The Manufacture of Mozart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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 !

---

Hi Musicology, I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition. It is an interesting point, and I think it could help win people over if you could show them some evidence/documentation that would point conclusively (or, at least, close to conclusively) to another explanation for the young Mozart's output. I have typed in some (not all) names that you've mentioned, but I can't get anywhere on them using the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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.

---

Is it clear in the correspondence that music was cobbled together? I am not familiar with the role of publishing house at that time, but might it have been the case that it was the publisher's responsibility to provide adequate copies of the score for the orchestra(s) that would perform the composition on a tour? Until recently, providing sheet music was a very important responsibility for a publishing company. Again, maybe it's just a case where your enthusiasm and energy is taking things too quickly for me (someone who is not so familiar with the history of Mozart OR publishing companies, for that matter).

Also, are you or any of your colleagues in a position to provide links to documents, or make scans of them, maybe to produce some sort of website--it isn't expensive to set up the website. I think that could be a very effective way to make use of the internet, and make a case for the truth. There is a learning curve if you aren't experienced, but they make it pretty simple these days, especially if you are going to be providing mostly text, images, and photos/scans. I can see you have sufficient determination to do it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

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.

---

Hi yanni! You provide a timeline here, but I'm not familiar enough with the characters and the typical pace of travel in Mozart's time, so I'm not sure exactly how you are making a case here. I have seen you refer to someone with various aliases (Gluck, etc.). Can you explain who he is, who "Gluck" is supposed to be, and how those things figure in this quoted post. I see you say it is hard to keep track of who is who--but you are connecting him (I think) to a woman I am not familiar with either.

Maybe your more detailed timeline will clear that stuff up, I'm mainly posting because I was thinking "more detailed" might end up meaning that there would be more entries in the timeline, and maybe more characters I don't know.

I understand that answers to my questions might be somewhere above in this thread, but it is a ton of material, and it isn't really clear to me. I am very interested if this book from Google Books might provide you with a chance to show us a bit of how actual documentation is supporting your position. And of course, any other more useful/clearer documents would be great, if they have made it online.

Thanks!

Hi Musicology, I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition.

Child prodigies are not all that rare... but they don't really matter all that much. By this I mean that it is rare for the work of a child prodigy to stand a a major work of a mature artist. Mendelssohn is the other obvious example in music. His achievements are far better documented and include some 12 string symphonies written between ages 12 and 14. His Octet and Music for a Midsummer Night's Dream written at age 16 may be the the most youthful masterpieces in music (although Schubert also had composed a number of brilliant songs by this age).

The reality is that the youthful works of Mozart are not masterpieces. They are perhaps well-composed (at best) but they are not major works of art by any standard. Perhaps some of the most youthful of these were composed with the assistance of his father... or are even mis-attributed. The immature nature of these works in comparison to Mozart;s later works is one of the elements that most clearly suggest legitimacy. One cannot imagine a group of composers churning out compositions for Mozart as the front man in such a manner that clearly conveys the gradual development and maturity of the artist from very minor youthful works to the profundity of the final works.

I have seen you refer to someone with various aliases (Gluck, etc.). Can you explain who he is, who "Gluck" is supposed to be, and how those things figure in this quoted post. I see you say it is hard to keep track of who is who--but you are connecting him (I think) to a woman I am not familiar with either.

A very long story, Billl, how, hunting for roots to explain the premature selfdestruct 1925 death of my grandfather, a very active 1895-1919 greek tenor, I managed, via Edgar Allen Poe…
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15023
….to land in Paris, amidst the headquarters of “enlightment”..
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=35779
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=39455
http://www.online-literature.com/for...003#post639003
…to finally discover my own bloodlinks to the immortal alchemist, “comte Saint Germain”:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=43550

Who was “Saint Germain”?
He was born Gioachino Cocchi and, among his many other aliases, he is known today under the following music related “pennames”:
Jean Jacques Rousseau, Chr.Wil.Gluck,Melchior Grimm, Marquis de Chastellux, Myslivecek and Heinrich Koch (the last two aliases discovered while posting in this thread).

As per current mythology, Melchior Grimm and Rousseau shared among others a “common admiration” for Mme d’Epinay (aka Julie L’Espinasse).

I am very interested if this book from Google Books might provide you with a chance to show us a bit of how actual documentation is supporting your position.

My research would not have been concluded successfully if solely based on WHAT IS written, rather what IS NOT, in “books” (I am in full agreement with Musicology’s view on “manufactured truth”), many written either by my own ancestor-hero or his descendants and relatives(such as Gaston Leroux, see http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=669725) and friends (19th century French literature infact seems to concentrate on him generally).

Nevertheless your book confirmed what was troubling me for a long time now, the existence of “a brother” of Cocchi, perhaps a twin (Myslivecek allegedly hiding his deformed face so that Mozart would not recognise another “Durrazo-Gluck”),perhaps not.

The two brothers being both musicians and serving as top agents the French ministry of foreign affairs under so many aliases makes it impossible to distinguish who was who (the “alchemist” or the “musician”) for a specific time and/or political or musical achievement and all we are left with is “Rousseau’s” farewell blessing to “Gluck”....

Croyez-moi, mon cher prête-nom, ne nous brouillons jamais ensemble, car sans moi vous êtes nul. Je suis complaisant, vous le savez;je ne me refuse jamais au travail que vous désirez, quand vous vous donnez la peine de m'appeler et le temps de m'attendre : mais ne tentez jamais rien sans moi dans aucun genre ; ne vous mêlez jamais de l'impromptu en quoi que ce soit, si vous ne voulez gâter en un instant, par votre ineptie, tout ce que j'ai fait jusqu'ici pour vous donner l'air d'un homme pensant.

....and also the first US presidents "covering up" for "them" (naming "Grimm" as author of Raynal's "History of Philosophy" and blaming "Von Gleichen" for "Rousseau's" atheism-all four being the same),not with much success I fear, in their post 1815 correspondence.

Cheers.

Hi there Bill,

Thanks for your post. You wrote -

I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition. It is an interesting point, and I think it could help win people over if you could show them some evidence/documentation that would point conclusively (or, at least, close to conclusively) to another explanation for the young Mozart's output. I have typed in some (not all) names that you've mentioned, but I can't get anywhere on them using the internet.


And you also wrote -

Is it clear in the correspondence that music (The Magic Flute) was cobbled together? I am not familiar with the role of publishing house at that time, but might it have been the case that it was the publisher's responsibility to provide adequate copies of the score for the orchestra(s) that would perform the composition on a tour? Until recently, providing sheet music was a very important responsibility for a publishing company. Again, maybe it's just a case where your enthusiasm and energy is taking things too quickly for me (someone who is not so familiar with the history of Mozart OR publishing companies, for that matter).

Also, are you or any of your colleagues in a position to provide links to documents, or make scans of them, maybe to produce some sort of website--it isn't expensive to set up the website. I think that could be a very effective way to make use of the internet, and make a case for the truth. There is a learning curve if you aren't experienced, but they make it pretty simple these days, especially if you are going to be providing mostly text, images, and photos/scans. I can see you have sufficient determination to do it!

//

In reply, yes, we are fed with the idea that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was such a great 'genius' that he was writing symphonies, concertos, operas, sonatas, and performing all round Europe as a virtuoso of legendary talent, this from an early age. In support of this fact (so-called) is a mass of surviving material. Let me touch on this material in a moment. There is so much of it, in fact, that any question of its authenticity is not even considered. Mozart is presented to us a musical superman, in fact. Who began as a musical super-boy. And as soon as we go down that path (which the industry are keen for us to accept from the start) we tend to throw away any fair and reasonable checks on what is actually being said. The story exists, 'therefore the story must be true'. Further supporting this view is a pile of musical manuscripts, reports, testimonies, and so on. So we have this mass of documentation, and we have almost 200 years of tradition, of belief. This seems, to almost everyone, to be conclusive 'evidence'.

