The Manufacture of Mozart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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

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

---

The plain fact is that I've studied this material in very great detail. Along with others. If what I am saying is wrong it should be simple to refute it. These are absolutely basic things. They are a tiny fraction of what could be said on Mozart's formative years. An entire chapter could be filled with similar things. Now, what reply do you have to this ? And to that ? And to this ? And to that ? There is no reply. Because the simple truth is there is NO evidence for what is being taught as historical/musical fact. And it shows. Let's stop believing baseless fables and study reality.

You are perfectly free to believe fairy stories. But it seems to me that when they are criticised, cross-examined, on simple, basic issues, and when the answer is always to run away and deny there is a massive problem, what can I say ?

People full of hate are those who rewrite history and who are cynical enough to profit from it. As the Mozart cult has done for over 200 years. Think about it !

Dozens of composers and musicians have been shredded, obscured, suppressed by this candyfloss nonsense. And it's time for people to grow up instead of living in dreamland.

Mozart is a fairy story. A cult for the musical underachiever whose real story is a legend, a myth, made by the corporate spin machine of the music industry. So says the musical, historical and other evidence. Hidden behind the candyfloss of 200 years of hyperbole, fiction and gross exaggeration.

That's not 'hate'. It's verifiable, documentary evidence which you choose to ignore. And if it's not, please show us differently.

Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Show us the evidence !

Guess what ? It doesn't exist. Why not consult your 'expert' sources ? They surely exist. But they've gone into hiding.

You are right, 'the term delusional comes to mind'. And guess what ? The delusions of the Mozart industry. Consumed by the dumbed down faithful. The pious fraud that is and has always been the Mozart industry.

Do reality a favour - learn the facts and don't tell others the onus is on them. When the request has been made to you for evidence and you simply ignore it. Multiply this by 1,000 and you will have some idea of how gullible we choose to be on this fiction of musical history.

You are the 'genius'. You have to be. Who else could believe such nonsense when it fails, at every single stage, to survive cross-examination ? This is not 'musical history'. It's the FOX news of classical music.

You do know academic studies require fair criticism and cross-examination, don't you ?

Except, of course, in the case of 'Amadeus', Ronald McDonald, and FOX news, of course !

It's hilarious !

Thanks

There are trolls and there are trolls Musicology. Some wear rather ingenious disguises, but the wise know when to stop feeding them. Yanni is obviously very well versed in the historiography. It is a shame to see it wasted here rather than used to educate those of us who still enjoy the rich expression of the form.

Joz... of course you are right. I haven't really written with the intent of changing our antagonist's mind... or even of leading him to sense the least possibility of doubt in his theories. The true apostles never know doubt. Any proof to the contrary is easily dismissed as having been tampered with as part of the great conspiracy. No... I only post to make it clear that these "theories" are in no way factual nor accepted as such by even the least number of experts in the field. But you are right... this discussion amounts to little more than feeding the troll and diverts attention away from the possibility of discussing and sharing something about music that has merit and is worthy of the art form itself.:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Joz... of course you are right. I haven't really written with the intent of changing our antagonist's mind... or even of leading him to sense the least possibility of doubt in his theories. The true apostles never know doubt. Any proof to the contrary is easily dismissed as having been tampered with as part of the great conspiracy. No... I only post to make it clear that these "theories" are in no way factual nor accepted as such by even the least number of experts in the field. But you are right... this discussion amounts to little more than feeding the troll and diverts attention away from the possibility of discussing and sharing something about music that has merit and is worthy of the art form itself.:wave:

---

With respect, this thread is not on the merits of any music. It's on the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) to whom you seem perfectly happy to have produced no evidence at all of his musical 'genius'. And have been unable, even when asked for specifics of his musical and other education, to provide that too. You mumble vaguely about 'experts' but have named none, nor quoted their writings, no offered us any reply - saying, instead, that the onus is on us to prove a negative. This is your entire argument.

'Feeding the troll' ? What is being asked for is evidence, ANY evidence, to support your view of the first 12 years of Mozart's life in respect of his musical and academic education. And, in the meantime, you've been presented with specific, documentary facts, which contradict what you believe. So the 'debate' (such as it has been) is entirely one-sided. And so you have no choice but to describe me as a 'troll' ! Where but in the land of fantasy would anyone try to pull such a stunt ?

You have been feeding the troll for as long as you have studied Mozart. Which, judging by your posts here, is not long enough to answer the most elementary questions. You cannot tell us what evidence supports him being the composer of any symphonies, operas or concertos up until the age of 12, nor can you tell us of his musical education or his skill on the keyboard from even a single impartial, objective source.

Suppose we were to leave this aspect of Mozart's career and moved on to the period of 'his' greatest achievements. In Vienna, during his last decade. Would you feel more comfortable with that ? Because I promise you the same will happen. You would be presented with a whole series of facts of which you are not aware. Because you have never examined this subject from anything except the 'official' story. Once again, you would tell of 'experts' and would fail to deliver any actual, verifiable evidence. And I would produce you with dozens of facts about which you would have nothing to say. This pattern would be repeated. Over and over again. Because the truth is your 'education' is no education at all. You subscribe to a fairy story. Which is completely incompatible with the musical, historical and documentary evidence.

The Mozart story was cleverly constructed. Who could ever imagine that it would be cross-examined ? But time, and countless discoveries have justified examining these issues in critical detail. Please do not despise them. Since they (and only they) present us with a version of events that is entirely reliable.

Sorry you had to resort to 'troll' vocabulary. In terms of content, let readers judge who has presented facts here and who has acted as a troll. Since readers deserve better than blanket denial and vague talk of 'experts' nobody has ever heard of.

W.A. Mozart was a musician of no great talent. He was in fact a provincial musician of no great talent. But, published in his name is some of the finest music of the late 18th century. It could hardly be otherwise. Because, if you knew the story you would see how understated the case has been. We choose to remain ignorant, or we examine issues fairly, from both sides.

