The Manufacture of Mozart

Gentlemen, I must second Gilliatt's emotion. You both have shed major light on an era of history that has been vastly misrepresented – even bastardized - by official “education.”

I have been following this discussion since the get-go and must say that my curiosity has been piqued…

I have long listened to - and participated in (I’m a classically-trained horn player) the repertory of the classical era and after delving into this avenue I must declare that I am flabbergasted by the scores (no pun intended) of composers who – to my sensibilities – have received, at best, short shrift from the official establishment. Worse, many have had their music - and life stories – totally ignored and neglected.

After referring to some of the composers’ names mentioned in your missives I am amazed at the quality (and quantity) of their output. Example: Pavel Wranitsky (see the Wranitsky Project Website); the slow movement from his Symphony, opus 31 is sublime, haunting. It is as profound as any I have heard from the “mainstream” characters (Mozart, Haydn, etc. etc.). Until this discussion I thought there was an appalling paucity of composers from that era.
In short, I was wrong.

I am now listening to the MIDI versions of his opus 33 Symphonies. Even the MIDI versions are remarkable. I can only imagine what they would sound like if performed by a full orchestra on period instruments. I can only ask: Why in the world have these jewels of sonic architecture been ignored – cast aside – by the musical “powers-that-be?”
I am coming to the conclusion that Robert is on to a major revelation; that this “Mozart” has received the lion’s share of (patently undeserved) attention and adulation while a virtual throng of real composers has been painted with the black brush of oblivion.

Why?

Bamert’s London Players “Contemporaries of Mozart” series is an example of the musical hierarchy as it presently exists.
The movie “Amadeus”, in light of these considerations, could be considered apocryphal…
An example: The composer Eberl was plagiarized by “Mozart” for a long time. Apparently Eberl did not sound the alarm, contrary to what one would surmise.

I am curious about Yanni’s research into Cocchi. Cocchi was prolific, yes. But could he truly have had that many aliases? Wouldn’t someone need a Guinness Book of World Record case of chronic insomnia to assume that many identities and be so prolific? I ask this in all sincerity…

Well done. BTW, Robert, I look forward to your Website and book.
:)

Friendly suggestion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8551000.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERS

Gentlemen, I must second Gilliat's emotion. You both have shed major light on an era of history that has been vastly misrepresented – even bastardized - by official “education.”

I have been following this discussion since the get-go and must say that my curiosity has been piqued…

I have long listened to - and participated in (I’m a classically-trained horn player) the repertory of the classical era and after delving into this avenue I must declare that I am flabbergasted by the scores (no pun intended) of composers who – to my sensibilities – have received, at best, short shrift from the official establishment. Worse, many have had their music - and life stories – totally ignored and neglected.

After referring to some of the composers’ names mentioned in your missives I am amazed at the quality (and quantity) of their output. Example: Pavel Wranitsky (see the Wranitsky Project Website); the slow movement from his Symphony, opus 31 is sublime, haunting. It is as profound as any I have heard from the “mainstream” characters (Mozart, Haydn, etc. etc.). Until this discussion I thought there was an appalling paucity of composers from that era.
In short, I was wrong.

I am now listening to the MIDI versions of his opus 33 Symphonies. Even the MIDI versions are remarkable. I can only imagine what they would sound like if performed by a full orchestra on period instruments. I can only ask: Why in the world have these jewels of sonic architecture been ignored – cast aside – by the musical “powers-that-be?”
I am coming to the conclusion that Robert is on to a major revelation; that this “Mozart” has received the lion’s share of (patently undeserved) attention and adulation while a virtual throng of real composers has been painted with the black brush of oblivion.

Why?

Bamert’s London Concert “Contemporaries of Mozart” series is an example of the musical hierarchy as it presently exists.
The movie “Amadeus”, in light of these considerations, could be considered apocryphal…
An example: The composer Eberl was plagiarized by “Mozart” for a long time. Apparently Eberl did not sound the alarm, contrary to what one would surmise.

