted applause as he stands and makes his way to the microphone. -
‘’Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is to the great credit of the organisers and chairman of this conference on Mozart that they have successfully attracted such a crowd of expert defenders and admirers to this rare and modern re-assessment of his musical reputation and achievements. And especially when Mozart’s life and musical career are finally laid open for modern, public and academic scrutiny. I am happy to think we are all of equal value in ensuring the success of this process. And am convinced we are all, each of us, sufficiently well educated, good willed and cultured to be here. And it is certainly a privilege for me.
Many of us, we see, are fortified behind the reinforced concrete that are these archives, opinions and Mozart-related publications of the last 200 years. And we are further surrounded by numerous biographical and musical jewels of Mozart’s musical legacy and by the published fruits of men and women who devoted their lives and careers to his study over the same period of time. (Whose books and articles are assembled here within out easy reach thanks to the generous efforts of our chairman. With all available scores of his music).
There many be more experts on this most fascinating subject per cubic metre of airspace than have been assembled since October 1770 - when, as you know, the young Mozart graduated for membership of the Accademia Filarmonica in Bologna. And a similar gathering of expertise is no doubt present today, at least quantitatively, to those who heard the Sistine Choir sing the ‘Misirere’ of Gregorio Allegri (1582-1652) in Rome, when Wolfgang in that same year was credited with writing down a performance of that music from memory. Since genius, as we all know, is synonymous with the life and career of W.A. Mozart.
But I wish to begin with a confession. While eating lunch just now a moment of panic overwhelmed me with the realisation I and a few others present today must shortly call in to question what is considered by many to be a foundational fact of western musical and cultural history. By daring to suggest and to remind my colleagues over these coming days that the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart of academic and cultural convention is little more, in fact, than childish nonsense.
(Gasps of astonishment from the audience)
But I have chosen my words carefully and am happy to be the first to define the term ‘genius’. A fact which the earlier speakers seem never to have done. By ‘nonsense’ I mean it makes no sense to me ‘The Genius of Mozart’ is unanimously agreed upon without it once being defined. And since Mozart's genius (real or otherwise) is the main theme of this first day I must approach it from the opposing view, slowly, and not directly, since genius is a word so ubiquitous it virtually defies fair and reasonable conversation. So I am reduced to using the word ‘nonsense’ as its antidote. So we might finally meet in middle ground, having considered the actual evidence in respect of W.A. Mozart.
I will begin my contribution on ‘The Genius of Mozart’ gently. By offering some examples of convention on that subject. A few may be enough since you subscribe to them.
‘Thus died Mozart, perhaps the greatest genius in human recorded history. We feel no qualms in using the sentimental cliché’.
(Wolfgang Hildesheimer ‘Mozart’ p. 366 - J.M. Dent (1983) - Translated from German by Marion Faber)
And -
‘In this year … nothing can or may be sung or played, and nothing heard with approbation, but that it bears on its brow the all-powerful and magic name of Mozart’
(‘Teutschlands Annalen des Jahres’ - 1794)
And, selected randomly from literally hundreds of published eulogies -
‘Unlike Haydn, his senior by 24 years, and Beethoven, his junior by 15, he (Mozart) excelled in every medium current in his time. He may thus be regarded as the most universal composer in the history of Western music’
(New Grove - ‘Dictionary of Music and Musicians’ - entry on Mozart)
This is, you agree, the Mozart of academic and cultural convention. And it cannot be denied that tradition, convention and conservatism all have a worthy place within academic study though only if open and seen to be open to criticism on an ongoing basis. Which gives our conference a unique and rare feeling to it. Our problems begin (and I must share it with you) that Mozart Studies are notoriously closed to criticism and have been for as long as they have existed. The proof is the fact that not a single book has appeared in print over the past two centuries whose author has questioned at any length Mozart’s giant, even iconic status (biographically and musically) within the history of western music as we know it. Nor that of his alleged ‘genius’. The single exception being a work by William Stafford (1993) entitled promisingly ’ The Mozart Myths: A Critical Reassessment’. Which, to be fair, promises much but dangles the carrot over our subject without dealing with its biographical and musical substance in any real detail. Mr Stafford has demonstrated that fictions of numerous kinds have paraded themselves across the stage during the critical time when Mozart’s myth was being created, though no admission is made that these were due to a major or deliberate cause. Indeed, convention is said to have been restored by his efforts. So that normal service has been resumed, as it were.