I have made my choice. And that's the difference.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Joz... of course you are right. I haven't really written with the intent of changing our antagonist's mind... or even of leading him to sense the least possibility of doubt in his theories. The true apostles never know doubt. Any proof to the contrary is easily dismissed as having been tampered with as part of the great conspiracy. No... I only post to make it clear that these "theories" are in no way factual nor accepted as such by even the least number of experts in the field. But you are right... this discussion amounts to little more than feeding the troll and diverts attention away from the possibility of discussing and sharing something about music that has merit and is worthy of the art form itself.:wave:

---

I was not attempting to criticize you, really. I'm just getting tired of this. If he dictates parts of Requiem to Sussmayr or not, what of it? I may not know much of the history of the great composers, but I do know something about the nature of prodigy, and Mozart's genius most likely was authentic. Why it would not be is beyond any rational motive of which I can conceive.

I hope any students who actually take the time to sort through this thread don't go away thinking that deniers know something they don't; it begins to feel like the poison of the 21st century: The Holocaust didn't really happen. JFK wasn't shot by Oswald. Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare, and Mozart is a conspiracy dreamed up by the Austria-Hungarian Empire that collapsed in 1918. Got all that kids?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::banana::banana :

Please do not personalise your arguments

and

feel free to ignore any threads/discussion that you do not consider worthy of your attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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

You can use other threads, can't you ?

---

As a matter of fact, there is another thread, but it is not getting much air time. I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for it, laying there several threads below the floor boards in the cellar, barely visible in the dim light seeping through the gaps between the planks. A nearly lifeless form crying out; “Here is your truth! Here is your evidence for anyone who would dare to listen!”, but nary a sound is heard over the cacophony of pointless, misguided bantering raging on above him. A glimmer of hope appeared in the form of a kind gentleman from Athens, who dared to put an ear to the floor and at least consider the possibilities. Realizing that the man underground could not be heard, the Athenian kindly dropped a "Post-It" pad though the floor that he might issue forth notes from underground. Copious facts were written and pushed up between the planks in hopes that someone might notice.

Several times the underground thread heard threats from various members of the contentious crowd above, indicating that they had had enough. Hoping that they would honor their words and remain silent if, for only long enough to allow their attention to be diverted downward, maybe, just maybe, they might see the post it stuck to their shoes.

The evidence is right there beneath your feet !



http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/IMG_1296.jpg

Pearl fisher's latest pick:

"The true apostles never know doubt"

Thanks Joz and Gilliat (I wonder what colour is the light passing thru the floor planks though. Please don't tell me its your blueish-green again!)

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I was not attempting to criticize you, really. I'm just getting tired of this. If he dictates parts of Requiem to Sussmayr or not, what of it? I may not know much of the history of the great composers, but I do know something about the nature of prodigy, and Mozart's genius most likely was authentic. Why it would not be is beyond any rational motive of which I can conceive.

I hope any students who actually take the time to sort through this thread don't go away thinking that deniers know something they don't; it begins to feel like the poison of the 21st century: The Holocaust didn't really happen. JFK wasn't shot by Oswald. Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare, and Mozart is a conspiracy dreamed up by the Austria-Hungarian Empire that collapsed in 1918. Got all that kids?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::banana::banana :

---

If you believe the history of music is less corrupt, less fake, less false, than the history of politics, or war, or business, or banking, or academic studies generally then you are plain wrong. Most of what we learn is sheer nonsense. And it always has been. That's the nature of deception. To preside over the publication of books, to learn one and only one side of a story, to fool ourselves we 'know', when, in fact, we read only the 'official' version. Haven't the events of recent years convinced you of that ?

To argue against convention requires a person to have evidence. Examine that evidence and come to your own conclusion. Is that so hard to do ? Because one thing is sure. We live in an age of couch potatoes. Of ignorance posing as knowledge. And of fairy stories in place of reality.

So, which is it to be ? A one-sided version or a verdict based on having examined things from both sides ?

The choice is yours. And mine.

You refer to the 'Mozart' Requiem. A work which was exposed as a fraud as early as 1825. When in that year was publication of a music journal in Vienna by the German musicologist Gottfried Weber (in the best music journal of the time 'Caelicia') showing that work had been put together after Mozart's death by various other composers). Mozart was NOT its composer. He never wrote it. A detailed musical analysis showed it came from other composers. But you haven't read that either, have you ? Nor are you aware that it took 10 more years before that fraud was finally published in 'Mozart's' name. The history of the Requiem is more filled with lies, untruths and exaggerations than any other work of 'Mozart'. The story goes it was rehearsed in the days before Mozart's death. That too has long ago been proved to be a pack of lies. And so it goes on.

Mozart is said to have been commissioned to write a Requiem. Nobody can tell us when. Or how much he was supposed to be paid. The accounts all differ. The whole story is riddled with lies and falsehoods. In fact no such commission has ever been seen, ever. Nobody has produced evidence of its existence in 200 years and more. It's a fairy story. Like all the rest.

Musicology,

Can you please explain why "bohemian Gluck" had to lie about his thorough knowledge(according to P.Howard) of the italian language?

(see C.W. von Gluck, Orfeo by Patricia Howard, page 25)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Musicology,

Can you please explain why "bohemian Gluck" had to lie about his thorough knowledge(according to P.Howard) of the italian language?

(see C.W. von Gluck, Orfeo by Patricia Howard, page 25)

---

If Gluck was Cocchi and Cocchi was himself Italian I leave you to explain it yourself !

History says Gluck was a Bohemian, born at the estate of Lobkowtiz.

Stlukesguild, I commend you on your skill in shining the harsh light of skepticism on the smoke and mirrors of the Mozart Myth. Musicology (or Robert Newman, as he calls himself elsewhere on the Internet) has a conspiracy theory that he's refined through years of dedicated hackwork, quote mining, and confirmation bias. At this point, any factoid he can point to proves the Big Conspiracy. But there's no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this vast plot.

Case in point, Robert points to the fact that Koch's 1793 work on concerti doesn't even mention Mozart. Certainly it indicates how far Mozart's stock had fallen so soon after his death. But is it really what we'd expect to see if there were such a vast systemic scheme to create a musical superstar out of the no-talent Mozart even during his lifetime?

The logical leaps Robert makes are remarkable. He considers Mozart a no-talent who was guilty of plagiarism, so that means Mozart never wrote a note of music himself! He says many works originally attributed to Mozart have since been attributed to other composers, so this means every work attributed to Mozart is a fraud!