Now, obviously, we can't expect to go into great detail here in short posts on Mozart's entire life, career and musical reputation. But let me sketch, at least, the material from his childhood and youth - that is, from the period of his famous tours of Europe. The time (shall we say) up until his 12th year (1768).

I will briefly do this in two posts. Here is the first.

The surviving material is of two kinds. Musical and non-musical. And, as said, it appears to be conclusive. Let's take the non-musical material first. Of what kind is this material ? Well, let's consider a child. Any child. Let's name this child 'John Smith'. Now, John Smith, a young child, is said to be a musical 'genius'. In fact, there is a ton of evidence to say John Smith is a musical genius. What sort of material is this ? Well, most (we find) is written by the father and close associates of this same John Smith. By Mr Smith. And Mr Smith is definitely keen we should believe his son is a prodigy of nature, a musical genius. We have his travel diaries, his correspondence, and so on. What else do we have ? We have reports from others who heard and or saw John Smith. Or who claim to have done so. In performance. So, from the start we have surely to agree that a massive amount of this material is biased, and was even at the time it was written. As for the rest, detailed research shows it to have been invented, for the benefit of John Smith's reputation. And this is able to proved beyond reasonable doubt.

As far as the musical material is concerned, various studies have been made of the musical manuscripts of 'Mozart' from his earliest years up until this date of 1768. These include over 20 symphonies which are still routinely called his though not one of them belongs to W.A. Mozart. In fact, they are attributed to him only by tradition. They are not in his handwriting. In fact, works of other kinds which do bear Mozart's handwriting are far more full of the handwriting of his sister, Nannerl Mozart, and that of his father, Leopold Mozart. For example, the first 20 symphonies, as said, are definitely not Mozart's - any more than they are yours or mine. (Mozart's father worked as a music dealer at this time and they could have come from many sources). The piano concertos attributed to Mozart at this time are also definitely not by him. 4 of these are arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and the rest are arrangements of works by other Paris-based German composers. But the truth of this was not known until the early 19th century. In the case of the concertos of J.C. Bach it was not finally known until 1908.

And so, in example after example, there are compelling reasons not to attribute this material to the 'genius' of Mozart.

I will continue this in another post.

Regards

In the 18th century there were no telephones, no emails, poor transport, and the Mozart family were simply one of thousands, literally thousands, of people employed in a musical capacity across Europe. There were entire musical families in Italy, in Germany, in Bohemia, in France, in Holland and right across the continent.

But we are asked to believe that with W.A. Mozart he learned and wrote music at such a prodigious speed, and of such quality, that he first astounded Salzburg. Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, it doesn't exist. But we believe it all the same. In fact, detailed study shows the Mozart employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) was the one who sent Wolfgang to Italy in the first place ! Why ? To learn how to compose. How to write music. That is, he did not know these things before he left for Italy. And even in Italy he spent almost no time at any music school. In fact, a letter survives of Leopold Mozart (sent to Italy) in which he mentions the Prince Archbishop says his son knew nothing of music at all. It was for this simple reason that he (the Prince Archbishop Firmian) sent him there in the first place ! There is not a shred of evidence Mozart's father taught Wolfgang composition, or music theory to his son. Not any ! In fact, the father was a minor violinist of no great talent. Who was promoted to a 'vice-kapellmeister' position only weeks before he too left to travel Europe with his son. He never, at any time, taught anyone music or composition and he was a minor employee in Salzburg.

So how did his father arrange vast tours of Europe to princes, archbishops, dignitaries in a Europe already filled with talented musicians ? And why would anyone be remotely interested in Mozart from provincial Salzburg ? Can you image the logistics of arranging huge tours of Europe for a perfect stranger in every town and city where they went ? And where can we find these letters written by his father to all these strangers all across Europe ? They do not exist ! Nobody has ever seen them. But let's ignore this too.

So, how was this 'road show' arranged ? It's obvious there was some kind of management going on here. The impression is given that Europe couldn't wait to hear and see Mozart. When, in fact, the opposite is true. The whole thing was being 'stage managed' and this child, torn away from its childhood, and having at no point contact with other children of his age, was exploited. Plain and simple. Travelling thousands of miles across Europe in a coach. On roads that were poor in quality. Year after year. These are definitely not the conditions to learn anything. Nor are they conditions to practice playing piano, or to compose, or to have a stable and realistic musical career. Not even as an adult. But we choose to ignore that too. The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. They did so because they wanted to manufacture a reputation. For their own reasons. And they did so.

This musical fraud was finally challenged. It was inevitable. The case of Vienna, 1768 is one you might care to examine. You can see this refered to in the correspondence of Mozart's own father. When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds. Now, these events are not part of the official story. And exposure of the truth irritated Mozart' father. It was embarrassing. Nobody believed Mozart was a musical 'genius'. In fact, they believed the opposite. And they told them, to their faces. This finally ended in them getting a commission to write an opera. Known as 'La Finta Semplice'. But that commission was cancelled when, 5 months later, it was discovered that piece had not been written by the boy also. They returned to Salzburg, unpaid. And the theatre manager (Giuseppe Affligio) described it as a fraud. His own musicians agreed. An official investigation was started into this affair because it became a scandal. It was so damaging for Mozart's reputation that it remains, till now, edited out of virtually all biographies or altered to become a 'misunderstanding'. And it's just one example. In later years Mozart's powerful supporters arranged for the arrest of this same Vienna theatre manager. Accusing HIM of forgery ! And banning him from Vienna. To the island of Elba, where he died a few years later.

This is only a very small sketch of the true childhood years of W.A. Mozart. A project of fraud that had the support of fraternities and vested interests. And which has hardly been told. A clever fraud, for sure. In later years it was to continue. In fact, it was massively expanded. So that the fairy story would grow to giant size. Supported by some of the greatest music of the 18th century. Whose origins (like the childhood works) is rarely examined critically.

I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him. To the point where, after seeing a few hundred examples, it is possible to predict (and to know) that it came from other sources. An amazing story, for sure. But I think it's important we hear both sides of this story and any other which is widely taught and believed.

For sure, it's hard to compile all the evidence to show this is true beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the story has been disguised, hidden, and often obscured by the 'industry'.

Nobody denies some of this music is the finest of the 18th or or centuries. But it involved many people. Some of the most talented composers of his time. And publishers and biographers after his death. Only half a century after his death came the first 'catalogue' of 'Mozart's' music. So that the story, the reality, was buried, falsified, biographically and musically, and so that it would be extremely difficult to piece together what really happened.

I and others have worked in this field for a long time. The results of all this study must, of course, be compared with the works of your un-named 'experts'. That's only fair. But the general public can at least form their own judgement. And that's only fair. ''The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate'' - Dr. Wayne Dyer. (That was me. For years. Now I'm making up for lost time !). On a subject which, perhaps, may be of interest to others.

Does musical 'genius' exist ? Yes, of course ! Of course it does. But it's the product of long, long study and very hard work. Nothing else.

There is talent that can be and often is ignored by an entire generation. By the music industry. But it remains all the same. What of this ? Music 'beyond the music industry'. A celebration of something greater.

J.S. Bach
Oratorio
BWV 248/43-5
Chorus - 'Ehre sei dir, Gott, gesungen'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUsZ...eature=related

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him.

---

To quote Robert himself, "Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, but we believe it all the same."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

To quote Robert himself, "Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, but we believe it all the same."

---

But it's true. And the longer this thread goes on the more obvious it becomes. Did they teach you to check what you are taught ? I mean, is it illegal ? Why not name another 'Mozart' work for us to check ?

There must be something wrong somewhere in the official story to make such a generous offer to you !! And it remains open. Can't do better than that, can I ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

But it's true. And the longer this thread goes on the more obvious it becomes.