Unless I am mistaken our colleagues here, during cross-examination of my comments will no doubt pull from the shelves behind me what they consider to be proof of Mozart’s genius. But before they are invited to do so you will note there has been no break with tradition, nor any prospect admitted by anyone this morning of there being a fault line, but only countless examples of deep conservatism, protecting, as it were, a historical monument, by the repeated mantra of his ‘genius’ and an approved, even relentless repetition of superlative statements such as those I have just read. Mozart Studies in all this time have been amongst the most highly sponsored, patronised, and funded projects in the entire history of musicology. Have they not ? Despite showing every sign (you will pardon me for saying so) of producing products of an ugly and dogmatic paradigm. Eulogies are in the DNA of Mozart biographies as we know them and the above are normal, even typical examples. Eulogies have been among the most striking features of Mozart biographies from the very first biography - that of F.X. Niemetscheck (1797/8) onwards. Nor do I exaggerate that our standard version of Mozart and his myth, biographically, has been one long eulogy and one long attribution of musical genius to him. With our proficiency in attributing such things to him considered to be a skill in itself, with the routine quoting of what someone has already quoted on that subject a kind of ’Brownie Point’. The net effect of this orgy of eulogising is to deeper consolidate the core assumptions of the Mozartean myth. As if that process has merits. And this mantra has been ring fenced by fraternal editors and men of influence who have been and are still employed within the academic world though the practice has little relationship to musicology, its parent science, and is as disparaging of criticism as it would be possible to devise. Less accountable to musicology, in fact, than bad governments are accountable for their actions and inactions. Indeed, you may agree the authors of Mozart Studies (especially in this rare meeting of minds) make no claim to being answerable to critics. If a body of academic studies had a similar track record we may be forgiven for thinking it was an academic virus preying on its host. Since, in the history of music, it is responsible, at least in part, for the suppression and disappearance of the names and musical achievements of countless musical composers.
I hold here a list of musical composers of the 18th century. Compiled from a number of English and German language publications. Thus, encompassing music and musical achievement during the century of Mozart. You may be surprised to know there were around 3,000 composers who were active in Europe during that century. Each of their lives and careers are refered to in works such as the larger musical encyclopedias. Over half of whom I see, composed symphonies, masses, operas, sonatas, and other works. Though the details of their individual lives are virtually unknown today and are of the utmost irrelevance to most people. Even to teachers of musical history. And, as for their individual musical achievements, these remain unperformed and unstudied, filed away in libraries and archives across Europe and beyond. This, dear audience, is evidence of the scale of our ‘Mozartification’. The overwhelming majority of these men may as well have been carpenters or blacksmiths, for all we care. And we, being reminded of it, and taking note of it will have some idea of the state of our colossal ignorance. We find ourselves on 18th century musicians and their music to be so bankrupt, so ignorant, that hardly one of us can name Mozart’s musical contemporaries, let alone claim to be familiar with their music. Is there a professor in Europe who, has written on W.A. Mozart at any length and who has heard, even once, those operas written and staged in Vienna during Mozart’s years there (1781-1791) ? Because Salieri, Cimarosa, Sarti, Anfossi, Paisiello, Alessandri, Gazzaniga, Guglielmi, Storace, Bianchi, Weigl, Vranicky, and others (whose names and music are hardly known or ever performed today) all staged works there during that decade and more successfully than Mozart. In the very decade he was living in that city. And, as for the rest of Europe, what of them and their operas at this time ?
Mozart, we say, was a genius. And this we ‘know’. But if we hear of astronomers who know only a handful of stars in the night sky are we not be entitled to call them charlatans, men of ignorance, and not astronomers at all ? How would we describe a professor of literature whose reading material during the whole of his career has been only a handful of newspapers ? I seriously suggest that to the extent that the energy of talented men and women has been used to preside over the construction, management and enforcement of an elite musical pantheon of western Europe (consisting of great names such as Josef Haydn, W.A. Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven etc) and which have been taught to generations of students and which has excluded from pupils their appreciation of virtually all music composed in that most creative period of western musical history (during the century of Mozart and the decades which followed it) are open to criticism for having separated music and musical achievement from any claim to historical honesty and integrity. On a systematic and even wholesale basis. Knowingly and unknowingly.
I will avoid reference today to the thousands of source documents (musical and non-musical) that are shelved behind me since our theme of this first day is, the ‘Genius of Mozart’. In the days ahead we will consider details of what those documents contain. But I must remind you that in a fair hearing, let us say, a court case, a defendant may be described in writing by a group of men as committing a crime of which he, that defendant, stands accused. Although, during his trial, not one of those writers is prepared to face the man they have accused, even when asked to attend cross-examination. In such a case their body of writings have no power in law to be compared to that of the word of the defendant. Since written testimony may and must be challenged if it is misleading or false. A verdict on such a case will be based mostly on the word of that living defendant. And if nobody is willing to face him to justify their accusations what verdict would a jury deliver ? Again, a man’s reputation may be completely invented or wrecked by a series of written articles which exaggerate him or the details of his life. Or by writings which scurrilously attack him. False reputations may be invented in writing by those never accountable for what they have written. But if those writers refuse cross-examination and their writings are disputed by a living witness they are considered to be of no value and the case against the defendant will collapse. Since he, the defendant, maintains his innocence and his accusers are unable to defend what they have written.
Do we as students of musical history believe the contents of a document merely because it exists ? When a document may be believed only if/when it has survived criticism. Only then is it considered to be of great importance.
