Yanni,
Thank you for the Cimarosa.
Thank you for this view of yours. In an increasingly complicated world we are left with simplicity.
Cantata 62
Opening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWwZN...eature=related
Printable View
Yanni,
Thank you for the Cimarosa.
Thank you for this view of yours. In an increasingly complicated world we are left with simplicity.
Cantata 62
Opening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWwZN...eature=related
What can be simpler for a "manufactured music" researcher than reducing the late 18th opera composers to their arithmetic minimum?
:smile5:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
Yesterday I made the following note -
'If the Mozart of convention was to be expressed in terms of mathematical probability (i.e. the chance of a musical 'genius' being born, composing hundreds of masterpieces etc). and of him living the eventful but short life which is attributed to him by convention we would be reduced to rows of zeros against those things occurring. But no sooner are we convinced of their reality than we describe them as 'miraculous'. This miracle, however, is cancelled out within moments by a stone equally sharp as itself, by us realising that a body of surviving documents (letters, testimonies, anecdotes, reports, diaries and musical manuscripts) so exhaustive in content, so chronologically relevant but so improbable in having survived has survived - forcing us to describe their own survival as at least equally miraculous and improbable. Since neither the 'genius' of Mozart nor these surviving writings in praise of his life and career find any equivalent in the entire body of western musicological literature. And so not one but a DOUBLE miracle confronts us, having, by the sheer scale of their musical and biographical claims, and by the survival of all these manuscripts, created a paradigm - which seldom, if ever, is called in to real question or criticism. And, as for the origin of these testimonies and of these manuscripts, (whether biased, exaggerated or fraudulent), we simply never ask'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
You'll never manage to "uncover" Mozart while keeping Cocchi's "secret" intact.
:smile5:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
It must be destiny, or fate, or my ignorance (and that of everyone else) which allows you exclusively the privilege of revealing 'Cocchi's Secret'.
As for myself, I am happy to know that all things that are hidden can be and will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
Musical history website 'Musical Revisionism' still under construction over the next few weeks. But here, at least, is the construction site -
http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/
LOL !
Not at all:
Think of yourself as the first ever daring musicologist who, looking for Mozart's manufacturer in the stars above, fell accidentaly in the stale pond of history and coudn't get out fast enough.
I never really expected you to question my last revelations on "Cimarosa" and "Diodatti" as the next aliases of Gioachino Cocchi following "Casanova".
:bday_2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
In my opinion this subject of W.A. Mozart consists of two parts. The first showing why he, Mozart of Salzburg, was not (and could not have been) the composer of most of the works attributed to him. That he was not a 'musical genius', in fact. And the second to show how his huge status, which has for so long come to dominate what we are taught and believe on this period of musical history, was concocted. To obtain control, in fact, of musicology. As pantheons of our culture tend to do. A project which, you may agree, has been hugely successful if able to be proved true.
It has not been my aim to replace one musical idol with another. Since that would be to miss the point.
As for Giachino Cocchi, I will always and gladly learn from you. But you wish to attribute to him, and him exclusively, the musical works of more composers than makes sense to me. And this is simply not right. To me, Cocchi was part of a musical network of real importance in the Mozart story, for sure. An important part, for sure. But there are lives and careers as important as his own in this story.
As for questioning your revelations on Cimarosa, let them be accompanied by some solid evidence and they will certainly be worthy of being described by me too in that way.
Yanni, you will of course be welcome to the new website I'm trying to make on 'Musical Revisionism'.
Regards
p.s. Whose 'birthday' are you refering to in your last post ?
If Cocchi wanted to "obtain control of Musicology", as you say, then the burden to explain why current musicology ignores him (and whether he plus aliases wrote their own music or not) falls on you alone.
As for "Cimarosa" and "Casanova", his last music aliases:
Having checked their few solid biographic-travel data in my mastertimeline I am well satisfied that this is so and that, in what concerns him, musicology still is a world wide conspiracy bordering opera buffa: I don't need or care convince anybody!
You see, only I have a name and an explanation for the myths "Le comte de Saint Germain", "The opera phantom" and "Casanova".