His ad hoc explanation for handwaving away any criticism of this half-baked theory is the vast power of secret cabals such as the Jesuits and the Freemasons. This is pretty convenient, since by definition any claims he makes about their machinations is pure speculation.

And why hasn't Robert produced a work to be reviewed and assessed by credentialed musicologists? He seems to be wasting a lot of time on message boards that would be better spent getting his monumental book written and published.

Once again, Stlukesguild, fine work.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

If Gluck was Cocchi and Cocchi was himself Italian I leave you to explain it yourself !

History says Gluck was a Bohemian, born at the estate of Lobkowtiz.

---

I see you trying the "heads I winn, tails you lose" approach, Robert, running for cover under this very same "history" you already labelled an utter lie.

The "StLuke-Babbalanja" duette should, imo, avoid using hot air to inflate their balloon. Recent experiments demonstrated that even helium-filled balloons are doomed as UFO's....and so are flying sausages!

(Alternatively they should study Chastellux's influence on Th.Jefferson on how to "read" english grammars and dictionaries:

Within a quarter of a century of Jefferson's change of mind, Coleridge decided that he had discovered a new, or rediscovered the old, principle of English verse--the accentually based line: that poets for four hundred years had lost contact with the essential rhythm of the language. So, if de Chastellux and (now) Jefferson and subsequently Coleridge were correct, what of the collective opinion of grammarians, elocutionists, and lexicographers? )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

The "StLuke-Babbalanja" duette should, imo, avoid using hot air to inflate their balloon.

---

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

---

Stoicism/scepticism will not bring you Nirvana, Babba, perhaps you should try the stylite approach to matters!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Stlukesguild, I commend you on your skill in shining the harsh light of skepticism on the smoke and mirrors of the Mozart Myth. Musicology (or Robert Newman, as he calls himself elsewhere on the Internet) has a conspiracy theory that he's refined through years of dedicated hackwork, quote mining, and confirmation bias. At this point, any factoid he can point to proves the Big Conspiracy. But there's no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this vast plot.

Case in point, Robert points to the fact that Koch's 1793 work on concerti doesn't even mention Mozart. Certainly it indicates how far Mozart's stock had fallen so soon after his death. But is it really what we'd expect to see if there were such a vast systemic scheme to create a musical superstar out of the no-talent Mozart even during his lifetime?

The logical leaps Robert makes are remarkable. He considers Mozart a no-talent who was guilty of plagiarism, so that means Mozart never wrote a note of music himself! He says many works originally attributed to Mozart have since been attributed to other composers, so this means every work attributed to Mozart is a fraud!

His ad hoc explanation for handwaving away any criticism of this half-baked theory is the vast power of secret cabals such as the Jesuits and the Freemasons. This is pretty convenient, since by definition any claims he makes about their machinations is pure speculation.

And why hasn't Robert produced a work to be reviewed and assessed by credentialed musicologists? He seems to be wasting a lot of time on message boards that would be better spent getting his monumental book written and published.

Once again, Stlukesguild, fine work.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan,

You say there is 'no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this plot'. But that's just plain wrong.

You believe in a Mozart detached from time and space. In fact, the average Mozart enthusiast knows almost nothing of music and the musical scene at the time of their hero. It's not your fault. It is the result of a 'science' which is no science. Which never allows cross-examination of its claims. So we are kept ignorant of reality, virtually all the way through their defence of his myth. If the story of Mozart is true why is it that at each and every stage of his life and supposed career as a musical genius there are massive, huge, discrepancies between the legend and historical/documentary reality ? I cannot invent them. They either exist or they do not exist. Grant me that, please ! They actually exist, by the hundred. On even the most basic issues. Closer study proves that even the musical manuscripts are very often not in Mozart's hand. And those which are (there being no less than 3 'Mozart' forms of handwriting to start with !) are often works by other composers.

You refer to the published work of Heinrich Koch (1793) published only 2 years after Mozart's death, which discusses piano concertos but does not mention Mozart ! Yes, and why is this ? Maybe Koch suffered from amensia ? What chance is there Koch would not refer to Mozart if 'his' 27 concertos (most of which, we are told, were played and celebrated in Vienna for years) were unknown to Koch in 1793 ? Isn't this a real problem ? You surely admit that it is. But it gets worse. In other musical writings of the time, such as the Musical Year books of the founder of musicology, J.N. Forkel, he gives a small paragraph to Mozart. But he does not credit Mozart with being the composer of major operas such as 'Figaro'. Nor does he speak of any such reputation as a virtuoso performer and famous figure in musical Vienna. He refers (in 1789) only to the eventual appearance of a score of 'Abduction from the Seraglio' in Mozart's name which appeared in print 4 years after its Vienna premiere. And it appeared only with a short selection of music from that opera. In fact, the diaries of the time (such as that of the opera enthusiast Count Zinzendorf) tell us 'this music is NOT by Mozart'. Speaking of that very opera ! And Zinzendorf should know - he attended the premiere of that opera in Vienna ! Finally, how is it that the famous librettist of Mozart, Lorenzo da Ponte (a supporter of the Mozart myth) said 'he, Mozart, was completely unknown to the people of Vienna during his lifetime and was unable to demonstrate his genius to that city' !!! So much for the famous W.A. Mozart, piano virtuoso and famous composer in Vienna for the last 10 years of his life. Yes ? Time after time, after time, the myth falls to pieces and fraud/exaggeration and falsehood are proved.

If Mozart really wrote these 27 piano concertos how is it that after 200 years of Mozart study we have not a single set of performance parts from Vienna for any one of these 27 concertos for the period when he was supposedly famous for performing them ? Not a single concerto. In fact the conductor scores come almost entirely from Salzburg and they have a very different story. Where have the performance parts of these 'Mozart' piano concertos from Vienna disappeared to ?

The reports we have of Mozart's performances in Vienna can be proved to be false. In some cases it's embarrasing. Notices appeared in the newspapers for performances which never, actually, happened. As I show in some detail.

The manfuacture of Mozart as a 'musical genius' was the takeover of the music industry, by the fraternal elites who had controlled music for centuries but who, in the 19th century, needed a musical 'genius' to continue their control. They manufactured one. It was not new. They had done so before. But this time it was to be the icon of Mozart. One of the icons of the 'enlightenment'. As for reality, well, who cares ?