We tend to believe in Mozart the genius but do so with only minimal thought. We believe because much beautiful music is by tradition attributed exclusively to him. It is the hearing of this music which tends to convince us. We further believe because a body of writings survives that has always been linked to him - writings which, for sure, indicate that he, W.A. Mozart was their author. But here, as in a court case, it is not what has been written that has been crucial in arriving at a fair judgement. WE AND OTHERS HEAR THIS BEAUTIFUL MUSIC FOR OURSELVES. IT IS OUR HEARING OF IT WHICH HAS BEEN THE CHIEF REASON FOR ATRIBUTING ITS AUTHORSHIP TO MOZART AND TO ATTRIBUTE TO HIM THE STATUS OF MUSICAL GENIUS.
Is this not true ? Our hearing is, beyond fair and reasonable doubt the principal and determining issue of our verdict on him and his status. We consider the proof of Mozart’s musical genius to be our hearing of that music. And we further believe when it is said ‘experts’ have confirmed it. By studies of these documents. So the public attribution to Mozart of his genius status is based upon these assumptions. On our hearing and by our belief this mountain of documents are further, definitive proof.
Setting aside the fact that musical copyright did not exist for virtually all the 18th century, and that the 18th was the first century to make celebrities of individual composers we are wise to begin with caution in considering Mozart’s supposed genius (real or otherwise) and his authorship, (real or otherwise) of this music.
THE BASIC AND CRUCIAL ASSUMPTION WE HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO MAKE IS THAT OF A LARGELY UNQUESTIONED LINK, BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS ASSEMBLED HERE (WHICH WE MAY CALL EVIDENCE ‘A’) AND THE HEARING OF THE MUSIC OF ’MOZART’ (WHICH WE MAY CALL EVIDENCE ’B’). THUS ‘A’ AND ‘B’ HAVE BEEN COMBINED FOR THE PUBLIC AND WE ARE PREPARED TO DEFEND THEIR ASSUMED ORIGINS AS BEING ONE AND THE SAME. WHICH MUSICOLOGY, THE ACADEMIC WORLD, AND WE AS CONSUMERS HAVE TENDED TO SUBSCRIBE TO W.A, MOZART, AND WHICH CONVENTION HAS BEEN SEEN AS PART OF MUSICAL HISTORY. THIS FUSION IS SUPPORTED BY TRADITION AND CONVENTION. WITH ONLY MINIMAL CRITICISM AND CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT IS THIS MARRIAGE OF EVIDENCE ’A’ AND EVIDENCE ’B’ THAT WILL BE QUESTIONED AND CROSS-EXAMINED OVER THE REST OF THIS CONFERENCE.
Much of this music IS beautiful. We agree. Did he compose it ? That is the question. And are these documents (biographical and musical) able to survive cross-examination ? To obtain answers to such questions is our priority here if the musical pantheon just described is to be taught and believed by generations of students and music lovers.
MOZART BIOGRAPHY (AN INTRODUCTION)
2 years after the death of a Danish diplomat named Georg Nikolaus von Nissen (b. 1761 d. 1826) a long awaited biography was posthumously attributed to him on the life and career of W.A. Mozart. (Though Nissen is not recorded as having ever met Mozart). The content and editorial control of this work were matters on which Constanze, widow of Mozart, (1762-1842) had always had effective control. Since she had married the same G.N. von Nissen 17 years earlier at Frankfurt am Main. The contents of this Mozart biography are to a great extent a pastiche of still earlier writings on the composer - drawing heavily for example on the published necrology of Freidrich Schlichtegroll (1792) , also on a series of anecdotes on Mozart which first appeared in print in Vienna back in 1798 under the editorial control of F Rochlitz, and by the earliest of all Mozart biographies published (after cancellation of an earlier attempt) in Prague, in 1798. This last named work being the earliest of all such biographies and credited to one FX Niemetscheck. This new ‘Nissen’ biography containing a number of new falsehoods and exaggerations which, as we will see, are all too typical of Constanze’s influence within Mozart biography as a whole. But there are other features worthy of our attention in that work. The first being there was no reason for making such a book at this time other than an attempt to provide a consolidated, ‘official’ and definitive version of Mozart’s life. Which appears to have been its real purpose. The oversight for which, as said, primarily involved Constanze. (Nissen himself being ignorant of music).
In confirmation of this being its real objective we read the following remarkable words contained in its introduction -
‘We do not want, and we must not publicly show our hero as perhaps he would have described himself in the intimacy of domestic evenings. To tell all the truth might do harm to his fame, to his respectability, to the very success of his music’.
The final form of the ‘Nissen’ work at its time of publication was left to others such as medical doctor and Mozart enthusiast Johann Heinrich Feuerstein (1797–1850). (Feurstein having been described ever since as ‘unstable‘). While other researchers confirm, ‘ the book was cobbled together in a haphazard fashion from the raw material, and the result was disastrous in terms of quality." while others describe it as ‘problematic‘ saying ‘large sections are taken from earlier accounts, often of dubious reliability, and it contains contradictions and errors. The family letters quoted within it can also be shown to have been highly selected and censored. The significance of which is that more than 35 years after Mozart’s death this work became the second Mozart biography with which Constanze herself had been heavily involved. So that we can describe her as the main manager of early Mozart biography. And she, Constanze (1762-1842), widow of Mozart, was very much involved is responsible to a great extent for the version of W.A. Mozart’s life and career with which we are familiar today.