I am curious about Yanni’s research into Cocchi. Cocchi was prolific, yes. But could he truly have had that many aliases? Wouldn’t someone need a Guinness Book of World Record case of chronic insomnia to assume that many identities and be so prolific? I ask this in all sincerity…

Well done. BTW, Robert, I look forward to your Website and book.
:)

---

I'm not sure I follow you, Yanni.

I followed your "friendly suggestion" and came to a link about the U.S. employment figures. And, frankly, I'm not sure I buy the prognostications. The U.S. economy is not likely to improve... As for the jobs market, I see nothing but pink slips in my neck of the woods...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... :sosp:

Please make the connection and enlighten me.

But since it seems that we have a penchant for current events, I'll return the favor:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Now Robert has a sock puppet screenname. Desperate?

Regards,

Istvan

No Babbalanja,

You are again mistaken. I've actually received dozens of similar comments. A professor of harpsichord in Venice recently posted online to say what is being criticised about Mozart is correct. He even used the term 'meticulously well researched'. I don't need (unlike Yanni's version of Cocchi) to invent sock puppets.

I hardly have enough time to make the following website, let alone invent other posters. They can speak for themselves. In fact, I can't finish the 'Musical Revisionism' website for another week or so.

Why not reply to the poster above if you are so sure ? Not me, is it ? I hardly care. Believe as you please. And best wishes.

http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Now Robert has a sock puppet screenname. Desperate?

Regards,

Istvan

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

You are again mistaken. I've actually received dozens of similar comments. A professor of harpsichord in Venice recently posted online to say what is being criticised about Mozart is correct. He even used the term 'meticulously well researched'. I don't need (unlike Yanni's version of Cocchi) to invent sock puppets.

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

However, all your new admirer mentioned was that there are many composers of Mozart's time who have received short shrift. This is hardly support for your arcane conspiracy theory which states that powerful secret cabals contracted these composers to ghost write all of Mozart's works.

So I'll ask ERS to clarify his opinion of Robert's work here. Which of these statements would you affirm:

1) The lesser composers of Mozart's time don't deserve to be ignored, and should be acknowledged for their efforts the way Mozart is for his?

2) Mozart was a completely fraudulent creation of diabolical fraternities desperate to create a Viennese Musical Messiah, and that he didn't compose any of his works?

3) There has been a centuries-old cover-up in mainstream musicology and Mozart scholarship to conceal this terrible truth and marginalize those who seek to reveal it?

Look forward to a conversation.

Regards,

Istvan

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, for now. You might give your own education the benefit of the doubt also. I don't know what makes you believe in the story of Mozart. Well, yes I do. It's simply that you've never considered that it has more holes in it than a leaky boat. Why not start there ? What makes you believe it ? Isn't it the fact that it was cobbled together by vested interests ? And that the past 200 years or so has shown that it unravels on closer examination ? If it wasn't so why would I have posted so often, to so many different places, on various aspects of this myth ? You believe it because, well, because you can't imagine that it's a fairy story.

Name a few works by 'Mozart' and let's see how that goes, if you like.

But what else do you suggest ? Really, there must be a reason why somebody dares to suggest that to you, yes ? Is it, just possibly, because it's right ?

What I've said is correct. And, in the years to come you will find only more and more information confirming it to be so. That's my prediction. And yet, of course, this is only an introduction to that subject.

Was it all a giant scam ? Yes, it was. Not of average music. But of music of great quality and value. Judge for yourself having heard both sides of the story. That's a sensible thing to do.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

However, all your new admirer mentioned was that there are many composers of Mozart's time who have received short shrift. This is hardly support for your arcane conspiracy theory which states that powerful secret cabals contracted these composers to ghost write all of Mozart's works.

So I'll ask ERS to clarify his opinion of Robert's work here. Which of these statements would you affirm:

1) The lesser composers of Mozart's time don't deserve to be ignored, and should be acknowledged for their efforts the way Mozart is for his?