---

It only becomes obvious that you're not presenting any evidence to back up your claims. A lot of speculation and assertions, but nothing like what I said we'd expect to see if your claims are true: a confession by Mozart, testimony by whistleblowers inside the fraternities, documentation of the actual composition of Mozart's fraudulent works, etc.

Quote:

---

Why not name another 'Mozart' work for us to check ?

---

You did a less than satisfactory job with the first one, merely asserting that The Magic Flute was the work of 'numerous other composers.' You're free to believe whatever you want, but you have yet to make a persuasive case.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

It only becomes obvious that you're not presenting any evidence to back up your claims. A lot of speculation and assertions, but nothing like what I said we'd expect to see if your claims are true: a confession by Mozart, testimony by whistleblowers inside the fraternities, documentation of the actual composition of Mozart's fraudulent works, etc.


You did a less than satisfactory job with the first one, merely asserting that The Magic Flute was the work of 'numerous other composers.' You're free to believe whatever you want, but you have yet to make a persuasive case.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan,

You have a strange attitude. Here are readers trying to judging a case. But are they judging it fairly ? Where are your expert sources who can defend the 'official' story ? Can you find at least one for us ? So that neutral readers can form a fair judgement ? Why is it so hard for you to give the 'official' story ?

All you can do is say 'it's up to you to prove the opposite'. Well, I've already done so. I've given a rough sketch of Mozart up to the age of 12. If you can produce your evidence of him being a musical 'genius' up until that date please do it. Let's see it. I mean, its been asked for over and over again. But where is the evidence ?

Believe what you like. But if you believe something is true why can't you produce any evidence ? Not even a basic sketch of what you believe to be true. If there is mountains of evidence why not produce some ? So that we can examine it fairly, here, on this thread ?

We see, in fact, that he never went to school. That he never studied music. That he never studied harmony, orchestration, composition under any teacher. Not even in Italy. Don't you think this matters ?

For sure, this is not unusual. Your attitude was mine too. It seemed so impossible. But the closer you examine this subject the more it becomes clear that it's really a cleverly manufactured story.

I don't claim to have infallible proof. But it seems to me correct, beyond reasonable doubt. Since I've examined this issue from the time of his childhood up until his death (and the decades beyond) from many, many sources, and in much detail. I feel it's a view worth comparing with your 'official' story.

Robert,

It's one thing to assert that there has been a great deal of exaggeration and error in Mozart scholarship over its two centuries. However, you're making the claim that Mozart didn't compose any of the works attributed to him, and that secret societies were and are still behind the manufacture and maintenance of his legend out of thin air. If you make surprising claims that go against everything that we understand about a historical figure, people usually expect strong evidence to back up those claims.

What you call the "official story" isn't mine, and I'm not obliged to defend it. You're the one claiming to be "certain" that Mozart didn't compose any of his works, but you're trying to avoid the burden of proof.

Do you have a confession from Mozart that he was a no-talent fraud who merely signed his name to the work of others?

Do you have testimony from people involved in the great Conspiracy, outlining its methods and aims?

Do you have documentation of the actual composition of these monumental works, signed by their real composers?

Then why should anyone else believe your claims?

Regards,

Istvan

What you are really asking Musicology to provide, Babba, is concrete evidence, even a confession, that phantoms exist.

Well, they don't, except in opera (and some other places you bypass in a hurry)!

Cheers.

:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

What you are really asking Musicology to provide, Babba, is concrete evidence, even a confession, that phantoms exist.

---

No, it's just plain old, ordinary historical research. If, as Robert says of his case, "the evidence is massive," why won't he present any of it? If he's up to assuming the burden of proof, why does he spend so much time demanding evidence from others?

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

As far as the musical material is concerned, various studies have been made of the musical manuscripts of 'Mozart' from his earliest years up until this date of 1768. These include over 20 symphonies which are still routinely called his though not one of them belongs to W.A. Mozart. In fact, they are attributed to him only by tradition. They are not in his handwriting. In fact, works of other kinds which do bear Mozart's handwriting are far more full of the handwriting of his sister, Nannerl Mozart, and that of his father, Leopold Mozart.

---

This sounds like it would be good evidence that Mozart didn't write the symphonies. (That is, if the 'original' hand-written manuscripts were not in Mozart's handwriting as documented elsewhere, indeed if there were great variety in the handwriting and musical notation).

If there were existing copies, and we could have them scanned (they probably have been somewhere) then it would probably be possible to compare them to Mozart's signature on other scans that are stored online. Maybe this has already been done? If there were a link we could click on, that would be a powerful aid in presenting this case. Especially if important examples could be connected together via text, on a single web page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

In fact, detailed study shows the Mozart employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) was the one who sent Wolfgang to Italy in the first place ! Why ? To learn how to compose. How to write music. That is, he did not know these things before he left for Italy. And even in Italy he spent almost no time at any music school. In fact, a letter survives of Leopold Mozart (sent to Italy) in which he mentions the Prince Archbishop says his son knew nothing of music at all. It was for this simple reason that he (the Prince Archbishop Firmian) sent him there in the first place !

---

It seems that Mozart's youth and lack of musical education are key components in making this case convincing. There might also be a very elaborate web of false or misleading documentation that I imagine might be awkward to succinctly present as being evidence of fraud. However, this line of argument quoted directly above seems to reflect passages from a book or documented quotations/testimony of some form. How are Mozart's employer's intentions clear to us? How can we be sure that Mozart didn't attend any school or teacher during his stay? Can you point us to the letter you mention that is written by Leopold Mozart, or provide a more complete sampling of the text and/or context? Again, if you were able to come across this letter, then I think that it might have made it online somewhere by now. If no one else will do it, again, I think you would be doing your work a great service by acquiring the scans yourself somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

This musical fraud was finally challenged. It was inevitable. The case of Vienna, 1768 is one you might care to examine. You can see this refered to in the correspondence of Mozart's own father. When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds. Now, these events are not part of the official story. And exposure of the truth irritated Mozart' father. It was embarrassing. Nobody believed Mozart was a musical 'genius'. In fact, they believed the opposite. And they told them, to their faces. This finally ended in them getting a commission to write an opera. Known as 'La Finta Semplice'. But that commission was cancelled when, 5 months later, it was discovered that piece had not been written by the boy also. They returned to Salzburg, unpaid. And the theatre manager (Giuseppe Affligio) described it as a fraud. His own musicians agreed. An official investigation was started into this affair because it became a scandal. It was so damaging for Mozart's reputation that it remains, till now, edited out of virtually all biographies or altered to become a 'misunderstanding'.

---

Here again is an excellent opportunity to provide evidence that might open the lay-person's eyes. As it is, it is difficult to do a search online for something like "Vienna 1768 Mozart" and come up with the sources for information you are providing. Which books, journals, articles, letters, etc. is this information culled from? Does it exist online? Do you own texts with this information in them (and do you have a scanner or digital camera?)? In particular, I wonder if Mozart's father's letters could be provided online (or an appropriate selection from a book of the collected letters) somehow. I doubt that his father's interpretation of the mockery in Vienna would have been a lamentation of the fact that it had been discovered that his son were a fraud (or at least I doubt that would be the unmistakable content of the letter, based upon the letter alone), but I wonder if you have other material from the time that would make your reading of them compelling. And again, if the letters are online or something, it would be great if we could have a look.

I understand that proving inconsistencies in a made-up history would be daunting, and much would hinge on details that would be meaningful only to one who had perhaps invest a large amount of time with a wide variety of characters and events in a diverse set of documents. I think, however, that you would be aiding yourself greatly if you took some time and put together an understandable presentation of these particular points, providing documentation, etc. As it is, a skeptic is left in the unnecessarily inconvenient position of having to purchase various books collecting a lot of letters and other documentation, in order to evaluate the strength of your theory in relation to these events. If you could convince them on the correctness of your interpretation on these three points that I've quoted, I think quite a few of them might be more than happy to look further into this, with much more sympathetic ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

This sounds like it would be good evidence that Mozart didn't write the symphonies. (That is, if the 'original' hand-written manuscripts were not in Mozart's handwriting as documented elsewhere, indeed if there were great variety in the handwriting and musical notation).