It was Constanze who, 30 years earlier had managed the writing and content of F.X. Niemetscheck’s biography of 1798. And it was this same F.X. Niemetscheck who, for some reason, was able to adopt the young Karl Mozart with her permission. This close association between the earliest biography (Mozart being a man whom Niemetscheck had never met also) and this much later attempt at a definitive and official version by ‘Nissen’ made nearly 30 years later is striking in several other important ways.
1. Both F.X. Niemetscheck and G von Nissen (separated by almost 30 years) were both overseen in the writing of the biographies attributed to them by Constanze, widow of Mozart.
2. Constanze’s relationship with both biographers affected her and her family. She agreed to F.X. Niemetscheck adopting her young child Karl (1784-1858) for example (1796) and she married the Danish diplomat G. von Nissen.
3. F.X. Niemetscheck and G. von Nissen are both known to have worked as book censors during their lifetimes.
4. A city other than Vienna connected these two biographies. Regensburg, Germany, the seat of the Thurn and Taxis dynasty. A family who, amongst other things, had a virtual monopoly on the postal system of Europe in those times. And G. von Nissen was after graduating in law in Copenhagen employed for some time by the post office there in Demmark (managed by his uncle) before joining the diplomatic service. Being sent first to Regensburg in Germany where he lived for almost 2 years. Changing his location in 1793 (within 2 years of Mozart’s death) when he was appointed Secretary of the Danish Legation in Vienna. The date he moved to live in the home of Mozart’s widow in Vienna is still not certain. And Leopold Mozart (1719-1787) father of Wolfgang had obtained his first employment in 1740 with a dignitary attached to the church in Salzburg who was himself from Regensburg (Johann Baptist, Count of Thurn-Valsassina and Taxis). (Furthermore, Wolfgang’s patron during his ill-fated musical visit to Paris in 1778 was one Baron Melchior von Grimm, himself a native of Regensburg).
As regards early Mozart biography as a whole, we cannot overstate the influence of those already refered to, namely, the Nekrolog of Friedrich Schlichtegroll, that of F.X. Niemetschek (1798) and that of ’Nissen’ (c.1828) which finally led, decades later, to Otto Jahn’s W.A. Mozart (1856). This appearing only around 6 years before arrival of the 1st edition Ludwig von Köchel's chronological thematic catalogue of Mozart's works. With various later biographies than that of ‘Nissen’ drawing heavily on the earlier material themselves.
Thus, the figure and influence of Constanze Mozart appears twice as the main and most influential figure behind the writing and publication of early Mozart biographies. First in 1798 with F.X. Niemetscheck and, 30 years later with the ‘Nissen’. Justifying us seeing again the remark already quoted (from 1826) -
‘We do not want, and we must not publicly show our hero as perhaps he would have described himself in the intimacy of domestic evenings. To tell all the truth might do harm to his fame, to his respectability, to the very success of his music’.
Why are the facts of Mozart’s life and career to be hidden from public view ? Why are such things not wanted and why are they to be discouraged by Constanze from wider appreciation ? These are remarkable words from the manager of the earliest biographies of the composer. And they forbid questions which, if the truth were to be told, could, she says, do harm to the success, fame and respectability of the long dead W.A. Mozart. On these grounds alone you may agree that a modern and more critical examination of this subject is already justified.
And, through all of such an examination, are facts which must be confronted such as articles entitled '''The Mozart Myth: Tales of a Forgery''. From which comes the following -
''An extraordinarily persistent myth about how Mozart composed delayed true estimates of his methods. That myth is based in large part upon a spurious letter which "Mozart" is said to have written to a "Baron von X." The letter—published in German in 1815 and then in French, Italian and English—has been widely quoted, paraphrased and alluded to ever since. Even though Otto Jahn had already identified the letter as a forgery in his groundbreaking Mozart biography of 1856-59, its influence lives on''.
This letter apparently told readers what they wanted to hear: Mozart’s inspiration, genius, originality, creativity—all descended upon the entranced artist as if by lightning bolts from God. Arduous and intensive training, practice and hard work in a lucid state—these exertions were for mere mortals. The tone of the forgery is markedly different from that of Mozart's actual descriptions of how he composed, such as in letters about Die Entführung aus dem Serail (The Abduction from the Seraglio). Enough of the contextual details used by the forger to lend verisimilitude are incorrect that they have the opposite effect; for instance, Mozart's father-in-law was dead at the time the letter was purportedly written.
(Originally published letter in 'Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung' of August 23, 1815, no. 34, cols. 561-66. - Translation in the 'Harmonicon' of November 1825, no. XXXV, pp. 198-200).
Interviewed by Franz Xaver Niemetschek for his ''Leben des K. K. Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart nach Originalquellen beschreiben (Prague, 1798), Constanze had this to say:
"Mozart ... never touched the piano while writing. When he received the libretto for a vocal composition, he went about for some time, concentrating on it until his imagination was fired. Then he proceeded to work out his ideas at the piano; and only then did he sit down and write."