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

---

I think we have arrived at a time in human history where the role of conspiracies, hidden agendas, propaganda, and official explanations is shown to be a major factor in human affairs. The difference is that some accept this fact and others live in denial of it. Easier to believe in a candy floss Mozart than to study reality in any detail.

You hear it all the time. 'I don't believe in conspiracy theories'. And these are the same people who accept 'official' conspiracies all the time. The tragedy of 9/11 (according to the official report) was the product of a conspiracy. So says that report, no less than 3 times, in its own text. But that fact is OK, because it's an 'official' conspiracy.

No, let's be honest. Conspiracies are all too common. We don't like to admit it. Our courts are full of them. Virtually every crime of any size is a conspiracy as any judge will tell you.

We must simply respect fair, honest, investigative research. We must examine issues from more than one side. That is a fair and reasonable basis on which to form a judgement on any issue. Conspiracy or not.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Istvan,

You say there is 'no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this plot'. But that's just plain wrong.

---

So where is it, Robert? All I ever see from you is a long litany of perceived anomalies in the official Mozart biography. Anomalies might be gold bricks in the stairway to Tinhat Heaven, but they don't add up to anything without a comprehensive, coherent alternative scenario to explain them.

I've never seen you present documented evidence supporting your claim that the Jesuits and Freemasons hired composers to create all the works now falsely attributed to Mozart. All I've seen you present is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the two hundred year history of Mozart scholarship. There's a big difference between the two.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

We must simply respect fair, honest, investigative research. We must examine issues from more than one side. That is a fair and reasonable basis on which to form a judgement on any issue.

---

No one ever disputed this fact. I just think it's reasonable to show the same degree of skepticism to any 'alternative' scenario as we show to the 'official' one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

No one ever disputed this fact. I just think it's reasonable to show the same degree of skepticism to any 'alternative' scenario as we show to the 'official' one.

---

The only problem with Robert's scenario is his "blame the jesuits" conclusion(!), totally unfounded yet shared by Dan Brown and, as I had the misfortune to realise last night, by the "author" of the film "Mission Impossible III" as well (Tom Cruise's last finest).

Sorry folks but Rome never interfered in the theft of your "rabbitsfoot", now as always safely guarded by the same old braves of the "IMF" (Impossible Mission Forces, naturally).

You are in good company Robert!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

The only problem with Robert's scenario is his "blame the jesuits" conclusion(!)

---

My first problem with Robert's scenario is what exactly is it?

In conspiracy theory world, it's best to keep the specifics to a minimum, so that you can handwave away any criticism of your ideas as a "straw man." But this reduces the debate to a futile shell game. Did the secret societies hire composers to write Mozart's works during his lifetime, or did they just exaggerate his importance long after his death? Did Mozart plagiarize certain ideas of others, or was there a systemic plot to attribute others' works to him? These are not the same claims, and it's unclear which ones Robert is making.

The second problem is that the 'evidence' he always refers to isn't what we'd need to see to support his claims. He hasn't shown documentation of this vast Jesuit/Freemason conspiracy, he's relying on wild speculation. And the 'discrepancies' he uses to dispute the authorship of certain of Mozart's early works doesn't support his claim that (as he says in his OP), "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire".

Take a closer look at what Robert is offering, and you'll see it's a vague fantasy backed by an incoherent slew of factoids.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

Robert decided to join this forum when he realised that:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

This thread by Yanni is consistent with the findings of my own research on the career of Mozart. (Mozart was patronised by Baron Grimm from an early date).

The Voltaire/Grimm/Rousseau relationship is endlessly fascinating.

---

He has however not followed my suggestion (expressed early in this thread) to study my roothunting research (ending Robert's "endlessly fascinating Voltaire/Grimm/Rousseau relationship" and solving a few more "secret societies mysteries" of their time) herein, the results of which are somewhat(!) contrary to "conventional truth".

His "manufactured Mozart" claim is correct but he is wrong( both conventionaly and conveniently) on the manufacturer.

Re Conspiracy theories and your relative skepticism here is a quote from GenealogyNet that might turn you to a believer:

Mussolini Worked For MI5 Agents
Benito Mussolini may be among history's most notorious fascist dictators, but evidence suggests he worked for British secret services during World War I.

Historian Dr Peter Martland says MI5 records show it paid "Il Duce" £100 per week, about £5,000 today,to spread pro-war propaganda via his newspaper.

The Cambridge University academic made the discovery while studying the papers of former agent Sir Samuel Hoare MP.

Mussolini's socialist publication, Il Popolo d'Italia, carried a key voice because it served the factory workers of Milan whose output was essential for the war effort.


Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Re Conspiracy theories and your relative skepticism here is a quote from GenealogyNet that might turn you to a believer:

Mussolini Worked For MI5 Agents

---

Well, a couple of decades before WWII, things were very different in Europe and allegiances were pretty complicated. I have no problem believing that Mussolini was involved in espionage with his future enemies, if there's credible documentation that says so.

It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. If you offered as evidence the fact that Mussolini couldn't have lived at the address historians say he did during WWI, so therefore he might have worked for MI5, I might be less inclined to believe it.

The skeptical approach only favors evidence over speculation. And I'm sticking to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

So where is it, Robert? All I ever see from you is a long litany of perceived anomalies in the official Mozart biography. Anomalies might be gold bricks in the stairway to Tinhat Heaven, but they don't add up to anything without a comprehensive, coherent alternative scenario to explain them.

I've never seen you present documented evidence supporting your claim that the Jesuits and Freemasons hired composers to create all the works now falsely attributed to Mozart. All I've seen you present is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the two hundred year history of Mozart scholarship. There's a big difference between the two.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan,

Please consider what you are saying. You are saying all you have seen is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the 200 year history of Mozart scholarship. OK, let's stop at this point. Let's call this our Base Camp, if you will.

The first proof that a subject is worthy of study is whether the evidence supports it being studied in the first place. If someone invents a 'science' which says the moon is made of green cheese it will soon collapse, because there is no evidence of it. Therefore the first test here is passed. We agree we have a subject worth studying, worth examining. May I suggest you pitch your tent there, in the foothills of the mountain, so to speak, so that you can consider where you must go next as we examine this subject in greater detail.