If there were existing copies, and we could have them scanned (they probably have been somewhere) then it would probably be possible to compare them to Mozart's signature on other scans that are stored online. Maybe this has already been done? If there were a link we could click on, that would be a powerful aid in presenting this case. Especially if important examples could be connected together via text, on a single web page.



It seems that Mozart's youth and lack of musical education are key components in making this case convincing. There might also be a very elaborate web of false or misleading documentation that I imagine might be awkward to succinctly present as being evidence of fraud. However, this line of argument quoted directly above seems to reflect passages from a book or documented quotations/testimony of some form. How are Mozart's employer's intentions clear to us? How can we be sure that Mozart didn't attend any school or teacher during his stay? Can you point us to the letter you mention that is written by Leopold Mozart, or provide a more complete sampling of the text and/or context? Again, if you were able to come across this letter, then I think that it might have made it online somewhere by now. If no one else will do it, again, I think you would be doing your work a great service by acquiring the scans yourself somehow.




Here again is an excellent opportunity to provide evidence that might open the lay-person's eyes. As it is, it is difficult to do a search online for something like "Vienna 1768 Mozart" and come up with the sources for information you are providing. Which books, journals, articles, letters, etc. is this information culled from? Does it exist online? Do you own texts with this information in them (and do you have a scanner or digital camera?)? In particular, I wonder if Mozart's father's letters could be provided online (or an appropriate selection from a book of the collected letters) somehow. I doubt that his father's interpretation of the mockery in Vienna would have been a lamentation of the fact that it had been discovered that his son were a fraud (or at least I doubt that would be the unmistakable content of the letter, based upon the letter alone), but I wonder if you have other material from the time that would make your reading of them compelling. And again, if the letters are online or something, it would be great if we could have a look.

I understand that proving inconsistencies in a made-up history would be daunting, and much would hinge on details that would be meaningful only to one who had perhaps invest a large amount of time with a wide variety of characters and events in a diverse set of documents. I think, however, that you would be aiding yourself greatly if you took some time and put together an understandable presentation of these particular points, providing documentation, etc. As it is, a skeptic is left in the unnecessarily inconvenient position of having to purchase various books collecting a lot of letters and other documentation, in order to evaluate the strength of your theory in relation to these events. If you could convince them on the correctness of your interpretation on these three points that I've quoted, I think quite a few of them might be more than happy to look further into this, with much more sympathetic ears.

---

Bill,

This is a good post of yours. I will try to post here within the next week or so documentary support for the issues raised by me on Mozart up to the age of 12. Not all, by any means, but the names of published sources, of studies made into musical manuscripts, letters, dates, events etc. which support all of the above.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

No, it's just plain old, ordinary historical research. If, as Robert says of his case, "the evidence is massive," why won't he present any of it? If he's up to assuming the burden of proof, why does he spend so much time demanding evidence from others?

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan,

I have just agreed (after Bill's post here) to post some of the proofs in support of my position within the week. Taken from published studies of documentary evidence. This on the life and career (alleged) of W.A. Mozart up until his 12th year (1768). It would greatly help if you could produce/provide documentary evidence which proves the opposite of what I've already posted here. Since, at the moment, we have one side presenting evidence and the other sitting as if they have nothing to say of any substance.

Let readers judge both sides of this case. We want to see your evidence of Mozart being the composer of symphonies, concertos and operas before his 12th year, and of his legendary status as a composer and performer up until that year of 1768. We want to see documentary evidence of his musical and non-musical education. The kinds of things which, you believe, are widely available in published literature.

I will post, as promised, within one week from now.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

It would greatly help if you could produce/provide documentary evidence which proves the opposite of what I've already posted here. Since, at the moment, we have one side presenting evidence and the other sitting as if they have nothing to say of any substance.

---

No, what we have is one side making extraordinary claims but offering no evidence to support his assertions, and the other pointing out the flaws in the claimant's logic.

I'll say it as many times as I have to: I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. Presumably people here are smart enough to realize that there's a generally accepted version of the Mozart myth you're so determined to demolish, written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies.

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

Regards,

Istvan

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

A perfect story for J.L. Borges... and I am a sworn Borgesian so I cannot help but appreciate it. Imagine the absolute brilliance of this conspiracy. They not only were able to write music for Mozart... but also Haydn and the young Beethoven. The were able to compose a body of work that maintained a sense of continuity while remaining unique to each composer. At the same time, they provided each composer with a body of work that showed a clear progression or development from youthful and immature music to the brilliant sophistication of the late work. They were able to forge thousands of documents and silence hundreds of voices of observers who must have known the truth. The conspiracy was so brilliantly conceived that it fooled several centuries of historians and musicologists... any number of whom were credentialed specialists in the field who had waded through the endless documentation. Sheer genius! A narrative worthy of a novel by Umberto Eco... or Dan Brown.:brow:

You contradict yourself Musicology,

"The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. "

"When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds."

...assuming -wrongly- that Vienna musicians were not part of the "structured society" of (what was left at the time of) The Holy Roman Empire of Austria thus staging a revolution against Mozart, the said society's elite choice, in Vienna(!).

As a Freemason, Mozart's father certainly implemented the "reform" plan and participated in promoting his son (as "the next prophet" of reform opera or perhaps simply as reform's "wunderkind"), hence the reaction of the 1768 Vienna musicians who were against reform (as "Jesuit controlled" or "educated" or because ordinary low grade musicians rarely revolt).

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

No, what we have is one side making extraordinary claims but offering no evidence to support his assertions, and the other pointing out the flaws in the claimant's logic.

I'll say it as many times as I have to: I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. Presumably people here are smart enough to realize that there's a generally accepted version of the Mozart myth you're so determined to demolish, written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies.

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

Regards,

Istvan

---

OK, I made the offer. Right here on this thread. You can't accept a fair debate ? That's OK. You present your sources. I present mine. Can't get fairer than that, can you ? I've already offered to discuss ANY work by 'Mozart'. To compare versions of who wrote it (and who did not). You now describe your version as 'written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies'. Great ! So give us your version of Mozart's musical and ordinary education and career up until his 12th year - i.e. 1756 to 1768. But you can't, can you ?

Case Closed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

You contradict yourself Musicology,

"The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. "

"When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds."

...assuming -wrongly- that Vienna musicians were not part of the "structured society" of (what was left at the time of) The Holy Roman Empire of Austria thus staging a revolution against Mozart, the said society's elite choice, in Vienna(!).

As a Freemason, Mozart's father certainly implemented the "reform" plan and participated in promoting his son (as "the next prophet" of reform opera or perhaps simply as reform's "wunderkind"), hence the reaction of the 1768 Vienna musicians who were against reform (as "Jesuit controlled" or "educated" or because ordinary low grade musicians rarely revolt).

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

---

Yanni,

This thread is discussing the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. It is not discussing one of your favourite subjects, Melchior Grimm and Gluck. But if you wish to open a special thread on these subjects please do. In the meantime I will focus on the subject of Mozart up to the age of 12. Because otherwise people will get very, very confused what your posts are all about.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

A perfect story for J.L. Borges... and I am a sworn Borgesian so I cannot help but appreciate it. Imagine the absolute brilliance of this conspiracy. They not only were able to write music for Mozart... but also Haydn and the young Beethoven. The were able to compose a body of work that maintained a sense of continuity while remaining unique to each composer. At the same time, they provided each composer with a body of work that showed a clear progression or development from youthful and immature music to the brilliant sophistication of the late work. They were able to forge thousands of documents and silence hundreds of voices of observers who must have known the truth. The conspiracy was so brilliantly conceived that it fooled several centuries of historians and musicologists... any number of whom were credentialed specialists in the field who had waded through the endless documentation. Sheer genius! A narrative worthy of a novel by Umberto Eco... or Dan Brown.:brow:

---

This is really funny. Stlukesguild refers to a 'mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers'. This on the subject of W.A. Mozart.