When, three decades later, London music publisher Vincent Novello and his wife Mary visited and interviewed Constanze, she had idealized this to -
"He seldom went to the instrument when he composed....When some grand conception was working in his brain, he was purely abstracted, ... but when once arranged in his mind, he needed no pianoforte."
(Nerina Medici and Rosemary Hughes (eds.), ''A Mozart Pilgrimage: The Travel Diaries of Vincent & Mary Novello in the Year 1829'' (London, 1955).
The world-view expressed in the forged letter became permanently installed in the thoughts of Western intellectuals in such a way that even those who know it to be a forgery continue to subscribe to its underlying ideology. Goethe, Pushkin, Heidegger and Peter Schaefer are only some of those taken in by it. Here, perpetuating the myth, are a modern university-level textbook and two well-received popular books on music and science.
Philip E. Vernon (ed.), ''Creativity: Selected Readings'' (London, 1976). Edward Rothstein, ''Emblems of Mind: The Inner Life of Music and Mathematics'' (New York, 1995). Roger Penrose, and ''The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics'' (New York and Oxford, 1989).
The genius to which we subscribe is derived in the main from Mozart family writings. Shall we be reminded of that fact ? Volumes of letters sent and received by members of this family (at a time when postage was an expensive affair even with the nobility) and involving repeated and extensive tours over most of the European continent (Wolfgang sometimes accompanied by sister Nannerl but more often by his father, himself a prolific writer). These were years that involved Mozart’s travels to Germany, France, Italy, England, Holland, Belgium, Bohemia and Switzerland. Though this mass of surviving material contains hardly a single comment or observation by him or any member of his family on the sights of nature that were unfolding as they all travelled. Spectacular mountain ranges, the sight of great rivers, fields, forests, harvests, flowers, and scenery form virtually no part of these letters. Nor did the crossing of the sea to and from England during Mozart’s childhood. Events which (in both directions) generated little more than the most peripheral reference. What type of morose family must the Mozarts have been ?
If is argued the Mozart family at this time were very typical of the time in an indifference to the glories of nature as they travelled thousands of miles around western Europe and beyond this is contradicted by an already century old custom which had existed widely across Europe since the mid 17th century, where tours of lands were taken by coach known as the ‘Grand Tour’ and which were a celebration of human and natural wonders - in support of which is a vast published body evidence. Though the glories of nature, it seems, had no impact whatsoever on any of the Mozarts. While Beethoven, we believe, revelled in nature and made determined efforts to be there. Frequently referring to it. A more striking difference between these two individuals is hard to imagine. The relevance of which is that we, in our attempt to focus on Mozart and his genius find only disturbing facts that force us to consider what sort of ‘genius’ this Mozart was.
THE MOZART OF THE ‘GOLDEN YEARS’
The last decade of Mozart’s life, lived in Vienna (1781-1791) are believed to have brought forth from him most of the musical masterpieces with which he is today associated. American Musicologist H.C. Robbins Landon (1926-2009) has coined the phrase ‘Golden Years’ to describe that time in a book of that name and the term indicates how, according to convention, his musical genius entered in to easily his most productive and creative stage. (We will examine this Vienna period in the days ahead). And with good reason. Since the term implies a relationship existing between our subject and an embodied talent for creating works of such musical excellence that the works and the person are deemed to be one and the same thing. That too is an opinion worthy of modern study and question. Since the closest contemporary accounts of Mozart as a human being in the Austrian capital during that decade (his last) are less familiar, unflattering and striking than popular eulogy. Indeed, personal accounts of Mozart in Vienna are unable to be hidden. Which is why they are included, even in writings sanctioned by Constanze herself in that biography of ‘Nissen’. And glossed over ever since. Their presence there speaking volumes of their importance. Proving, beyond doubt (and confirmed in other ways) that he as a man was some distance, in reality, from his iconic image -
‘Mozart and Haydn, whom I knew well, never showed any intellectual power of any kind and barely any learning or higher culture. When in society they displayed only a common temperament, made insipid jokes, and in the case of the former, a thoughtless way of life’.
(Karoline Pichler - Writer and for some time major hostess of writers in Vienna during Mozart’s Vienna period).
And (after 1786, when Mozart was sat at a piano) -
‘All at once he had enough, jumped up from he chair AS HE OFTEN DID WHEN IN HIS FOOLISH MOODS, began to leap over a table and chairs, meowing like a cat, and turning somersaults like an uncontrollable boy’.
(Karoline Pichler)
And what of this ?
‘He was always in good spirits but very reflective at the best of times. He stared at everyone with a piercing glance, giving answers to everything but seemed at the same time to be lost in thought about something entirely different.