You have said that no evidence has been presented that the Jesuit Order and the Freemansons (and other fraternities) stage managed the career of Mozart. Well, with respect, the evidence is massive. It exists from the time of his childhood right to the year of his death in 1791. It literally throws itself at us when we examine the subject in greater detail. I did not examine this subject only from Base Camp. I examined in much, much, greater detail. Historically, musically and in many other ways. Only a very small fraction of this has been discussed here. Of course.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Well, a couple of decades before WWII, things were very different in Europe and allegiances were pretty complicated. I have no problem believing that Mussolini was involved in espionage with his future enemies, if there's credible documentation that says so.

It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. If you offered as evidence the fact that Mussolini couldn't have lived at the address historians say he did during WWI, so therefore he might have worked for MI5, I might be less inclined to believe it.

The skeptical approach only favors evidence over speculation. And I'm sticking to it.

---

Me too. I wish Mozart scholarship would do the same. They do not. They invent fables, myths, which people believe. But those fables and myths are almost never cross-examined. Which matters if we really are interested in evidence.

Virtually nothing said and written about Mozart and his career is fact. It's really a fiction. Yes, there was a musician called W.A. Mozart. Yes, various works were published in his name (though nearly 5 times as much after he had died). And yes, there were stories and reports of him being a musical superman. But when we start to examine these reports, these stories, the documents, the manuscripts themselves, the source material, the legends, the industry itself, we slowly but surely start to realise the scale of the fiction. This process occurs in two stages - not one.

1. OK, Mozart was probably a massive exaggeration and his career was most probably exaggerated and falsified.

2. So, now we have established this to be true beyond reasonable doubt, how do we explain the origins of this music, its great beauty (in many cases) and the rise of fame of Mozart as a 'musical genius'.

You will appreciate these are great questions. We have only skimmed the surface of them in this thread. I know very well what critics will say. I know their arguments very well. And, for sure, I know how hard it will be to call convention in to question. But that is what I am doing.

Why would people go to such vast lengths to manufacture the career of a 'musical genius' ? It sounds bizzare, strange, almost impossible. It was done for various reasons. Not least the control of the emerging music industry by those who were the patrons of musical art, the control of performance, the control, in fact, of musical history. And to bring glory (and prestige) to Vienna as the 'city of music'. These are just a few of the reasons. Culture is as much a product of fakery, exaggeration and intrigue as almost any other field of human history. The case of Mozart is another example. In any field of study where cross-examination or criticism/accountability is not welcomed we will see the rise of fictions, legends, falsehoods and myths. These taught in the name of reality. In this case the fraud was very well constructed. It seems almost impossible to expose. It consists of mountains of 'proofs'. It sounds crazy to question it. When I was earlier I would never have thought of such an idea. But, slowly, this has been done on a subject that I've examined in great detail. This process calls in to question his entire musical career and his musical reputation. Amazing but true. And that's good. Let the 'experts' come and show us where it's wrong. That's fair enough, yes ?

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

You have said that no evidence has been presented that the Jesuit Order and the Freemansons (and other fraternities) stage managed the career of Mozart. Well, with respect, the evidence is massive.

---

But you haven't presented any of it.

Did I miss where you showed signed declarations from these secret societies, declassified documents outlining their plan to manufacture the Mozart myth? Did you ever present a letter or memoir from the genius who really composed The Magic Flute, detailing the motives and methods of his assistance in this monumental fraud? Did you show us Mozart's written confession that he was a huge no-talent who depended entirely on the works of others (at the behest of the Jesuits and Freemasons) for his catalogue and reputation?

No, you've just presented various anomalies in the Mozart biography, such as misattributed early works. You've made grandiose pronouncements about how brainwashed everyone but yourself is by the Mozart Myth. And that's supposed to convince us of the existence of this vast historical conspiracy?

All I'm doing is being as skeptical of your claims as I would of anyone else's. If someone presents records from MI5 showing that Mussolini was on the payroll during WWI, I accept the claim. But unless you show me evidence that secret societies manufactured the Mozart Myth out of thin air, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,

Istvan

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

This must surely be one of the most inane parts of your entire theory. You ask that we accept the idea that a vast conspiracy was undertaken by various clandestine societies (a conspiracy that continues into the present) which involved the labors of untold hundreds... the enforced silence of who knows how many (including the true composers of Mozart's masterworks who one would assume would wish the world to know the truth)... the falsification of historic documents... and an expenditure of what must have amounted to a sizable fortune all to what purpose? The control of a non-existent music "industry" in the day before copyright laws and sound recordings made music in any way truly profitable. But then again... haven't you also argued that the moon landing was another falsification engineered by Hollywood film studios and the government?

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

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

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

Robert, can you kindly tell me where you studied music and musicology? Perhaps it was the Royal School of Music, London where you have stated you studied Music/Orchestration/Harmony/Instrumentation from 1970-1974... except that such a school never existed.:confused: Or perhaps such was a misprint and you meant the Royal College of Music (which has no record of an alumni by your name):nod:.

Or perhaps you can kindly tell me the names of a number of credible musicologist or music historians who have seriously embraced your theory. Certainly a theory as ground-breaking as your would be an assurance of near instant academic stardom for the musicologist who could prove it in academic circles. Or perhaps you wish for us to believe that the music field is the sole discipline in academia where alternative theories and continued investigative research are frowned upon... or the Jesuits and Illuminati are still pulling the strings behind the whole scene and hushing these academics up with threats against their wives and families... or promises of a lifetime supply of Viennese chocolate Elvises and videos of the moon landing.:rolleyes:

"It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. "

So you have come to a conclusion afterall Babba, even before my Mussolini.

An ex skeptic turned pessimist-realist?

"Grimm", a "brother" freemason of Leopold Mozart, started manufacturing Mozart's myth, December 1763*. ("The Chevalier de Saint-Georges: virtuoso of the sword and the bow" by Gabriel Banat, p 106).

HE did not complete the task however:

In 1778, after the death of Voltaire, Grimm (heavily involved in world affairs at the time and mourning the death of his friend Voltaire) lost interest on his ex protegee(Mozart writes to his father that atheist Voltaire died a well deserved dog's death) already convinced that Mozart did not have a future as a musician (let alone as opera composer).