2) Mozart was a completely fraudulent creation of diabolical fraternities desperate to create a Viennese Musical Messiah, and that he didn't compose any of his works?

3) There has been a centuries-old cover-up in mainstream musicology and Mozart scholarship to conceal this terrible truth and marginalize those who seek to reveal it?

Look forward to a conversation.

Regards,

Istvan

---

I am saying your ERS hornblower persona has room for improvement, let alone your attempt to provoke me. :hand:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERS

I'm not sure I follow you, Yanni.

I followed your "friendly suggestion" and came to a link about the U.S. employment figures. And, frankly, I'm not sure I buy the prognostications. The U.S. economy is not likely to improve... As for the jobs market, I see nothing but pink slips in my neck of the woods...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... :sosp:

Please make the connection and enlighten me.

But since it seems that we have a penchant for current events, I'll return the favor:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

---

My interest for the "Mozart manufactured" subject has diminished so I suggest we continue with Philidor, the chess master-composer, an important alias of Gioachino Cocchi.

Having already checked him out (via my all aliases mastertimeline) I have no intention to repeat the exercise herein but, should anyone wish to dispute me, here is a good source thru which one may crosscheck his presences in London and Paris as well as his circle of friends (obviously the same as chessmaster-composer Rousseau):

"Crescendo of the virtuoso: spectacle, skill, and self-promotion in Paris" by Paul Metzner.

Regards!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgx1...eature=related

Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. Having waded through weeks of posts on the multiple lives of G. Cocchi I have no appetite to indulge you on François-André Danican Philidor (1726-95). Except to note that his style is much influenced by Rameau.

His works are as follows -

Le diable à quatre, ou La double métamorphose (3, M.-J. Sedaine), OC (PSL), 19 Aug 1756; pastiche with some new music by Baurans, J.-L. Laruette and Philidor (1757)

Blaise le savetier (1, Sedaine, after La Fontaine), OC (Foire St Germain), 9 March 1759 (1759), excerpts published separately

L’huître et les plaideurs, ou Le tribunal de la chicane (1, Sedaine), OC (PSL), 17 Sept 1759

Le quiproquo, ou Le volage fixé (1, Moustou), PCI (Bourgogne), 6 March 1760, excerpts (n.d.)

Le soldat magicien (1, L. Anseaume), OC (PSL), 14 Aug 1760 (?1760)

Le jardinier et son seigneur (1, Sedaine), OC (Foire St Germain), 18 Feb 1761 (1761)

Le maréchal ferrant (2, A.F. Quétant), OC (PSL), 22 Aug 1761 (1761), excerpts pubd separately

Sancho Pança dans son isle (1, A.A.H. Poinsinet, after M. de Cervantes: Don Quixote), PCI (Bourgogne), 8 July 1762 (?1762), excerpts pubd separately

Le bûcheron, ou Les trois souhaits (1, Guichard and N. Castet), PCI (Bourgogne), 28 Feb 1763 (?1763), excerpts pubd separately

Les fêtes de la paix (1, C.-S. Favart), PCI (Bourgogne), 4 July 1763, excerpts pubd with lib

Le sorcier (2, Poinsinet), PCI (Bourgogne), 2 Jan 1764 (?1764)

Tom Jones (3, Poinsinet, after H. Fielding), PCI (Bourgogne), 27 Feb 1765; rev. (3, Sedaine), 30 Jan 1766 (1766); vs ed. N. McGegan (London, 1978)

Le tonnelier (oc, 1, N.-M. Audinot and A.-F. Quétant, after La Fontaine: Le cuvier), PCI (Bourgogne), 16 March 1765 (c1765); collab. Alexandre, Ciapalanti, Gossec, Kohaut, J. Schobert and J.-C. Trial

Ernelinde, princesse de Norvège (tragédie lyrique, 3, Poinsinet, after F. Silvani: La fede tradita, e vendicata), Opéra, 24 Nov 1767; rev. as Sandomir, prince de Dannemarck, Opéra, 24 Jan 1769 (1769/R1992 in FO, lvi); rev. as Ernelinde (5, Sedaine), Versailles, 11 Dec 1773; rev., Opéra, 8 July 1777; vs (5 acts) ed. A. Pougin and C. Franck (1883), excerpts published separately

