The Manufacture of Mozart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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

---

Great ! I am glad you don't try also !! Since, those who study a subject are able to say what is nonsense and what is not.

The mass media tells us one thing and reality is another. Sound familiar ?

Regards

10 THINGS YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MOZART

1. W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) never spent a single day at school in his entire life.

2. Mozart never studied music at any school. He was at no time under any recognised teacher of composition or harmony.

3. The belief that 'Mozart was taught by his musical father, Leopold, in Salzburg' is fiction. In fact, Leopold Mozart was a failed philosophy student who came to Salzburg from Augsburg. He walked out of his classes in Salzburg and was finally taken on in the Salzburg orchestra as a 4th violinist. This after a period of working in Regensburg. The most minor post. There he remained for a decade. (4th violin is the simplest part of all). In 10 years of service with this orchestra he only rose to the position of 2nd violin. He knew virtually nothing of composition. Nor did he teach harmony or composition to anyone.

4. In the year of Wolfgang's birth (1756) Leopold Mozart published a textbook on Violin in his own name which later became famous. This, you might think, is proof of Leopold's musical abilities. In fact, the contents of this book (which was later published in Germany, Holland and France) are taken from an unpublished tutorial made by the Italian virtuoso violinist, Giuseppe Tartini (1692-1770).

5. Leopold Mozart had good 'connections' with the fraternities of his home town of Augsburg. His Jesuit education brought him connections and it secured him jobs. One of which was to act as the Salzburg agent for various music publishers. Among them was the famous firm of Breitkopf, a major music publisher. This is why all kinds of music have been wrongly attributed to Leopold Mozart. In fact, Leopold Mozart did not study composition or harmony at any time of his life also.

6. Shortly before his first European tour Leopold Mozart received a sudden promotion, from the post of 2nd Violinist to 'Deputy Kapellmeister' at Salzburg. A responsible job. But given to him only as a token position. A few weeks later he left with his son for tours outside of Austria. This promotion made many people in Salzburg angry. In fact Leopold stayed away from Salzburg for close to 7 years on various tours. It got so bad there is a record at Salzburg explaining that Leopold was still, officially, the Deputy Kapellmeister.

7. A letter exists from Mozart's father (writing to the famous music teacher Padre Martini, in Italy, Bologna) shortly before their tour of Italy. In this letter (written from Salzburg) Leopold writes to explain his son knew almost nothing of music or composition and asking Martini if he could help his son. The 'help' lasted a few weeks at most. In fact, Mozart's entrance exam to the music institutue which was taken in Bologna is filled with basic musical errors. But the entrance certificate was given. 'Out of friendship'.

8. The famous story of Mozart writing down from memory a mass he heard at the Vatican in Rome is pure fiction. In fact, the work was an Allegri mass which was already known in Vienna. A copy was kept at the Vienna cathedral and had already been made by the father and son before they arrived in Rome. In fact Mozart visited that church in Rome not once, but twice, and each time had the manuscript in his hands as he sat listening to the performance. The score which Mozart made has never been seen and has never been in the catalogue of Mozart works. In the early 20th century was a report that it had been found in a German library. But the finder pointed out that it was filled with crude musical errors. It disappeared shortly afterwards and has never been seen since.

9. In 1768 Mozart (now 12 years old) was in Vienna with his father. The Viennese musicians did NOT believe in the talents of W.A. Mozart and they openly said so. This angered the father and he managed to get an interview with the Emperor and Empress of Austria. They tried to repair the situation and commissioned the young boy to write an opera for them. 4 months later, they returned from Salzburg with the 'new' music. The opera's name was 'La Finta Semplice'. (Surely this would prove the 'genius' of the young boy). But no sooner was the manuscript presented to the opera manager Affligio than he noticed that it was music in the style of Gassmann and others. The boy clearly knew almost nothing of its contents. And this scandal caused Affligio to cancel the performance, saying that this music was NOT by the boy Mozart. An investigation of the case was started by the Emperor and Empress and they decided that the father and son should not be paid. The opera was NOT by Mozart. Empty handed they returned to Salzburg. Some years later Giuseppe Affligio was singled out for revenge. He was arrested by enemies and accused of 'forgery'. A charge he strongly denied. But his enemies were so great that they destroyed him. He was found guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the island of Elba. Where he died a few years later still protesting his complete innocence.