With "Grimm" and "Gluck" being the same person, evidence is needed to document:

a) If "Gluck" ever supported Mozart post 1778 (or was seen anywhere mid 1779-late 1782 ie during "Chastellux's" visit to America).
b) The timeline of "Gluck's" (and Cocchi's) vast archive of opera documents changing hands, post 1787 ("Gluck's" alleged death).

*1763 marks the conclusion of the Seven Year War (defeated Austria loses Poland).

\du*et"\ (?), n. [duetto.] (mus.) a composition for two performers, whether vocal or instrumental.
duet
n
1. two items of the same kind [syn: couple, doubleton, pair, twosome, twain, brace, span, yoke, couplet, distich, duo, dyad, duad]


2. two performers or singers who perform together [syn: duette, duo]


3. a pair who associate with one another; "the engaged couple"; "an inseparable twosome" [syn: couple, twosome, duo]


4. a musical composition for two performers [syn: duette, duo]


5. a dance for two people (usually a ballerina and a danseur noble) [syn: pas de deux]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

But you haven't presented any of it.

Did I miss where you showed signed declarations from these secret societies, declassified documents outlining their plan to manufacture the Mozart myth? Did you ever present a letter or memoir from the genius who really composed The Magic Flute, detailing the motives and methods of his assistance in this monumental fraud? Did you show us Mozart's written confession that he was a huge no-talent who depended entirely on the works of others (at the behest of the Jesuits and Freemasons) for his catalogue and reputation?

No, you've just presented various anomalies in the Mozart biography, such as misattributed early works. You've made grandiose pronouncements about how brainwashed everyone but yourself is by the Mozart Myth. And that's supposed to convince us of the existence of this vast historical conspiracy?

All I'm doing is being as skeptical of your claims as I would of anyone else's. If someone presents records from MI5 showing that Mussolini was on the payroll during WWI, I accept the claim. But unless you show me evidence that secret societies manufactured the Mozart Myth out of thin air, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,

Istvan

---

I have presented a good general outline. If you wish to discuss a specific work why not ask me to discuss it ? You present your evidence that Mozart composed it and I will produce evidence to the contrary. The Magic Flute would be fine. But it's your choice. Each work has its own story. Of course it does.

You will not find signed records of those who plan conspiracies. You will not find such things in the history of banknote forgery. Let us be fair and reasonable. These things are proved by inconsistencies, by documentary evidence of other kinds. The very thing we find when we examine Mozart in real detail. By plain evidence which contradicts convention. And so on.

So, if you are really interested in this subject, name a work you wish to discuss and let's take it from there.

W a r n i n g

You do not have to agree with other members but please do not disregard their right to be on this Forum posting as much as yourselves.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning and members resorting to such "attacks" will receive infraction points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

This must surely be one of the most inane parts of your entire theory. You ask that we accept the idea that a vast conspiracy was undertaken by various clandestine societies (a conspiracy that continues into the present) which involved the labors of untold hundreds... the enforced silence of who knows how many (including the true composers of Mozart's masterworks who one would assume would wish the world to know the truth)... the falsification of historic documents... and an expenditure of what must have amounted to a sizable fortune all to what purpose? The control of a non-existent music "industry" in the day before copyright laws and sound recordings made music in any way truly profitable. But then again... haven't you also argued that the moon landing was another falsification engineered by Hollywood film studios and the government?

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

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

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

Robert, can you kindly tell me where you studied music and musicology? Perhaps it was the Royal School of Music, London where you have stated you studied Music/Orchestration/Harmony/Instrumentation from 1970-1974... except that such a school never existed.:confused: Or perhaps such was a misprint and you meant the Royal College of Music (which has no record of an alumni by your name):nod:.

Or perhaps you can kindly tell me the names of a number of credible musicologist or music historians who have seriously embraced your theory. Certainly a theory as ground-breaking as your would be an assurance of near instant academic stardom for the musicologist who could prove it in academic circles. Or perhaps you wish for us to believe that the music field is the sole discipline in academia where alternative theories and continued investigative research are frowned upon... or the Jesuits and Illuminati are still pulling the strings behind the whole scene and hushing these academics up with threats against their wives and families... or promises of a lifetime supply of Viennese chocolate Elvises and videos of the moon landing.:rolleyes:

---

I see you are desperate to sling mud. But let me make it really hard for you by staying on the subject of the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-91). Moon landings are out. So are other subjects. As a matter of fact I can point you to numerous musicologists who agree with me on Mozart. And have done for years. Let me mention just a few. I can produce others if you like. Right here on this forum.

Let's take for a start two well known Italian specialists on 18th century music. Professor Luca Bianchini. He has prepared hundreds of musical scores for performance in Europe and is a specialist in music of that time. Let me also present Professor Anna Trombetta, a teacher of music theory, a specialist in 18th century performance. Both of these are professional musicologists in Italy. If you wish to have direct contact with them, just let me know. I will give you contact details. Can't do better than that, can I ? I could name various others. But why bore you with reality ? Would you like a list of the numerous music library curators I am in touch with in France, Italy, England, Czech Republic, Germany and Austria, and a list of various writers and researchers I have contacted all across Europe and beyond ?

OK, but we are still waiting for the details of Mozart's schooling and for details of his supposed musical education. Shall we wait for your reply much longer ? So far you have given us precisely zero.

And it shows ! But nobody is fooling you, right ? Please provide some sources on Mozart's schooling. And on his musical education. Still waiting. If you would prefer a simpler question how about this. Can you tell us how many books you have read on the life and career of Mozart ? That would be a start.

Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

---

And don't resent the fact that some people examine the actual evidence and try to show you it's moonshine.

One side has nothing to offer. Guess which ?

The official story of Mozart is a fairy tale.

Robert,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I have presented a good general outline.

---

I call it a vague, incoherent set of claims.

Quote:

---

You will not find signed records of those who plan conspiracies. You will not find such things in the history of banknote forgery. Let us be fair and reasonable. These things are proved by inconsistencies, by documentary evidence of other kinds.

---

And like I said, nothing is proved by inconsistencies.

You're the one making the claim that, as you said in the OP, "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire". It's odd that you keep saying you're waiting for others to produce evidence, when the burden of proof is by all rights on you.

It's not up to others to prove you wrong. It's up to you to support your claim with the kind of evidence we'd expect to see: signed documents attesting to the plot, correspondence that talks about the plot in detail, a confession from Mozart that he's a fraud and a patsy of the super-secret fraternities, etc. You can't use the very fact that this evidence doesn't exist to support your claim.

Regards,

Istvan

:wave:

Yea and nay
each hath his say
but God He keeps the middle way*
(*like Aristotle suggested)

The answer as to the identity of the manufacturers of "New Truth" (Mozart included) is to be found at http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=43550.

Cheers.

I've been following along, there's been some fun reading in this thread, thanks everyone. I am no expert at all on this subject, but I think that anyone who is could comment on this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=e8A...age&q=&f=false

Thanks Billl,

My comments on "Mozart: A Documentary Biography By Otto Erich Deutsch" as follows:

The online version is partially protected, particulary prohibiting access to data on my hero (as "Grimm" and less so as "Gluck").

IE If I still maintained the slightest doubt on my findings I would have to buy the book but this is not the case.

Of interest:

A. That "Gluck", shortly after his return to Europe from America (as Chastellux and La Luzerne) visits Vienna, enjoys a Mozart concert and invites the Mozarts to dinner, March 12th-16th, 1783, (p305), while Mme d'Epinay lies dying (+15th April 1783- IF she did!).*

B.The fact that a month after "Gluck" aranges his alleged death in Vienna November 15th, 1787, the Holy Roman Emperor disbands the German Opera (With Aloisia Weber joining the Italian Company and Mozart going "italian" too, at least in Vienna.)

(detailed 1787 timeline under preparation.)

Cheers!

*If "Gluck" had a twin brother (as many of his alias do, including Myslivecek) one cannot really tell who is who. The same for another "Gluck" presence in the book, p 205, on August 6th, 1782 (repetition in his favour of Mozart's Entfuhrung aus dem Serai) while Chastellux is still in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

One side has nothing to offer. Guess which ?

The official story of Mozart is a fairy tale.

---

These are odd overstatements.

I assume the "one side" you mention is the musicological establishment, whose consensus opinion that Mozart did in fact compose the majority of works attributed to him is, in your opinion, a complete falsehood. The basis for your criticism of this consensus is that certain works originally attributed to Mozart have since been discovered to be the work of other composers.

This actually seems like disconfirming evidence of your theory that there's a vast historical conspiracy to attribute works to Mozart that weren't his. If all we know about Mozart is merely the invention of the shadowy cabal of musicologists in on the Conspiracy, why indeed would any work be removed from Mozart's catalogue as inauthentic? Aren't the custodians of this plot supposed to maintain at any cost the carefully-crafted illusion of Mozart's greatness?

And isn't this evidence that there's some objective measure to authenticating Mozart's work, which professional, educated musicologists could explain in detail? Why not run the Mozart-didn't-compose-anything hypothesis by a wide range of musicology specialists and let them assess the evidence?

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Robert,


I call it a vague, incoherent set of claims.

And like I said, nothing is proved by inconsistencies.

You're the one making the claim that, as you said in the OP, "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire". It's odd that you keep saying you're waiting for others to produce evidence, when the burden of proof is by all rights on you.

It's not up to others to prove you wrong. It's up to you to support your claim with the kind of evidence we'd expect to see: signed documents attesting to the plot, correspondence that talks about the plot in detail, a confession from Mozart that he's a fraud and a patsy of the super-secret fraternities, etc. You can't use the very fact that this evidence doesn't exist to support your claim.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan,

Proof should be simple. If the Mozart story is true let's see the evidence for it. Its been around for 200 years. We have mountains of books. Let me ask for something simple (as I already have done). Please provide details of Mozart's ordinary and musical education. Not difficult is it ? Now, either this evidence exists and can be presented, or it doesn't exist. Which ?

As far as other details are concerned, I have already asked you to name a piece by Mozart and let's compare notes to see if he really composed it or not. Let's take, for example, 'The Marriage of Figaro', or, perhaps, 'The Magic Flute'. As you please. Or another work.

Can't get fairer than that, can I ?

As for works being continually removed from the official Mozart catalogue, this is consistent with a fabrication. The spinner of lies must continually reinvent his story. And that is exactly what we see in the catalogue of 'Mozart's' music. Myths are continually being reinvented. That too is a plain, very plain, fact of history.

St Lukesguild will hopefully come to the rescue of Mozart. But no answer so far. What's new ?

As far as running the Mozart fraud past 'experts', who are they ? We have yet to have one named. Maybe you can find us one. So far, they are not talking. Because they know the evidence is massively against the story they are employed to defend. But sure, let's find one. Let's invite him here to discuss the actual, documentary evidence. The actual, historical evidence of the 'genius from Salzburg'. That would be great.

My experience is that such requests go round and round in circles. But maybe you can do it. Then readers can judge for themselves. That's only fair, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Please provide details of Mozart's ordinary and musical education. Not difficult is it ? Now, either this evidence exists and can be presented, or it doesn't exist. Which ?

---

This point isn't relevant. Your hypothesis could be true regardless of Mozart's level of musical education, couldn't it? Why, then, demand evidence of Mozart's education from people wasting time on a message board, instead of presenting evidence that truly supports your theory?

Quote:

---

I have already asked you to name a piece by Mozart and let's compare notes to see if he really composed it or not. Let's take, for example, 'The Marriage of Figaro', or, perhaps, 'The Magic Flute'. As you please.

---

Your hypothesis is that Mozart didn't compose 'The Magic Flute,' I assume. So who did? And how do you know?

Quote:

---

My experience is that such requests go round and round in circles. But maybe you can do it. Then readers can judge for themselves.

---

That's probably because you're not assuming the burden of supporting your claims with evidence. I don't think I'm the only reader here who has noticed that.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

This point isn't relevant. Your hypothesis could be true regardless of Mozart's level of musical education, couldn't it? Why, then, demand evidence of Mozart's education from people wasting time on a message board, instead of presenting evidence that truly supports your theory?

Your hypothesis is that Mozart didn't compose 'The Magic Flute,' I assume. So who did? And how do you know?


That's probably because you're not assuming the burden of supporting your claims with evidence. I don't think I'm the only reader here who has noticed that.