Great ! So you have a massive advantage from the start. Let me grant you that. You have libraries of books on Mozart. So please present us here with some reliable evidence of W.A. Mozart's musical education and his musical achievements up until the age of 12 ? Up until 1769, that is. Not much to ask is it ? Tell us please where did W.A. Mozart study composition, harmony, orchestration, etc ? This is my ninth request for this basic information on this thread. And so far you and your 'mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers' have produced absolutely zero. And we are still waiting.

If you don't want to share it with us, fine. In that case forget it. Because this is fast becoming proof you have no such evidence. Your 'mountain' does not exist. Surely some exists so please produce it and I will produce evidence Mozart never studied music before he was 12 and that he produced virtually nothing of musical value up until that age.

A simple choice. A fair debate. You produce your evidence. I produce mine. Agreed ? And let readers decide who is producing the best case.

What do you say ? You can quote any published sources you like. From your 'mountain of evidence'.

If you agree I will do the same. In one week's time. So we both have time to put together our different points of view.

Can't get fairer than that.

1. Produce the evidence for Mozart's ordinary and musical education up to the age of 12.

2. Produce for us, please, a list of his major musical works written before he was 12 years old. That is, before 1769.

This simple request repeated, again, and again, and again. Just stretch over to your 'mountain' of published sources. So that this discussion is fair for both parties. The same rules. You produce your evidence and I produce mine. With readers making their own judgement on the evidence presented to them from both sides. That's fair. That's honest. You will have the honour of presenting us with quotes from standard textbooks. You will be defending Mozart's reputation. A simple job, yes ? Supported (you say) by hundreds of researchers over the past two centuries or so. What an honour for you ! A simple job that brings you a lot of credit ! With everyone judging the case. And everyone, at the start, in full support of your view. Can't get better.

Accept or not ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I've already offered to discuss ANY work by 'Mozart'. To compare versions of who wrote it (and who did not).

---

That's true. But when I asked about The Magic Flute, you simply asserted that Mozart didn't write it, pointing to 'numerous other composers' without support from any source. Was that supposed to be your evidence?

Quote:

---

So give us your version of Mozart's musical and ordinary education and career up until his 12th year - i.e. 1756 to 1768. But you can't, can you ?

---

Once again, I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. I never claimed to have studied Mozart's life and career for over a decade, you did. I never claimed to have "massive" evidence proving that Mozart was just a fiction created by a vast historical conspiracy involving secret societies, you did.

Quote:

---

Case Closed

---

Oh. Kay.

So Robert's claims were that "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" and "I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him." Dramatic claims indeed, ones that fly in the face of everything we know about Mozart.

In support, Robert asserted that Mozart couldn't compose because he received no formal musical training. He denied that Mozart's father Leopold, a composer as well as the author of a prominent educational treatise on violin, could have trained him, claiming (without citing a source) that Leopold had plagiarized his book anyway.

Then Robert pointed out that many works initially attributed to Mozart (in particular his early works) were later discovered to be composed by others. He never explained why this means that all works attributed to Mozart are therefore fakes. Using this logic, I could say that police have found counterfeit money, therefore all money is counterfeit.

When discussing specific works (like The Magic Flute) universally accepted by professional musicologists to have been composed by Mozart, Robert merely asserts that the work was not composed by Mozart and expects this to suffice as evidence.

When pressed for evidence or asked to cite sources for his assertions, Robert asks those questioning his theory to provide evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of any mode of responsible inquiry, a refusal to assume the burden of proof that speaks volumes about not only the strength of his case, but also the nature of his research.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

That's true. But when I asked about The Magic Flute, you simply asserted that Mozart didn't write it, pointing to 'numerous other composers' without support from any source. Was that supposed to be your evidence?

Once again, I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. I never claimed to have studied Mozart's life and career for over a decade, you did. I never claimed to have "massive" evidence proving that Mozart was just a fiction created by a vast historical conspiracy involving secret societies, you did.


Oh. Kay.

So Robert's claims were that "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" and "I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him." Dramatic claims indeed, ones that fly in the face of everything we know about Mozart.

In support, Robert asserted that Mozart couldn't compose because he received no formal musical training. He denied that Mozart's father Leopold, a composer as well as the author of a prominent educational treatise on violin, could have trained him, claiming (without citing a source) that Leopold had plagiarized his book anyway.

Then Robert pointed out that many works initially attributed to Mozart (in particular his early works) were later discovered to be composed by others. He never explained why this means that all works attributed to Mozart are therefore fakes. Using this logic, I could say that police have found counterfeit money, therefore all money is counterfeit.

When discussing specific works (like The Magic Flute) universally accepted by professional musicologists to have been composed by Mozart, Robert merely asserts that the work was not composed by Mozart and expects this to suffice as evidence.

When pressed for evidence or asked to cite sources for his assertions, Robert asks those questioning his theory to provide evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of any mode of responsible inquiry, a refusal to assume the burden of proof that speaks volumes about not only the strength of his case, but also the nature of his research.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Istvan,

This is my fourth request for a fair exchange of views. You (and others) are making the claim that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was a musical genius. Who had amazing talents as a composer from the time of his childhood onwards. These are your claims. If you want to abandon these claims, fine. If you believe them to be true we want to see your evidence. In return for which I will present evidence which indicates the opposite. We also want to see evidence of his schooling, musical and non-musical. And all of this, we are told, exists in almost 200 years of published studies. Mozart was a 'musical genius' and we want to see some evidence. So, can you help your colleagues present your case ? From all this mass of 'evidence' ? Not much to ask, is it ? And, in return, in one week, I can produce contrary evidence. So fair minded readers here can form their own judgement. That is fair, reasonable and honest. Yes ? We start with his musical career up to 1769. Up to the end of his 12th year. OK ? After all, these ARE your views, aren't they ?

As for the much later (1791) 'Magic Flute' I have already indicated that it borrows heavily from Paul Wranitsky's opera 'Oberon'. And even that it's Overture comes from a piano sonata by another composer. This is clear, simple to understand, not difficult. I further indicated that the musical score (used for rehearsal and performance) was not finished in Vienna but was sent to musicians in Bonn. According to a letter written by the Bonn publisher Simrock to Gottfried Weber. This is just a small example of why the 'Magic Flute' is not by Mozart.

But let me return to Mozart's childhood. Up to the end of his 12th year.

Do you accept or not ?

You write -

I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence.

You certainly ARE making claims ! You believe Mozart was a musical 'genius' from childhood onwards. And we want to see what evidence you have to support them. We want the details of his education. I am making claims too. So, let the readers form their own judgement on the evidence.

Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

These are your claims. If you want to abandon these claims, fine. If you believe them to be true we want to see your evidence.

---

Please show me where I ever claimed Mozart was a genius. I never made any such claim.

I don't know why you're looking at this as some sort of debate, Robert. It's not about a "fair exchange of views." You started this thread, you claim to have evidence of a huge historical conspiracy among Jesuits and Freemasons to manufacture the Myth of Mozart out of thin air, and you claim that Mozart didn't write any of the music attributed to him.

Anyone who truly had evidence supporting such a theory would have presented it by now. You've had ample time to make your case. Considering your evasion in the face of requests for evidence, it's beginning to seem like a hoax.

Regards,

Istvan

.....redemisti crucem passus;
tantus labor non sit cassus.