His political influence and diplomatic skill allowed him not just to survive but to keep on staging his operas in Austria and lower Italy till 1800 or so to then stage his next death (as Cimarosa).
Tell your italian friends it's no use hiding their heads in the sand: It's not "in" anymore to mimick their french, german and brit colleagues.
"Their" music is his alone!
Want to prove it? Go ahead (and you are equally wellcome to disprove it ofcourse)!
Best of luck with your new site.
BTW "Birthday" refers to your baptism in my pond!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yanni,
Your 'quotes' are departing from reality. Search this thread. I've never said that Cocchi wanted to "obtain control of Musicology". Have I ? No, not once. In fact I've repeatedly said he, Cocchi was part of a network of composers. I have even suggested that diplomats do not write operas and that children do not write piano concertos. Have I ever said Cocchi wanted to obtain control of Musicology ? No, not once ! So, thanks attributing the 'quote' to me but you must surely agree I've never said this in the first place. Why are you 'quoting' me on what I've never once said ?? And, until you can show us differently -
Cimarosa died in 1801.
Cocchi died in 1796.
Myslivececk died in 1781.
Rousseau died in 1778.
Baron Grimm died in 1807.
etc etc.
The problems are mounting for you Yanni. Unless you can link the musical and non-musical careers of all these individuals and can provide proofs of them being aliases of the same person I'm not sure what to advise. And the same is true of the 'stage managed' death of Cimarosa. Since, according to you, the works of Myslivecek and of Cimarosa are works of the same person. Of a diplomat, you say ? Not forgetting, of course, symphonies, sonatas, keyboard music and everything else.
Well, you have been generous in allowing me membership of your 'pond'. I prefer to think that G. Cocchi was G. Cocchi, that Myslivecek was Myslivececk, that Rousseau was Rousseau, that Baron Grimm was Baron Grimm, and that all of these were members of a network that included MANY others besides them. Of a fraternity, in fact. Until I see evidence to the contrary that is what I believe and will continue to believe. Since the evidence clearly indicates this. And none contradicts it.
In reply to the rhetorical question of why musicology 'ignores' G. Cocchi I see no evidence of it doing so. As for myself, I've not ignored him - for weeks. He was, in my view, a composer. But you think differently. You credit him with the careers of at least 5 men. Besides being a diplomat. And I am saying this is simply not true.
Regards
Cocchi created the Mozart myth (to separate and conceal his music personae from his others aliases) and everybody then took off a piece of his music as their own to then establish their "national" musics.
Your "evidence" is as fictionary as his other "myths".
Live with that if you so chose and good luck!
Thanks for your opinion.
Your evidence is 'thinner than a soup made from the shadow of a chicken' !
Regards
Robert
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
You have accomplished your mission bravely, Robert, and your "two Nissen" invention almost succeeded.
Re my evidence being thin, Google statistics prove otherwise.
Enjoy your broth!
Yanni,
Paul Wranitsky (and his brother Anton Wranitsky) were both composers of Mozart's time. They too are musical 'aliases' of G. Cocchi, I suppose ? And how about Vanhal, Cartellieri, Sarti, Salieri, and literally dozens of others ? They too are aliases of 'G. Cocchi', right ?
Really, I refuse to replace one fiction with another when the music speaks for itself, this repeatedly confirmed by biographical and other information which rarely if ever features in Mozart publications.
Cocchi deserves a place. But not the one you see determined to invent for him. And, just to correct the record, I certainly did not invent the 'Two Nissen Theory'. But this fact too I have repeatedly said here on this thread. As you know. (Why do you insist on attributing to me things I have never said ? It robs you of the credit you deserve).
Anyway, you are entitled to your views and me to mine. Let others decide for themselves.
Regards
Robert Newman
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni
As for the 'two Nissen' theory I never invented it. On this thread you can see what I said about it no less than 5 times ! As usual you're 'inventing' aren't you Yanni ? Two days in a row. First 'quoting' things I never said and now crediting me with a theory I never invented ! It's poor stuff Yanni and it does your credibility no good.
Why not be fair and honest ?
But it's your choice.
Regards