‘’Even when he washed his hands in the morning he continuously walked up and down, was never standing still, knocked one heel against the other and was always reflective. If seated at table he OFTEN took a napkin, twisted it, and rubbed it backwards and forwards under his nose, seeming because of his thought not to notice, and OFTEN made facial gestures at the same time. He was always keen for new forms of entertainment. Riding and billiards, for example. His patient wife did everything she could to keep him from bad company. He was ALWAYS moving his hands and feet, ALWAYS playing with something, for example his hat, his pockets, watch chain, tables, chairs, as if they were pianos‘’.
(Sophie Haibl - sister of Constanze - married Petrus Jacob Haibl, member of the Schickaneder theatrical group).
We must examine this side of Mozart. And will do so in the coming days. But the characteristics refered to above are disturbing and they find their equivalents elsewhere in reports from earlier in Mozart’s life. (For example, his ‘arched stare’ is noted when in conversation with examiner Daines Barrington in London (1770). These bizarre, even unstable mannerisms are a striking aspect of him as a human being and remind us of the close Mozart family association with early hypnotist Anton Mesmer (1734-1815), whose influence on the boy from the time of the stage work ’Bastien und Bastienne’ (K46b) in Vienna (and Mendel’s controversial influence later on musicians such as Josef Haydn and even on the blind composer/pianist Maria Theresia Paradise (1759-1824) are little appreciated but plain facts also.
To suggest, therefore, that Mozart‘s ‘genius is genius’ and that it may have our unquestioning belief in each and everything that is written of him is to construct an untested castle of musical achievement and ability whose foundations have hardly been checked. For, in terms of genius, the admissions of even his most complementary biographers can hardly be better summarised than this statement by Wolfgang Hildesheim -
‘ The representation of Mozart the man fluctuates between eulogy and apologia’ (p.7)
And, finally, what are we to make of this previously unpublished letter from German poet and writer Stefan Zweig (novelist, playwright, journalist and biographer) from an unpublished letter written to neurologist and psycho-analyst Sigmund Freud, (1856-1939) -
‘I hope that you, as one who understands the heights and depths will find the enclosed private printing, which I am making available to only a narrow circle, to be not entirely irrelevant: these 9 letters of the 21 year old Mozart, of which I publish one here in its entirety, for they throw a psychologically very remarkable light on his erotic nature, which, more so than that of any other important man, has elements of infantilism and coprophilia. It would actually be an interesting study for all the letters resolve consistently around the same thing’.
(Unpublished letter, quoted in Johannes Cremerius, ‘Stefan Zweigs Beziechung zu Sigmund Freud, ‘eine heroische Identifizierung’ contained in ‘Jahrbuch der Psychoanalyse’ - Berne, 7.p.77)
And similar sorts of letter survive that were undoubtedly penned by Mozart’s own mother Anna Maria Mozart (1720-1778) and others of the same family. What type of family must the Mozarts have been ?
Attempts have been made to dismiss such criticisms. Saying they were typical of Salzburg and of Austrian people at the time. The word ’nonsense’ comes to mind once more as the best answer to this aspect of Mozart’s ’genius’.
///
ON ‘GENIUS’
In an excellent study of what has been said and written on human genius from the 17th century till modern times I can find no fairer summary of that subject than the contents of an article made by Prof. D.M. McMahon, a professor of Literature in the USA. Who writes -
‘What I want to emphasise here is that the genius is a modern creation, and indeed prior to the 18th century, the word ‘genius’ would never have been applied in any of the Indo-European languages to a human being of either sex as a predicate. It was, rather, exclusively an object. One had a genius, one was not a genius ‘
How much more plain can that be ? Mozart, you say, was a ‘genius’. Really ?
And here, from the ‘Dictionaire Academie Francaise (1694) we find the word defined in the following way -
‘Genius - The spirit, or the demon, either good or bad which, according to the doctrines of old time accompanied men from their birth to death’.
Thus, a genie or genius, is not, never was, and could not be the person himself. Not according to the entire published literature up until the modern philosophical invention which would have you believe Mozart was ‘a genius’ himself. McMahon, keen to dispel the nonsense that surrounds use of this word writes -
‘’This is the first definition of ‘genius‘, and it is really the oldest, being the ancient idea of a tutelary spirit or god that accompanies men – and again it was exclusively men – from their birth to death, acting as a conduit to the sacred, a divine ‘companion’, as Horace describes it, a comes. The idea is primarily Roman – ‘genius’ being a Latin word, from the verb gigno/gignere, to father or to beget, ‘genius’ originally being thought of as a god of birth – but there were important Greek precedents, too, in the idea of the personal daimon or spirit, like that said to have accompanied Socrates (daimonion). And in fact the Greek and Roman notions tend to get conflated in the late Republic and into the Empire by people like Varro, Plutarch, and Apuleius, among others. ‘Il se dit aussi, de ces esprits ou demons qui,selon la doctrine des Anciens, president a` de certains lieux, a` des villes, &c. Le genie du lieu, le genie de Rome, du peuple Romain. On dit, Le genie de la France, pour dire, L’Ange tutelaire de la France.’