Le jardinier de Sidon (2, R.T.R. de Pleinchesne, after P. Metastasio: Il re pastore), PCI (Bourgogne), 18 July 1768 (?1768), excerpts published separately

L’amant déguisé, ou Le jardinier supposé (1, Favart and C.-H. de Voisenen), PCI (Bourgogne), 2 Sept 1769 (1770)

La rosière de Salency (3, Favart), Fontainebleau, 25 Oct 1769, excerpts with lib (1769), collab. Blaise, Duni, Monsigny, van Swieten

La nouvelle école des femmes (3, A. Mouslier de Moissy), PCI (Bourgogne), 22 Jan 1770, F-Pn

Le bon fils (1, F.A. Devaux [G.A. Lemonnier]), PCI (Bourgogne), 11 Jan 1773, excerpts (n.d.)

Zémire et Mélide (Mélide, ou Le navigateur) (2, C.G. Fenouillet de Falbaire), Fontainebleau, 30 Oct 1773 (1774), MS in 3 acts, intended for Opéra, Po

Berthe (3, Pleinchesne), Brussels, Monnaie, 18 Jan 1775, collab. H. Botson, Gossec, I. Vitzthumb

Les femmes vengées, ou Les feintes infidélités (1, Sedaine), PCI (Bourgogne), 20 March 1775 (1775)

Persée (tragédie lyrique, 3, J.F. Marmontel, after P. Quinault), Opéra, 27 Oct 1780, Po, excerpts pubd separately

Thémistocle (tragédie lyrique, 3, E. Morel de Chédeville), Fontainebleau, 13 Oct 1785 (1786)

L’amitié au village (3, Desforges [P.-J.-B. Choudard]), Fontainebleau, 18 Oct 1785, excerpts Pn

La belle esclave, ou Valcour et Zéïla (1, A.J. Dumaniant), Théâtre du Comte de Beaujolais, 18 Sept 1787 (?1787)

Le mari comme il les faudrait tous, ou La nouvelle école des maris (1, de Senne), Théâtre du Comte de Beaujolais, 12 Nov 1788

Bélisaire [Acts 1 and 2] (3, A.-L. Bertin d’Antilly, after Marmontel), OC (Favart), 3 Oct 1796 [Act 3 by H.-M. Berton]

Contribs. to: M.A. Charpentier: Le retour du printemps, perf. privately, Dec 1756; J.C. Gillier: Les pèlerins de la Mecque, PSL, 1758; J.-B.-M. Quinault: Le triomphe du temps, Versailles, 10 Dec 1761; Au Dieu qui vous enchaine, ariette in 1763 edn of J.-J. Rousseau: Le devin du village

Inc.: Protogène (Sedaine), 1779

Spurious: Le rendez-vous (P. Légier), 1763; La bagarre (P. van Maldere), 1763; Les puits d’amour, ou Les amours de Pierre de Long et de Blanche Bazu (Landrin), 1779; Le dormeur éveillé (Marmontel), 1783 [music by N. Piccinni]

//

None of the mature works attributed to Mozart have any connection with this composer Philidor although Philidor's links with Gossec, with Rousseau's 'Le Devin du Village' and with 'Il re pastore' (all refered to above) strongly suggest that the Paris network did have input into 'Mozart's' 'early works'. I am refering here to a Jesuit educated network (both musical and non-musical) of course. Which you may discover for yourself in the life and career of Gossec, again with Rousseau and certainly with Rameau (the latter definitely being a strong influence on Philidor's music). This network in Paris further confirmed by the sources of music for various 'early Mozart piano concertos', 4 known to be arrangements of works by Paris-based German keyboard composers such as Schubart etc.