So you can't or won't answer my question, huh?

I repeat:

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Your reply:

Yanni,

This thread is discussing the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. It is not discussing one of your favourite subjects, Melchior Grimm and Gluck. But if you wish to open a special thread on these subjects please do. In the meantime I will focus on the subject of Mozart up to the age of 12. Because otherwise people will get very, very confused what your posts are all about.

Regards


If you forgot what this thread was about, please see your own post #1 in this thread*, Musicology, and my immediate reply (#2).

Seems to me, you keep on contadicting yourself reducing meanwhile the discussion to Mozart's diapers.

Cheers!

:wave:

*Quoting from Musicology's post #1 :

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

:wave:

No problem. They clearly don't want to discuss Mozart's childhood, and his musical reputation up to the end of his 12th year. Fine. They just believe what they are told. But when you ask them for some evidence they can't provide it. No matter how often you ask them. They just talk about 'tons of evidence'. I have a decade's experience of this in other conversations. The myth is never examined in detail.

Yanni wants to talk about 1778 (when Mozart was 22 years old !) and others want to say nothing. But the conversation has moved on to the specific subject of his musical 'genius'. That means that we examine part of a huge subject.

That's OK. It's normal. Let people form their own judgement. The specific subject I've offered to compare notes about are the years of his childhood education and childhood musical career.

I've tried to pin this issue down to a specific time. His childhood. Could easily have chosen his youth, his adulthood, his final 10 years in Vienna. But I had to start somewhere. So I tried to start with the years of his childhood. As anyone can see.

Yanni, in the next few days, I will come back about the years you are refering to. Just making a point. The Mozart fairy story does not allow us close examination of the basic facts.

To include me in "they" is the last thing I expected of you, Robert.

The only reason I continue to press you is because you are grossly mistaken both with your first "The Jesuits" and next "The Holy Roman Empire's Elites" compulsive-obsessive(?*) assumptions on Mozart's manufacturer!

THE "REFORMISTS" manufactured Mozart (propably to hide "Gluck" and his "music" behind him).

Instead of admitting it, you select to deviate from your original purposes and run for cover in "Mozart's "diapers", aided by StLuke-Babba's sophistic duet, thus confirming my earlier "sine qua non" allegation!

Cheers.

*http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156 ("Gluck" is missing there too.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

They just talk about 'tons of evidence'.

---

Robert, the only one talking about 'tons of evidence' here is you. You're the one who said:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that 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

The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century.

So far you've demonstrated that no one at Literature Forums is a credentialed musicologist with source documents handy on the life and career of Mozart. Well done. But as far as providing persuasive evidence of your claims, you're much less forthcoming than you initially claimed to be.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Robert, the only one talking about 'tons of evidence' here is you. You're the one who said:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that 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

The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century.

So far you've demonstrated that no one at Literature Forums is a credentialed musicologist with source documents handy on the life and career of Mozart. Well done. But as far as providing persuasive evidence of your claims, you're much less forthcoming than you initially claimed to be.

Regards,

Istvan

---

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

Take your time. Shall I post this again in a month's time ? How about 1 year ? I present evidence and you present evidence. So readers can judge for themselves. Having both sides.

Fair enough, yes ? StLukesguild speaks of lots of experts, lots of evidence. We want to see some.

We cannot prove a negative. So let's see some evidence that Mozart was a childhood musical genius. Otherwise we go round and round in circles. Those who believe this can't provide any. In fact, if you examine the actual documents, the musical manuscripts, you find the opposite. So, in fairness, let's compare our evidence. That's what I'm suggesting. You will conclude that the Mozart story is fiction. It was invented, exaggerated, and grossly manufactured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Please show me where I ever claimed Mozart was a genius. I never made any such claim.

I don't know why you're looking at this as some sort of debate, Robert. It's not about a "fair exchange of views." You started this thread, you claim to have evidence of a huge historical conspiracy among Jesuits and Freemasons to manufacture the Myth of Mozart out of thin air, and you claim that Mozart didn't write any of the music attributed to him.

Anyone who truly had evidence supporting such a theory would have presented it by now. You've had ample time to make your case. Considering your evasion in the face of requests for evidence, it's beginning to seem like a hoax.

Regards,

Istvan

---

The only hoax is the Mozart story. We haven't had any evidence that Mozart was a musical genius. And we are asking about the first 12 years of his life. All you have to do is produce some evidence. What's so difficult ? The hoax is that so far nobody can do it.

I have told you from the start. There is simply NO evidence of Wolfgang Mozart learning composition, music theory, orchestration, etc etc. and the evidence we do have shows he knew virtually nothing. This is not acceptable to you.

So, when you speak about a 'hoax' maybe the hoax is the Mozart story ? Which, after all, is what it seems to be.

I have examined this subject in a lot of detail. So have others. But maybe you can rescue Mozart from this embarrasing situation ? I invite you to do it. Just present us here with some details of his musical and other education. Just give us a list of 'his' musical works before 1769.

What's the problem ?

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

I gotta give it to you, Robert. You have an ability to maintain your delusions. Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale? Your strategy... if we can call it that... is ridiculous. You come here making wild assertions that challenge accepted historical facts... back them up with a bunch of of what you declare to be "facts"... and then proclaim victory because no one here is interested enough to double check these facts for you? As I and others have repeatedly stated it is you who are making assertions contrary to historical fact... contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field... as such the burden of proof is entirely your own. What part of this don't you understand?

Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale?

A soulless soliped's reply to Robert's solemn solecism!

:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

I gotta give it to you, Robert. You have an ability to maintain your delusions. Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale? Your strategy... if we can call it that... is ridiculous. You come here making wild assertions that challenge accepted historical facts... back them up with a bunch of of what you declare to be "facts"... and then proclaim victory because no one here is interested enough to double check these facts for you? As I and others have repeatedly stated it is you who are making assertions contrary to historical fact... contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field... as such the burden of proof is entirely your own. What part of this don't you understand?

---

'Contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field'.

OK, let's see some of this expert evidence. Please present some of it here, on this forum, for readers to see for themselves. Show us the long awaited basic details of Mozart's musical and other education. And tell us about 'his' musical compositions up until the end of his 12th year.

You seem to have gone very silent, StLukesguild. Your 'experts' have disappeared. Abandoning you in your hour of greatest need !

Simple request. Request number 5. If you do this for the members here I will present evidence that shows the opposite. So that readers can judge both sides of this issue side by side. And not just one side. You with your 'expert' evidence and me with other evidence. A fair discussion for members here to form their own judgement.

It can't get fairer than that. You will become a cultural hero and will even receive a cultural certificate from the Mozarteum, the European centre of study on the life and career of Mozart, based in Salzburg, Austria. And you will definitely receive a 10% discount on all Mozart chocolates.

So, do you agree, or not ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale?

A soulless soliped's reply to Robert's solemn solecism!

:banana:

---

The overwhelming 'evidence' of the musical superman, W.A. Mozart (1756-1791)

'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
(Simon and Garfunkel)

Check out "The Comte de St. Germain" by Isabel Cooper-Oakley concerning "Myslivecek=Gluck=Comte de Saint Germain=Rousseau" and their relations to prince Lobkowitz (page 33 among others).

On same subject: Check out Tufano, Lucio (2006) Josef Mysliveček e l’esecuzione napoletana dell’Orfeo di Gluck (1774). Hudební věda, 43 (3). pp. 257-279. ISSN 0018-7003 (On Musli-vecek "manipulation, and execution of the score" of Gluck's 1762 piece)

Gluck's last Viennese opera was Paride ed Elena (3.11.1770 Wien B).
All his next works are staged in Paris, France.

Cheers.

Anyone who was truly interested in the facts would do well to explore any number of the numerous biographies on Mozart written by respected historians and musicologists and not by an amateur who lies about his credentials and formal education and sleuths and slithers around on internet sites in search of proof of a grandiose conspiracy theory. One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Of course these respected authors may just all be deluded fools... or even part of the continuing conspiracy that encircles Mozart and keeps our esteemed "musicologist" from any recognition from within academia or the publishing world. :rolleyes:

Still, Robert, you are having difficulty understanding the "rules of engagement" in an academic dispute. You are the one who has made an outlandish statement that runs contrary to accepted truth. The burden of proof is completely your own. I have no need to prove the contrary. There are others far more capable than myself who have done so. The fact that you have repeatedly avoided answering any difficult question that might put the least dent into your outlandish theory... (and it is nothing but a theory... and one held only by yourself)... is enough to completely undermine all you have presented here. So I will give you one last chance. Answer any of the following, if you can:

1. You suggest that Mozart could not have composed any of the works attributed to him because of the lack of any formal music education. By the same logic, what exactly is your formal education in music and history? Or do you suggest that we are to accept the possibility that one might become a respected expert upon Mozart without any formal education, while Mozart could not have become a talented composer under the same circumstances?

2. How do you explain the possibility of a group of largely unknown composers creating a body of music of unquestionable genius for not one... but at least two composers (Mozart and Haydn) each of which maintains a continuity of style? How do you explain that they composed nothing under their own names that nears the quality of this fraudulent work? How do you explain the absolute brilliance in creating a body of work which clearly exhibits the continual development of the individual composers? How do you explain why such effort and expense would have even been justified?

3. How do you explain the success of such a vast conspiracy which must have depended upon the participation of literally hundreds of individuals... anyone of whom might have slipped up and revealed the truth? Considering the fact that the composer of which we speak is one of the most studied in history, how do you explain that this vast fraud has not become public knowledge without resorting to the notion that there is still some great conspiracy at hand... or that music and Mozart studies are the one field of academia where rigorous research and alternative theories backed up with legitimate documentation are frowned upon?

{edit}

In the words of a famous american:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Anyone who was truly interested in the facts would do well to explore any number of the numerous biographies on Mozart written by respected historians and musicologists and not by an amateur who lies about his credentials and formal education and sleuths and slithers around on internet sites in search of proof of a grandiose conspiracy theory. One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Of course these respected authors may just all be deluded fools... or even part of the continuing conspiracy that encircles Mozart and keeps our esteemed "musicologist" from any recognition from within academia or the publishing world. :rolleyes:

Still, Robert, you are having difficulty understanding the "rules of engagement" in an academic dispute. You are the one who has made an outlandish statement that runs contrary to accepted truth. The burden of proof is completely your own. I have no need to prove the contrary. There are others far more capable than myself who have done so. The fact that you have repeatedly avoided answering any difficult question that might put the least dent into your outlandish theory... (and it is nothing but a theory... and one held only by yourself)... is enough to completely undermine all you have presented here. So I will give you one last chance. Answer any of the following, if you can:

1. You suggest that Mozart could not have composed any of the works attributed to him because of the lack of any formal music education. By the same logic, what exactly is your formal education in music and history? Or do you suggest that we are to accept the possibility that one might become a respected expert upon Mozart without any formal education, while Mozart could not have become a talented composer under the same circumstances?

2. How do you explain the possibility of a group of largely unknown composers creating a body of music of unquestionable genius for not one... but at least two composers (Mozart and Haydn) each of which maintains a continuity of style? How do you explain that they composed nothing under their own names that nears the quality of this fraudulent work? How do you explain the absolute brilliance in creating a body of work which clearly exhibits the continual development of the individual composers? How do you explain why such effort and expense would have even been justified?

3. How do you explain the success of such a vast conspiracy which must have depended upon the participation of literally hundreds of individuals... anyone of whom might have slipped up and revealed the truth? Considering the fact that the composer of which we speak is one of the most studied in history, how do you explain that this vast fraud has not become public knowledge without resorting to the notion that there is still some great conspiracy at hand... or that music and Mozart studies are the one field of academia where rigorous research and alternative theories backed up with legitimate documentation are frowned upon?

{edit}

---

//

Thank you StLukesuild,

I am of course very familiar with each and every one of the 10 books you have just listed by name. In fact (unlike you) I have actually read them - many times. I've done more than this. I've obtained and studied hundreds of others on the same subject. And that's not all. I've examined diaries, letters, unpublished manuscripts and anecdotes of musicians and writers on music of the late 18th and 19th centuries. You see how useless I am in changing light bulbs, repairing engines, and brain surgery and how honest I am being on this subject of Mozart ? So the good readers of the USA, of Europe and other places will not consume your fairy story nonsense. (They are still waiting, by the way, for your answer to the question of Mozart's musical education and 'his' works before the end of 1769). Unlike your goodself, I do not merely quote the titles of well known books which anyone can find in 2 minutes by google search engine, but am able to give you their contents. (We really must stop feeding the trolls !)

A tradition has existed in 'Mozart research' for almost 200 years of writers quoting someone who has quoted someone else, who has quoted someone else, and who has quoted someone else. Whose original source is false.This nonsense is called in the Mozart industry 'expertise' and it is well funded. A farmer knows more of musical history than those fools. So the propaganda bubble, once it has started to be blown by the tourist industry and by these myth makers, has grown and grown in size over the last 200 years, and has taken on more and more new and beautiful colours for the public's entertainment and 'education', giving credit to those who write on the Mozart myth and seeming to give give them 'expertise' merely by quoting (as others did before them) the names and quotes of those who have themselves quoted before a million times. This rubbish, whose employees love footnotes and who are described as 'experts' have, we see, nothing to offer on the subject now under discussion. As you yourself prove right here on this thread. We still wait for the 'expertise' quoted by you on the musical and other education of Mozart. And we still wait for a list from you of Mozart's musical works before 1769. It's so funny ! Perhaps you should retire from the field claiming injury, having 'defended' your point of view by saying nothing at all ! And it would be very typical. You can even say your 'experts' have educated you.

The 10 writers you have listed above are not all 'deluded fools'. Far from it. But the 10 titles you have listed (and which you have clearly never read, not even once in your entire life) include such liars as F.X. Niemetscheck, whose early Mozart 'biography' which was published first in 1797 in Prague, which was then destroyed, and which was finally published again the year after). It contains the input of Mozart's lying widow, Constanze. Read it please. That 'biography' begins with Niemetscheck's claim to have known and been close to Mozart. When, in fact, Niemetscheck never met Mozart in his whole lifetime ! Niemetsheck's lies (including his claim to have heard Mozart in public performance in Prague) are very typical of so-called early Mozart biographies. Since Niemetscheck never visited Prague once until after the death of Mozart ! Massively distorted, fabulous, fictional episodes of Mozart's supposed musical career are features of the Niemetscheck 'biography' you have here listed for us as proofs. But you do not know this, do you, StLukesguild ?

Please let me educate you on this one issue of F.X. Niemetscheck and his 'biography' of Mozart so that you will not stop wasting the time of readers here and your own.

The fastest way would be for you to visit the following forum for the truth of F.X. Niemtscheck, author of one of the 'expert' works you have just quoted above. Author of what is generally called the earliest Mozart 'biography', in fact. The following link takes you to an article on that subject of F.X.Niemetschek. Its author was the well known writer on musical history Walther Brauneis. So it's highly relevant. Why not read it ? And the article I wish you to read before you post again in 'defence of Mozart' is entitled -

“Franz Xaver Niemetschek: Is his Association with Mozart only Legend?”

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Braunei....rev.Index.pdf

Now, after reading this article (and I can give you 900 more articles if you really wish to be informed) do finally tell us about Mozart's musical education and his musical achievements up until the end of his 12th year. That is, until 1769. Since you have, so far, only confirmed here the fairy story that is W.A. Mozart's musical career. And you've listed 10 works you've never read nor once quoted from.