Regards,

Istvan

---

No,

The point IS relevant. I don't believe babies can fly 747's across the Atlantic from New York to London. I have seen no evidence of it. Nor do I believe children write symphonies, piano concertos or operas. But you believe the opposite. In the case of Mozart you believe he did so. And I am simply asking you to provide evidence of his musical and general education. Which you say is not relevant !

What sort of kangaroo court is that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

This point isn't relevant. Your hypothesis could be true regardless of Mozart's level of musical education, couldn't it? Why, then, demand evidence of Mozart's education from people wasting time on a message board, instead of presenting evidence that truly supports your theory?

Your hypothesis is that Mozart didn't compose 'The Magic Flute,' I assume. So who did? And how do you know?


That's probably because you're not assuming the burden of supporting your claims with evidence. I don't think I'm the only reader here who has noticed that.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Regarding The Magic Flute, the history of this opera is riddled with contradictions. First, the theme of the overture is not by Mozart. Second, it uses material already written a year earlier by Paul Wranitsky and numerous other composers. Have you heard the Wranitsky opera 'Oberon' ? No, of course you haven't. It was the most popular opera of the whole of Viennese musical history. It was even staged in the same theatre where the Magic Flute was premiered. I mean, how ignorant can people be ? That opera uses music used in the Magic Flute. And, as for theme in the overture, it comes from a piano sonata written years earlier by Clementi.

And there's more - the musical score was not completed by Mozart. It was sent to Bonn before the premiere, according to the surviving correspondence of the Bonn music publisher Simrock. These are facts you do not know. It was in Bonn this music was all cobbled together.

You are not the only reader to notice gaps between questions and answers !!!! You are providing nothing. Nothing at all. And time after time you are receiving hard facts.

So what happens ? What are you believing ? Nothing but a fairy story. Sorry, but it's fact.

Why not choose another opera by 'Mozart' ? Or a concerto, a symphony, or some other work ?

And how is this possible if, as you say, I am not answering you on this short thread. There must be something seriously wrong with the official story for me to be so sure. Right ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Regarding The Magic Flute, the history of this opera is riddled with contradictions. First, the theme of the overture is not by Mozart. Second, it uses material already written a year earlier by Paul Wranitsky and numerous other composers.

---

Uh, was the music plagiarized by Mozart? It's known that Oberon was the inspiration for the Flute's libretto, but are you saying Wranitsky actually composed the Flute's music? What 'numerous other composers'? And what evidence supports your claim?

Quote:

---

You are not the only reader to notice gaps between questions and answers !!!! You are providing nothing. Nothing at all. And time after time you are receiving hard facts.

---

But I'm not obliged to provide anything, Robert. You're the one making the claims, you're the one declining to provide support for the claims (or evading the issue like you do above), and then excoriating others for ignoring the supposed evidence.

Calm down and provide the evidence that supports your claim about 'The Magic Flute,' please.

Regards,

Istvan

But let me make it really hard for you by staying on the subject of the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-91). Moon landings are out. So are other subjects.

Why is that, Robert? Do you honestly expect people here to take your word for it that everything we've learned about Mozart and Haydn is one vast fairy tale... that the reality is some vast conspiracy involving secret societies and the efforts of hundreds of people... that we're all ignorant dupes... without considering any of the issues that might call your credibility into question... such as fraudulent claims about your academic credentials, and your belief in other conspiracy theories such as that on the moon landings and 911? It would seem to me that if anyone is to make what amounts to some rather incredible assertions that go against accepted academic "facts" then his or her credibility is certainly going to be called into question.

As a matter of fact I can point you to numerous musicologists who agree with me on Mozart. And have done for years. Let me mention just a few. I can produce others if you like. Right here on this forum.

Please do. Undoubtedly there are a few who have fallen for your spiel. Of course we have yet to see a single real publication... not even in the academic presses of a major university... that even vaguely supports your theories. If your theory had any real academic support it would show up in web searches and in libraries. I can find endless articles related to the Shakespeare attribution questions... but Mozart? Nada. Of course that only proves your point, right? A sort of catch-22. The fact that there is no serious academic support for your theory is not due to the fact that the theory is nonsense, but rather due to the fact that the Mozart industry and the Freemasons, and the Jesuits, and the Illuminati are suppressing the facts in order to maintain control of the lucrative market of Mozart CDs. Obviously, they must be behind the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis, Michael Jackson, and Madonna as well for we all know that these later artists couldn't possibly have written the music attributed to them without formal music education... and it sells far more than any Mozart CD ever does so that market needs to be controlled as well. The Illuminati was probably behind Michael Jackson's death. He'd become a lose canon with all those child molestation charges circulating. Who knows... he might just come out and spill the beans on the whole conspiracy.:rolleyes:

OK, but we are still waiting for the details of Mozart's schooling and for details of his supposed musical education. Shall we wait for your reply much longer ? So far you have given us precisely zero.

Robert, again you miss the point. It is you who have made the outlandish statement that challenges accepted history. It is up to you to prove your statement... and this will not be achieved by bombarding a group of book lovers... most with little or no knowledge (or even interest) in Mozart... with a bunch of obscure "factoids" that you expect us to verify. To what purpose? I will also note that I have already posted what we know of Mozart's education which is neither more nor less impressive than what we know of a vast number of artists, writers, and composers from the whole of history.

And it shows ! But nobody is fooling you, right ? Please provide some sources on Mozart's schooling. And on his musical education. Still waiting. If you would prefer a simpler question how about this. Can you tell us how many books you have read on the life and career of Mozart ? That would be a start.

Again Robert, you completely miss the point. My credibility is not at question. I am not challenging the history of Mozart as presented by the historians who most certainly studied his work and correspondences. I am not attempting to convince everyone that everything they have been taught is a fairy tale and they are but ignorant dupes. I am not trying to convince a group of book lovers that somehow the whole of academia in the field of Mozart studies (which one would assume is not far behind the studies of a literary figure such as Dante, Chaucer, Milton, or Shakespeare) are also ignorant of the facts or complicit in some vast on-going conspiracy. What does bother you, however, is the fact that even someone without the credentials and experience in Mozart studies can blow gaping holes in your theory. Imagine what a real musicologist must be able to do... especially a Mozart specialist. Must be quite frustrating.:brow:

The beast still lives, feeding on its own flesh while the truth has quietly slipped on to the second page.