//

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

However, all your new admirer mentioned was that there are many composers of Mozart's time who have received short shrift. This is hardly support for your arcane conspiracy theory which states that powerful secret cabals contracted these composers to ghost write all of Mozart's works.

So I'll ask ERS to clarify his opinion of Robert's work here. Which of these statements would you affirm:

1) The lesser composers of Mozart's time don't deserve to be ignored, and should be acknowledged for their efforts the way Mozart is for his?

2) Mozart was a completely fraudulent creation of diabolical fraternities desperate to create a Viennese Musical Messiah, and that he didn't compose any of his works?

3) There has been a centuries-old cover-up in mainstream musicology and Mozart scholarship to conceal this terrible truth and marginalize those who seek to reveal it?

Look forward to a conversation.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan:

As soon as I am able, I will be happy to respond to - and affirm to at least some degree - all three of your questions at length.

I will provide some considerations that some may consider to be "outside the box";
that being said, I will do my level best to provide references to people, places and things. As for the "arcane conspiracy theories", I ask: If it's true, is is still a theory?

In the meantime, I will attempt to fabricate some better camouflage... I think my Sockpuppet/Hornblower cover has been blown... :yikes:

Darn - No flies on you, Babbalanja & Yanni. :blush:

I love this Thread!

Sincerely,

ERS

Definitely, Robert, this unique comment of yours re Philidor's style heavily influenced by Rameau (his uncle, huh?) may be labellled as a pearl of pearls, a motherpearl of your understanding of "music".

There are numerous articles online re Philidor's only tragedie lyrique, Ernelinde -heavily influenced by "Rousseau", "Gluck" and "Chastellux", favourably criticized later by "Grimm"-and there are still more articles on "Philidor's" friendhip and collaboration with Diderot, "Grimm's" and "Rousseau's" best friend as well so, instead of repeating your worthless fabrications , I suggest you either put up or shut up!


:hand:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. Having waded through weeks of posts on the multiple lives of G. Cocchi I have no appetite to indulge you on François-André Danican Philidor (1726-95). Except to note that his style is much influenced by Rameau.


Ernelinde, princesse de Norvège (tragédie lyrique, 3, Poinsinet, after F. Silvani: La fede tradita, e vendicata), rev., Opéra, 8 July 1777;
//

---

Yanni, I can do exactly as you ask. I can do even better. I will shut up on any subject which does not relate to the subject of this thread. Which (at the fourteenth time of telling) is 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.

So you will pardon me for noting that your game of aliases concerning G. Cocchi and now 'Rousseau', 'Gluck', Chastellux', 'Grimm' and Philidor (together with dozens of other part time 'wannabees' who float across these pages) becomes a hall of mirrors. Some more distorted than others. While this room is not a hall of mirrors and it remains dedicated to examing the manufacture of Mozart. A fact which may disgust you but which, on your recognition, may save our sanity and even yours in a world more and more filled by delusions, reflections, clones, aliases and counterfeits.

We can say with certainty that, 'The aliases have landed. Take me to your leader' etc. :rolleyes5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Definitely, Robert, this unique comment of yours re Philidor's style heavily influenced by Rameau (his uncle, huh?) may be labellled as a pearl of pearls, a motherpearl of your understanding of "music".

There are numerous articles online re Philidor's only tragedie lyrique, Ernelinde -heavily influenced by "Rousseau", "Gluck" and "Chastellux", favourably criticized later by "Grimm"-and there are still more articles on "Philidor's" friendhip and collaboration with Diderot, "Grimm's" and "Rousseau's" best friend as well so, instead of repeating your worthless fabrications , I suggest you either put up or shut up!


:hand:

---

Dedicated as you are to the manufacture of Mozart subject you have forgotten to add any research results and conclusions in this thread, any input, beyond the title!