You will not thank me for telling you these facts. Not for some time. You prefer to describe as a 'troll' those who have studied this subject. Your 'education' forces you to do this. Because, here on this forum, you are showing how ignorant of this subject you are. As everyone can see. You have never once suspected you have been grossly misinformed. In fact, you boast of being 'educated'. Of having expert support. You even describe me as a troll ! Such is your total argument.

As for the other titles you have just quoted, I am more than happy to discuss them one by one. Further showing you are nothing but a lover of fiction who cannot see the wood for the trees. And it shows.

But let's start with the Mozart biography you have given in the above list - that of F.X. Niemetscheck. If this subject gets too hot for you, let us have some evidence from your other sources of the musical education of W.A. Mozart and his achievements up until 1769.Which we are all STILL waiting to hear about from similarly 'expert' sources.

Readers of this thread already see how difficult this subject is for you. They see how absurd your arguments really are. Why not take my advice and join a library ? Then you can begin to answer questions instead of accusing others of being trolls. Since I've been presenting answers to your questions from the start. And am still doing so. But you have done nothing except post a list of books you've never even read.

Try something new. Something really radical. Visit your local library and start reading.


Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

In the words of a famous american:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

---

You are so right. What is unpopular, unfashionable, and inconvenient, is often the most worthy of our appreciation.

So, yes, I completely agree. Please tell this to the dumbed-down consumers of the Mozart myth and to the Austrian tourist industry, the corporate music industry, and to those who manufacture images of Mozart in chocolate and in bronze for the adoring faithful. Mozart is the Fox News of the music industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Check out "The Comte de St. Germain" by Isabel Cooper-Oakley concerning "Myslivecek=Gluck=Comte de Saint Germain=Rousseau" and their relations to prince Lobkowitz (page 33 among others).

On same subject: Check out Tufano, Lucio (2006) Josef Mysliveček e l’esecuzione napoletana dell’Orfeo di Gluck (1774). Hudební věda, 43 (3). pp. 257-279. ISSN 0018-7003 (On Musli-vecek "manipulation, and execution of the score" of Gluck's 1762 piece)

Gluck's last Viennese opera was Paride ed Elena (3.11.1770 Wien B).
All his next works are staged in Paris, France.

Cheers.

---

Yes, Yanni, the manufacture of Mozart involved Gluck, Myslivecek and many others. You are completely correct. It also involved many, many others, including Vanhal and nearly 20 others such as Salieri, Luchesi, and others. I have said this early in my thread here. And, yes, Lobkowitz was one of the principal patrons of Mozart. (And his father before him). Both during his life and after Mozart's death in late 1791. This too has been refered to earlier here and in our exchanges. When the story is fully told I dare to say that your research and mine will be found to agree. And all the evidence agrees with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yes, Yanni, the manufacture of Mozart involved Gluck, Myslivecek and many others. You are completely correct. It also involved many, many others, including Vanhal and nearly 20 others such as Salieri, Luchesi, and others. I have said this early in my thread here. And, yes, Lobkowitz was one of the principal patrons of Mozart. (And his father before him). Both during his life and after Mozart's death in late 1791. This too has been refered to earlier here and in our exchanges. When the story is fully told I dare to say that your research and mine will be found to agree. And all the evidence agrees with this.

---

So, we are back to square 1 (actually my answer #2 to your post #1):

All know "everything" is an illusion, ie nobody is interested to simply learn that Mozart too "was manufactured" and your only chance to fame as an author is if you reveal the identity and intent of the "manufacturer".

Paraphrasing Mervyn King:

"Never in the field of musicology has so much truth been owed by so few to so many"

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

So, we are back to square 1 (actually my answer #2 to your post #1):

All know "everything" is an illusion, ie nobody is interested to simply learn that Mozart too "was manufactured" and your only chance to fame as an author is if you reveal the identity and intent of the "manufacturer".

Paraphrasing Mervyn King:

"Never in the field of musicology has so much truth been owed by so few to so many"

Cheers.

---

I have said from the beginning there are TWO parts to this situation. The first part is to realise that the story of Mozart is nonsense. The second is to know that something else is true. But you cannot appreciate the second part until first you appreciate the first.

The scientific method consists of first testing the 'consensus'. And testing the consensus is exactly what is happening here. In a small way. We are testing the consensus on such things as Mozart's musical education and on 'his' supposed musical achievements. So far, the results have been surprising. Nobody can produce the very 'evidence' they say is available in entire libraries of textbooks.

Now, this is not enough. Maybe they will produce them. But you see that so far nobody has. And this is for a reason. Judge it for yourself.

As for Part 1, I highly recommend that you read what I am writing on this subject. Which is still months away from completion. Because it's a very big subject. There are no 'off the shelf' answers. You will not, and cannot be convinced in short email posts. Part 2 is an attempt to explain what really happened, how, and to show that this version is far more consistent with the facts, with history, and with the documentary evidence.


Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I have said from the beginning there are TWO parts to this situation. The first part is to realise that the story of Mozart is nonsense. The second is to know that something else is true. But you cannot appreciate the second part until first you appreciate the first.

The scientific method consists of first testing the 'consensus'. And testing the consensus is exactly what is happening here. In a small way. We are testing the consensus on such things as Mozart's musical education and on 'his' supposed musical achievements. So far, the results have been surprising. Nobody can produce the very 'evidence' they say is available in entire libraries of textbooks.

Now, this is not enough. Maybe they will produce them. But you see that so far nobody has. And this is for a reason. Judge it for yourself.

As for Part 1, I highly recommend that you read what I am writing on this subject. Which is still months away from completion. Because it's a very big subject. There are no 'off the shelf' answers. You will not, and cannot be convinced in short email posts. Part 2 is an attempt to explain what really happened, how, and to show that this version is far more consistent with the facts, with history, and with the documentary evidence.


Thank You

---

Continuing on the "Mervyn King" parallel:

When the few owe "so much" (of anything) to the "so many" for so long, simpleminded admissions (or "scientific methods" intended to prove a minor part of "the story") that "the debt" exists, is not what the public (who has already reached their concensus and expects nothing else but an early settlement) asks for!

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Continuing on the "Mervyn King" parallel:

When the few owe "so much" (of anything) to the "so many" for so long, simpleminded admissions (or "scientific methods" intended to prove a minor part of "the story") that "the debt" exists, is not what the public (who has already reached their concensus and expects nothing else but an early settlement) asks for!

Cheers.

---

Yes, and since when was reality determined by a circular argument ? The scientific method is very well described right here in this statement -

Try this recent example - from 2 minutes 08 seconds until 6 minutes 40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yes, and since when was reality determined by a circular argument ? The scientific method is very well described right here in this statement -

Try this recent example - from 2 minutes 08 seconds until 6 minutes 40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

---

I never doubted your method(to focus on the "Mozart" detail while falsely accusing the wrong "manufacturer") Robert, I simply paralleled it to the circular arguments used by the majority of the "talking heads".

...and I never did install speakers so I cannot hear the contents of the suggested video above.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

I never doubted your method(to focus on the "Mozart" detail while falsely accusing the wrong "manufacturer") Robert, I simply paralleled it to the circular arguments used by the majority of the "talking heads".

...and I never did install speakers so I cannot hear the contents of the suggested video above.

Cheers.

---

Yanni,

The truth is the 'experts' have gone silent. They have no evidence to show the musical education of Mozart. Nor can they show us the music supposedly composed by Mozart up until 1769.

I've asked, over, and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

The truth is the 'experts' have gone silent. They have no evidence to show the musical education of Mozart. Nor can they show us the music supposedly composed by Mozart up until 1769.

I've asked, over, and over again.

---

But is this "....the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (as any UK judge would ask you thus establishing a priori you are lying).

BTW You never did tell me your expert italian friends views on my findings on Cocchi!

Cheers!