10. With only one exception not a single symphony of 'Mozart' before the year of 1778 (age 22) shows any sign of being composed by Mozart. The first 7 piano concertos of 'Mozart' (all written before he was 21) are NOT by Mozart. They are arrangements of works by other composers including J.C. Bach. This was finally proved in the 20th century.

//

These are a few of literally hundreds of facts which, today, are little known about the legendary Mozart. The myth of Mozart as a 'musical genius' hides the reality of his career and is responsible for robbing many talented composers of the 18th century from any recognition. The facts of musical history are hidden by the Mozart industry. And the above examples are only a tiny fraction of evidence from his early years. The Vienna years of 'his' greatest triumphs is another story. (1781-1791).

Let me leave you with a quote by J.S. Bach -

'I assure you there is no substitute for hard work, for detailed study, and if you believe otherwise you may become famous and you may even become celebrated, but what is that ?'.

In the early 19th century the publishing business and the sheer power of the performance industry, together with the posthumous publication of works in 'Mozart's' name made him an icon of western musical history. This myth manufactured over decades. Close to 600 works appeared after Mozart's death which, in fact, he never wrote. The full story of this manufactured career has hardly been told.

Near the end of his life, while on a short tour, Mozart is recorded as having been completely amazed when he heard a performance for the first time of this beautiful work in a church. By J.S. Bach -

Johann Sebastian Bach
'Sleepers Awake'
Cantata 140
Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra and Choir
Director - Ton Koopman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzew...om=PL&index=50

'It was', Mozart recorded, 'something from which I can learn'. Decades later Bach was 'rediscovered'. But by that time the music industry have taken over.


Regards

Tel Asiado chose to conclude thus her article on "Gluck" in Mozart Forum:

Gluck's historical importance rests on his establishment of a new equilibrium between music and drama, and his greatness in the power and clarity with which he projected that vision. He dissolved the drama in music instead of merely illustrating it. His convincing operas exerted a strong influence on his younger contemporary Mozart, into the 19th century, and perhaps beyond. One wonders if they discussed opera in specifics at their meetings, an interesting angle to note if Gluck ever imparted his operatic concepts to Mozart.

Also of note the introduction to her article:

J.A. Hiller.."Wochentliche Nachrichten" (24th October 1768): "Gluck's imagination is immense. The confines of all national music are thus too narrow for him: out of Italian and French music, out of that of every people, he has made a music that is his own; or rather, he has sought in nature all the sounds of true expression and conquered them for himself." (Surprise-surprise: Mr Hiller-prussian or austrian?-fails to mention "german" music. Actually, "german Gluck" never composed any of his melodramas in his native language.)

1768, remember, was the year Pierre Michel Hennin was appointed treasurer to the King of France (as I write in previous post)

Not that I fully agree with T.Asiado, mind you: "Gluck" did not dissolve the drama in music, he made music fit (melo)drama instead, giving priority to lyrics. Nevertheless, a worthy conclusion re the eventual provenance of "Mozart's" Figaro.

Of parallel interest btw (to "Rousseau"-Figaro and his true story) is Goethe's Dr Faustus (who somehow managed to escape eternal condemnation)! It took Goethe some 30 years to conclude as above!

Cheers.

PS Nobody seems to care about Dali and his obelisk ridden elephants in this forum!

Hey Scher or whatever moderator deleted my post! I realize that St. Luke added a snarky response after mine, but my question was legit. I am genuinely interested in knowing how the chocolate industry fits into all of this.

So let's try this again.

Musicology, how does the chocolate industry fit into your theory about Mozart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Hey Scher or whatever moderator deleted my post! I realize that St. Luke added a snarky response after mine, but my question was legit. I am genuinely interested in knowing how the chocolate industry fits into all of this.