:hand:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni, I can do exactly as you ask. In fact I can do even better. I will shut up on any subject which does not relate to the So you will pardon me for noting that your game of aliases concerning G. Cocchi and now 'Rousseau', 'Gluck', Chastellux', 'Grimm' and Philidor (together with dozens of other part time 'wannabees' who float across these pages) becomes a hall of mirrors. Some more distorted than others. While this room is not a hall of mirrors and it remains dedicated to examing the manufacture of Mozart. A fact which may disgust you but which, on your recognition, may save our sanity and even yours in a world more and more filled by delusions, reflections, clones, aliases and counterfeits.

We can say with certainty that, 'The aliases have landed'. Take me to your leader' etc. :rolleyes5:

---

I cite two references, respectively, from Wikipedia and The Michael Haydn Project Website:

1) “There was another case of posthumous mistaken identity involving Michael Haydn: for many years, the piece which is now known as Michael Haydn's Symphony No. 25 was thought to be Mozart's Symphony No. 37 and assigned K. 444. The confusion arose because an autograph was discovered which had the opening movement of the symphony in Mozart's hand, and the rest in somebody else's. It is now thought that Mozart had composed a new slow introduction for reasons unknown, but the rest of the work is known to be by Michael Haydn. The piece, which had been quite widely performed as a Mozart symphony, has been performed considerably less often since this discovery in 1907."

“Indeed, several of Michael Haydn's works influenced Mozart. To give just two examples: the Te Deum "which Wolfgang was later to follow very closely in K. 141"[10] and the finale of the Symphony No. 23 which influenced the finale of the G major Quartet, K. 387. (Max Kenyon, Mozart in Salzburg: A Study and Guide. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons: 44)”


2) “Not very much of Michael Haydn's music was published in his lifetime, and only a part of this with his knowledge. A well-documented story about this, tells us how Nannerl Mozart acted as an agent for Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig and secured copies of his works behind his back for publishing without paying him fees. [Ruth Halliwell : The Mozart Family]”

Does this not beg the question: If Mozart’s “37th Symphony” was in reality Michael Haydn's 25th, where is Mozart’s actual “37th Symphony”? There remains a void here which has not been addressed or corrected – that is, why not renumber Mozart’s last four symphonies with the historical explanation? And why has Michael Haydn’s 25th Symphony been relegated to the dustbin of history?

Funny how it was good enough to perform when it was deemed to have been written by “Mozart”; even more funny how it did not qualitatively and stylistically stand out like the proverbial sore thumb prior to this discovery…

And what of this matter with Nannerl? If her Husband “Wolfie” (read: “Amadeus”) was such a creative powerhouse, why would she need to fence other composers works behind their backs?? I’d be curious about how many of those hawked works had “Wolfie’s” ubiquitous Trademark scrawled upon them.

Could it be that the whole matter has become a sticky Tar Baby because a pre-ordained paradigm was challenged?

Let us consider a legal allegory:

In court, the job of a defense attorney (or prosecuting attorney, for that matter) is to establish reasonable doubt. When reasonable doubt has been established, the jury is sanctioned to decide either in the affirmative or negative. The judge, of course, accepts this verdict and passes sentence. If the judge is prejudiced (in which case he should have readily recused himself from the case and any related proceedings) he likely will either not accept the verdict, or will render a markedly reduced (or stiffened) penalty, depending, of course, on the direction and intensity of his sentiments.

Robert’s work and research have already established - in my mind – “reasonable doubt” about the accuracy – and truthfulness - of what we have been told about this “Wunderkind”.

Are those who question the Mozart paradigm the jury, and the official musical establishment the biased judge?

When defending the British Regulars (in November, 1770) accused in the March 5th Boston Massacre where five Colonial men (including Crispus Attucks) and boys were killed by musket fire, then-attorney John Adams said: “Facts are stubborn things, gentlemen.”

Are the growing inconsistencies surrounding the Mozart Myth just as stubborn?

Was I disappointed when, as a kid, I learned that the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were fairy tales? You bet.
It seems that they were not the only fables told…

And Cocchi also had a chess player alias? My, our good Italian appears to have had more identities than there are Chins in the Beijing White Pages…
:lol: :lol: