The Manufacture of Mozart

Stlukesguild,

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

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

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

Can you confirm the same is true of the first half dozen piano concertos of 'Mozart'

Can you confirm the fraud of the opera 'La Finta Semplice' (1768) which, after official investigation was found to be composed by others, and not by W.A. Mozart ! Thus cancelling an earlier commission of an opera given to him by the Emperor and Empress of Austria in Vienna and sending Mozart and his father home empty-handed. In shame. (This after weeks of him and his father being laughed at as musical frauds by the musicians in Vienna) ?

I could continue for many, many pages with the same sort of questions, but let's start there. Should be easy for you to answer. This will take us up to Mozart at the age of 12. And I promise to ask similar questions about the later years of his official life and career if you reply.

Let me end with your own words -

'the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories'.

The Mozart you believe in is a fairy story for adults. A fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but so say the actual facts. The documentary and historical evidences. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

As for the 'Bach arrangements' made by 'Mozart' they are not by Mozart at all. Nor are the 'Handel arrangements' They were actually made by Starzer, Luchesi and others. (Starzer also attended the musical gatherings of van Sweiten in Vienna where some of Bach's works finally came to Vienna. They remained unpublished and unperformed). Mozart was falsely attributed with these Bach arrangements and this is already widely acknowledged even in Mozart publications.

The number of performances of music by J.S. Bach in Vienna during the last decade of Mozart's life (1781-1791) is easily remembered. It was ZERO. As it was during the whole decade before Mozart's arrival there. Not forgetting the fact there was no performance of any work by J.S. Bach even during the decade after Mozart's death in Vienna also ! Ah, those musical Viennese, right ?

So much for the facts of history !

Regards


Thanks

Robert

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

Mozart studied music with his father... a mediocre composer, but a musician not exactly ignorant of music. Perhaps you can tell us where J.S. Bach studied music... oh yes, under the tutelage of his father initially, and later under his brother Johann Christoph. Perhaps you can also tell us where Picasso studied art? Oh yes... the answer to that would be that Picasso never had any real formal art education beyond that received from his father. He was accepted into the academy but quickly dropped out.

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

Again... under what recognized teacher did Bach develop his mastery of music? Under whom did William Blake develop the skills needed to become one of the greatest poets and visual artists in history? He never even attended public school. His only formal education was training as an apprentice under a print-maker. Where did Monet learn painting? The reality is that formal education is not the only route to knowledge. Most of those here will tell you that I know more than a little about literature, and yet I have had no formal literary education. My formal education was in art. However I have the ability to read and I can turn to others who have the knowledge or skills that I desire.

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

Whether I can prove through documentation the composition of any of Mozart's symphonies in no way supports your theory. Your theory is the one that challenges the accepted facts. It is YOU who must prove that Mozart did not write any of his symphonies, but you have not been able to convince the least musicologist or music historian. I can spout off some inane theory about how Picasso was really a Lesbian Albino from Yugoslavia and his paintings were done in secret by Elvis who was really Catherine the Great and I can support this by all sorts of fraudulent and misinterpreted documentation but it is the experts in art not literature whom I must convince... and you have repeatedly failed to do so with the experts in music. At the same time, whatever documentation is offered by those who do have expertise in this area will undoubtedly be dismissed by you as yet one more example of the grandiose conspiracy. As it stands, what you offer is but a comically diverting bit of fiction.

I could continue for many, many pages with the same sort of questions, but let's start there. Should be easy for you to answer. This will take us up to Mozart at the age of 12. And I promise to ask similar questions about the later years of his official life and career if you reply.

And if such answers are so easily proven why do you waste your time trying to convince members of a LITERATURE site who largely lack any real formal education in terms of music or music history let alone experience in researching historical documentation regarding music? Or is it because your ideas are so easily dismissed by those who do have such experience and knowledge? If you cannot convince the experts and the professionals let's attempt to convince the amateurs? Yet even most amateurs recognize absurdity when they see it.

The Mozart you believe in is a fairy story for adults. A fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but so say the actual facts. The documentary and historical evidences. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

Again... I don't need to prove differently. I am not an expert in musical history or musicology, and I am not asking an audience to believe a wild conspiracy theory that goes against all the facts passed on by those who are indeed experts in the field. You are the one who is asking us to suspend our belief... to challenge the accepted facts... and yet you have not convinced a single true expert in the field. Where are all the dozens of scholarly research papers and books upon your theory that would certainly accompany any theory that had convinced even a marginal few? There are dozens of such books confronting the Shakespeare attribution question. But then all this proves is that your theory is being suppressed by a vast conspiracy of the Illuminati, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Mormons, the The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, The Brotherhood of Eternal Love, and the the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.:lol:

Stlukesguild writes -


Mozart studied music with his father... a mediocre composer, but a musician not exactly ignorant of music.

No, that is not true. In fact, Leopold Mozart, was a failed student of law at the University of Salzburg. He was a liar, a fraud, and a member of the fraternities who masterminded his son's fraudulent career. Leopold Mozart was employed (eventually) as a 4th violinist in the orchestra of the Salzburg court - the lowest position possible ! And held that post for 12 years before he became a 3rd violinist. He became 'deputy kapellmeister' only weeks before he left for a 2 year tour of Europe ! His musical abilities were zero. The award was given to him purely to help the status of his son on tour. And bitterly resented in Salzburg. He published, in the year of Wolfgang's birth (1756) a violin treatise which had earlier been stolen from the Italian virtuoso Tartini. Leopold Mozart was a fraud. He taught nobody composition in his entire life, was never a teacher of harmony and orchestration in his entire life, and acted as a local agent for the sale of music with several music publishers. (Again, arranged by the fraternities who invented Wolfgang Mozart's career). Can it possibly be more clear ? Leopold himself admits that his son knew 'nothing' of composition or of music in a letter he wrote to Padre Martini in Italy from Salzburg, at the time when his son left for Italy. And the musical ignorance of Mozart was also confirmed by Mozart's employer in Salzburg, Prince Archbishop Firmian, who said the very same thing ! It too is refered to in that letter. Mozart knew NOTHING of composition and NOTHING was taught to him of music by his father. Such are the facts. Let's stop inventing things ! And do learn to be accountable for what you teach.

On Bach -

The deep study of music by J.S. Bach is described in all biographies of J.S. Bach. And yes, he studied under his brother and under many others of his time. If you fail to see the numerous references just let me know.

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

I asked -

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

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

So the actual, documentary evidence for the musical 'genius' of young Mozart (which includes 6 piano concertos actually by others) is nil. So says the actual documentary evidence. Unless you show us differently. This fiasco also includes the fraud of the opera 'La Finta Semplice' of 1768 in Vienna. A farce which led to an investigation and no payment.

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

You are believing a fairy story. But this fairy story is so popular you are amazed anyone should ever ask you to prove it correct. But you believe it all the same. And we have now examined Mozart up until his 12th year. Let's try later if you like ?

Regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Show us the evidence !

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's hilarious !

Thanks

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

---

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

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

Please do not personalise your arguments

and

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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

You can use other threads, can't you ?

---

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

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

The evidence is right there beneath your feet !



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

Pearl fisher's latest pick:

"The true apostles never know doubt"

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

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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

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

---

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

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

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

The choice is yours. And mine.

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

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

Musicology,

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

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