So let's try this again.

Musicology, how does the chocolate industry fit into your theory about Mozart?

---

Drkshadow,

Among the million offshoots of the Mozart industry (which includes a vast recording industry, the tourist industry, the virtual control of musicology, etc. is this well known brand of chocolates) - which I added to my interview on the Red Ice Radio broadcast (as a light hearted example of gullibility and sheer hype) -

http://www.mozartkugelnchocolateballs.com/

It is not part of the theory. It is an example of pure commercialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Drkshadow,

Among the million offshoots of the Mozart industry (which includes a vast recording industry, the tourist industry, the virtual control of musicology, etc. is this well known brand of chocolates) - which I added to my interview on the Red Ice Radio broadcast (as a light hearted example of gullibility and sheer hype) -

http://www.mozartkugelnchocolateballs.com/

It is not part of the theory. It is an example of pure commercialism.

---

Heh. You learn something new everyday.

They are quite famous ! And they taste very nice. Austrian chocolate. High quality stuff !!!

See Dali's sculpture of Alice Cooper's brain with a Chocolate Eclair covered in ants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Great ! I am glad you don't try also !! Since, those who study a subject are able to say what is nonsense and what is not.

The mass media tells us one thing and reality is another. Sound familiar ?

Regards

10 THINGS YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MOZART

1. W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) never spent a single day at school in his entire life.

2. Mozart never studied music at any school. He was at no time under any recognised teacher of composition or harmony.

Regards

---

Music,

There is a professor I listen to on the radio who is an animal behaviorist. She is funny, and autistic, but mildly so. She cautions against falling in love with our own theories, which is perhaps worth heeding. I cannot rebut your belief system with facts, I do not have the time, and read music reviewers as a tone deaf observer--but would ask this--why take so much effort to convince me?

I can see debating this love of yours in Mozart forums, or with luke, but I am basically pot luck picks outside of certain literary periods and disability issues. The love of your conviction isn't mine, and perhaps that is worth taking into consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Music,

There is a professor I listen to on the radio who is an animal behaviorist. She is funny, and autistic, but mildly so. She cautions against falling in love with our own theories, which is perhaps worth heeding. I cannot rebut your belief system with facts, I do not have the time, and read music reviewers as a tone deaf observer--but would ask this--why take so much effort to convince me?

I can see debating this love of yours in Mozart forums, or with luke, but I am basically pot luck picks outside of certain literary periods and disability issues. The love of your conviction isn't mine, and perhaps that is worth taking into consideration.

---

Hi there Jozanny,

I suppose when one has studied a subject for a long time from many different angles one obtains a detailed knowledge of it. Which, in my case, applies to the life, career and 'superman' status of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791). The reason I examined these things in such detail is because I don't like being lied to in the name of 'culture' and 'history' and 'musical history'. It seems to me that we should be taught what is true, and accurate, and honest. That we should at least criticise what is widely believed if there are reasons to do so. But the opposite has happened. Mozart is of course an industry. And it is not used to criticism.

I wondered, myself, how this pack of lies came about. And why. It took me several years to realise that beyond reasonable doubt the whole thing was a fairy story. And yet, as a youth, I had been as drawn to Mozart as any other student of music. (It was a subject I studied as a youth). It seemed impossible such a thing could possibly have been invented. It made no sense. So I decided to devote lots of time to examining the whole thing, in much detail. The fruits of which I'm still putting together into a form that can be understood by ordinary music lovers.

The only conclusion I can make is that certain people wanted 'control'. Control of what ? Control of the music industry. By invention of a musical character, a career, so amazing, so apparently true, that 'they' would literally come to dominate textbooks with it. As these same elites had controlled publishing and music publishing before Mozart's time. And so it happened. In effect, the actual study of music history was hijacked. It was deliberately hijacked, by the same elites who had created the story. So that in place of musicology we started (from around 1810 onwards) to get the version of something else - the 'music industry'.

I did not understand these things. Could they possibly be true ? But they started to make more and more sense as I examined the actual records (musical and non-musical). About 10 years in to making a vast number of notes they became only more and more clear. The music industry, publishing, even performance had been corrupted by this. The rise of icons which are really fictions. In the case of Mozart a project of superb music credited to him that had been composed by a network of other composers whose names are today hardly known. Which was completely possible at a time when an Empire (the Holy Roman Empire) existed. So that Mozart biographies rarely give us any context and we are ignorant of Mozart's own contemporaries. And kept ignorant, deliberately. This with the same objectives we find in politics, banking, the mass media etc. The 'control' of what is taught and believed in matters of musical history. To the exclusion of what is real, what really happened, etc. etc. And people today are paid to write on this stuff, to tell us the 'story'. Supported by what seems to be a mass of documentary evidence. When, in fact, the documentary evidence was always bogus from the very beginning. A massive fraud in the musical/cultural sense.

We are lied to about these things. And these cultural areas are as badly corrupted as virtually all others. I am certain of it. So are various other musicologists and researchers with whom I've been in contact. Mozart was an invention.

'Ah, yes', the defenders of convention will say, 'And how are you going to prove this ?'. Well, that has been my aim over the past 5 years or so. To show from musical, historical and other evidence how and why this was done.

Does it matter ? Well, again, yes, I think it DOES matter. Even here, in matters of music, we have those who cynically pervert reality. Suppressing reality and inventing one they can control. The 'Mozart industry'. And, at the very least, we should try to give credit where it is due.

Our encyclopaedias, our reference books, our own education, is under assault from those who have invented fictions and who broadcast them. Does that matter ? Does it matter that 'news' is often blatantly biased and plain wrong ? To me it matters.

Anyway, music deserves better.

But, when I am not involved in this project I like to listen to music by Bach and composers of the late Baroque (which I specially like).

You should read some of the critics of my work !! It's really funny sometimes.

Sorry if this doesn't answer your points fully. I guess I will never really get used to what I've seen and scribbled down over these years.

Regards

Seeing that you still focus on your "Holy Roman Empire" version (in your reply to Jozanny) I will now answer your previous:

I would be specially interested in knowing about your views on Grimm, because Grimm has close association (as you know) with the Encyclopaedists. And there is no doubt that the Jesuit links to the Encyclopaedists are real. In fact, Robespierre was a great supporter of Rousseau's 'Social Contract' (1762). And Robespierre was a Jesuit educated tyrant. As we all know. The links between the 'Enlightenment' and a Jesuit Order operating through fraternities are too huge to be dismissed.

"Grimm" did not just have "close associations" with the encycloaedists but was in full control of each and everyone of them (as their censor, protector and sponsor) and, furthermore, wrote himself the music related articles of the french encyclopaedia. As such he is the first "musicologist" on record, particularly in what concerns his "poem lyrique" (his definition of what is today known as "opera", ie the means to pass a clear message through music-not necessary anymore today, the "job" being done through other means, e.g. TV, "greed management" etc)

Neoclassicism was seen as a much better alternative to Rome's catholic dogma at the time and as such the "encyclopaedist movement" prevailed in Europe until 1791 excepting Austria who,1784-1815, returned to roman catholicism.

As head of France's Secret du Roi, "Grimm" associated with all fraternities, including Weishaupt's Illuminati. When the documents of this society came to light, 1784, he had to "kill" some of his aliases to protect himself. (That's how Mozart inherited "Gluck's" music archives through Salieri).

Following Napoleon's fall the Illuminati resurfaced (controlled by Great Britain) to replace the "enlightened monarchists" (encyclopaedists) of exhausted France and Prussia.
"They" took over control not just of music.

In this transfer of control "Jesuit" influence was minor and so was Rome's.

Yanni,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Musicology,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

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

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

---

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

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

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

Here's the Wikipedia article on Durazzo -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(p. 200)


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

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

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

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

Regards