The Romans thought of ‘genii’ not only as deities who watched over the birth and development of men – and to whom one sacrificed on one’s birthday, the origin in fact of our birthday cake – but also as deities who watched over places (the genius loci) and corporations, which were likewise ‘born’ and ‘founded’ by fathers and looked after by ‘patrons’. By the late Empire, according to the fourth-century Roman grammarian Maurus Servius, there was ‘Nullus enim Locus sine Genio’. Virtually every place and corporation in Rome, from the Senate, to the baker’s guild, to local springs and army posts, had their own genius, the devotional statues of which still stand in the thousands in museums around the world. We are lucky to have them, for Christians made a concerted effort to smash them in the late fourth and fifth centuries, outlawing the practice of sacrificing wine to ‘genius’ in the Codex Theodosianus of the year 392.
(‘Genius of Maistre’ - Prof. Darren M McMahon, p. 21)
The ‘geni’ of Islamic culture may be cited as further examples. Ali Baba and the genie in the bottle, still another. In every case man himself is not a ‘genius‘. The word 'jinn' in Arabic is derived from j-n-n meaning, 'to hide' or 'to be hidden'. And what is occultism except that which is hidden from view. Other words derived from thiis root are majnūn 'mad' (literally, 'one whose intellect is hidden'), junūn 'madness', and janīn 'embryo, fetus' ('hidden inside the womb'). Thus, the hidden/obscured nature of the ‘genius’ is obvious. Arabic lexicons such as Edward William Lane's ''Arabic-English Lexicon'' define the jinn not only as spirits, but also anything concealed through time, status, and even physical darkness.
The French translators of ''The Book of One Thousand and One Nights'' used génie as a translation of jinnī because it was similar to the Arabic word in sound and in meaning. This use was also adopted in English and has since become dominant.
In conclusion, the life, career and rise to iconic status of the legendary W.A. Mozart as a virtually unquestioned member of a western musical pantheon, itself a clear example of a pagan belief system in revival, followed by the absurd, even childish description of the same Mozart as being a ‘genius’ (itself a corruption of its actual usage in antiquity). They provide two basic, clear evidences of this Mozart, as a musical and cultural phenomenon, being assumed, taught, and dogmatically enforced upon the musical, academic and cultural world since the 18th century as a product of a perverted pagan philosophy. With only minimal cross-examination of verifiable facts related to the phenonenon and often in flat contradiction to verifiable factst. Mozart, as a person, has been, is being deified, in fact, and his cult attracts attendance at pilgrimages, has icons and buffoonery consistent with it, and with virtually no criticism welcomed of the corruptive effects of his canonisation process upon musicology as a science, nor upon modern academic study of music and its history, nor accountability to students for the sort of education (so-called) provided to them as a consequence.
///
Yes, quite, Robert, but this thread is on "Handel/Bach" , his variations and-those of-his sons (Rousseau, Grimm, Wieland, Nicolai/de Nicolay and Immanuel Kant among others).
My contribution to your Mozart's manufacture can be studied in :
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=46636
Thanks all the same!
That's fine Yanni. I didn't want to leave it incomplete here.
Regards
As far as I am concerned this thread ended after revealing Immanuel Kant's true identity and "applied" trancendentalism feats in page 20.
:hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yes Yanni,
Your revelations on ''Immanuel Kant's true identity and 'applied' transcendentalism'' (which you provided for us on page 20) is certainly a highlight of this thread. Whose subject title - ''The Puzzle of the so-called Bach Variations', will never, can never, be seen in the same way. Of this I am sure. It is more erudite by far than a room fool of canon lawyers !
(I dare to say that from approximately 3' 50'' on his short video to around 6' 13'' is the longest, most sustained episode of musical excellence I have ever heard. Ending my own contribution to this thread).
Regards
JS Bach
Cantata 140/1
Opening Chorus
Ton Koopman
Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bGe0j52KcA&feature=fvst
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Quoting from post #1 of this thread:
'Following the solution of many other 18th classical music puzzles in this forum (primarily "The Manufacture of Mozart" by Robert Newman-ehmmm-and "The puzzle of Beethoven's Kochs" by yourstruly) Bach's famous variations (also known as "Goldberg variations", the re "tale" manufactured by musicologist "Nicolaus Forkel") can now easily be put in historic context and explained.
Interested parties are wellcome to study carefully thru am threads...
as well as....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_Variations
http://www.keyserlingk.info/default....44&city=FAMILY
.....AND....
http://www.box.net/shared/iypxjy9f6g (last relative online publication-Sept 16, 2009 by Alexander Nicolas Graf Keyserlingk)
...and then declare herein their interest to participate in the discussion and assist in finding the solution to the title's puzzle.'
Your participation in the discussion is on record, Robert: Scripta manent!
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Hi Yanni,
Some 'problems' are solutions in themselves.
Anyway, best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. I hope you might like this -
Andreas Romberg
(1767-1821)
Clarinet Quintet Op. 57
Op. 57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc81b...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpKKG...eature=related
They rarely are, particularly when the devil in the detail is 'overlooked', such as, quoting from an earlier post of yours:Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Claudius* ...Keeper of the King's (Cottonian) Library in 1745 ..in 1747 entered Parliament as M.P. for Tregony in Cornwall, holding the seat until 1754. From 1754 until 1756 he was M.P. for Sandwich. A supporter of the Duke of Newcastle, he became his Under-secretary of State, a post which he held under successive administrations until 1756**. On 26th November 1761, he married Frances, widow of George Compton, 6th Earl of Northampton, so becoming Lord of the Manor of Long Sutton......
.................................................. ............................................
1758 - Letter from Munchausen to West informing him of the commission charged by Messrs. Magens and Amyand on bills of exchange. And on forces in Germany
Would you 'care to disclose' Lady-Frances-father's name?
and
Would that be THE famous baron Munchausen himself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_M%C3%BCnchhausen...
...the "Monsieur Munchausen", trusted by the Hanoverian English King in 1757 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/57761384...f-Chesterfield, p.5, "our friend Munchausen", p.11, who "embarked yesterday for Prince Ferdinand's army" (21st Sept 1758 "Munchausen"*** leaves England for Braunsweig) p34-35?
If so, kindly advise who this "West" was and do provide the exact 1758 dates, contents and sender's address for re letters!
...and care to name your "sources" as well!
Ta-ta!
*Claudius Amyand jr.
**April 8 1756: Kant applies for Knutzen’s position as associate professor of Logic and Metaphysics. The position remains unfilled.
***Kant’s application letters for the full professorship of Logic and Metaphysics that he wrote in December 1758 (see the discussion of Kant’s application for the position). In each of the three letters that he wrote — to the Rector and Academic Senate (Dec. 11; #7, Ak. 10:4), to the Philosophy Faculty (Dec. 12; #8, Ak. 10:5), and to Empress Catherine of Russia (Dec. 14; #9, Ak. 10:7) — Kant claims that he had lectured on each of the two subjects (logic, metaphysics) during each semester that he had been lecturing at the university — in his letter to the Rector and Academic Senate, he claims that he also taught additional courses privatissima. Given that these claims were about the recent past, and that the records would have been readily accessible, there is essentially no reason not to take these claims at face value. !!
Yanni,
I am out of this thread now. Since it is not discussing Bach or any variations but has all the appearance of a government building site with no management.
But what comes out of these rabbit holes remains to be seen. Handel's career was manufactured.
Regards
For Baron von Munchausen try -
Burkhard Christoph von Münnich (1683-1767)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhar...n_M%C3%BCnnich
You may continue your fugues as it suits you, Robert and you may also make any remarks you find 'appropriate' while doing it but, friendly advise, try to look a little deeper in your 'rabbit holes'.
Both questions of my #400 post will be answered tommorow and....no, Burkhard Christoph von Münnich could not have been the same man as King George's friend Munchausen, he was too old in 1758, read the recommended book above.
Here is what its author, Lord Chesterfield, has to say for "appearances":
"Polished brass will pass upon more people than rough gold."
Yes, but I am talking of the character of Baron von Munchausen. And you are talking of King George's friend. One came from the other.
The point is simple. Those with big agendas like to have cardboard re-enactments to confuse fact and fiction and to make elements of each interchangeable. And I am saying King George's friend Munchausen was -
Burkhard Christoph von Münnich (1683-1767).
On which the later literary character was built.
As for the significance of these things, the takeover of western governments, commerce, banking and so on required, in the fulness of time, the takeover of western art and culture itself. From within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Wikipedia: Münnich's- military- activity was brought to a close by the revolution of 1741; he was arrested on his way to the border, and condemned to death. Brought out for execution, and withdrawn from the scaffold, he was later sent to Pelym, Siberia, where he remained for several years, until the accession of Peter III brought about his release in 1762. Catherine II, who soon displaced Peter, employed the old field marshal as director-general of the Baltic ports.
Any other source (apart from a lively, eggnog assisted (?), imagination)?
Remember post #216 of this thread?
The Seven Years' War (1756-1763), with Prussia and Great Britain fighting the alliance of Austria, France, Russia, Sweden, and Saxony, defined the lifes and the somewhat uncertain and complicated carreers of the heroes of this thread, such as the triple-faced JS Handel/Bach/Koch and the thousand- faced comte de Saint Germain-Cocchi-Koch.
From: The Second Little Clavier Book For Anna Magdalena Bach - 1725
By Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) or perhaps his chorrpräfect Johann Sebastian Koch, geboren 1689 in Ammern bei Mühlhausen und gestorben 1757 als Cantor in Schleiz or, most propably, by Handel, all brilliant-white Lutheran pipesmokers, honouring lyrics thru their music: Singspiel? Sounds like an early Joan Baez anyhow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fyg_147jd4
So oft ich meine Tobacks-Pfeife,
Mit gutem Knaster angefüllt,
Zur Lust und Zeitvertreib ergreife,
So gibt sie mir ein Trauerbild-
Und füget diese Lehre bei,
Daß ich derselben ähnlich sei.
Mühlhausen does have a certain resonant similarity to Münchausen, doesn't it!!
Regards!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology