Mozart in English

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Hi Patrick Bateman,

Thanks for saying you have developed a 'rather rapacious obsession of Mozart'. I will reply with that confession of yours in mind. (It's not unusual. In fact, it gets you lots of Brownie points in high places).

It seems the entire 'musical' and pseudo-musical world has a 'rather rapacious obsession for Mozart'. Since he as a phenomenon literally dominates what is taught, believed, eulogised, performed, published, sponsored, patronised etc. on the history of western music (so-called). Doesn't he ? Yes, he does. And since this is a plain fact, I might start there. Let's do so in the light of that fact.

There are teachers, professors and musicologists who are quite happy with this grotesque, even absurd situation. It pays their mortgages. And I myself was a 'Mozartean' for many years. It's difficult not to be, after all. (For me, it was a case of 'When I was a child, I thought as a child... etc').

I would first like to share with you a definition of what is called 'Cognitive Dissonance' -

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously

I mention this as a possibility because you say you plan to visit Salzburg and Vienna this September. And because you in your post are willing to consider things which will clash with your 'education'. So that's fair notice, isn't it ?

During your visit to both places (Salzburg and Vienna) you may make enquiries on 'who taught Mozart music' ? If anyone. Or, on such basic questions as, 'Why was Mozart famous in 1763 and 1764' ? But, since nobody has had any answers, you will of course believe what everyone else does - that he must have been a 'genius'. Since his father said so, didn't he (?) as did all the fraternities and patrons of his career. Despite the fact he never held a full time musical post, never studied music, and has no real evidence of being a virtuoso performer at any time. Which are facts that become ever more obvious when we examine the musical and biographical facts of the case for his whole career. Without exception.

You are trained to attribute to W.A. Mozart a series of high quality musical works which, in actual fact, he never actually composed. But you are not to know this. Nobody has dared to suggest this to you. And it may shock you. Though being oblivious of this fact is quite normal within the cult of W.A Mozart. In fact, this new 'musicology' a la Mozart can gloss over virtually every fact on his official career. And it does so routinely, in the name of 'culture', 'education', and downright nonsense. The history of musical attribution to Mozart is itself a laughable absurdity. This too you may care to examine. Nearly 100 symphonies of 'Mozart' is only one example, of which, today, less than 20 are seriously linked to him. How is that for a fact ?

You speak of musical 'influence'. Well, as someone who describes yourself as being 'obsessed' by Mozart, it is surely fair to say you are obsessed with his myth and are hugely influenced by it. Though, in fact, there is no period of Mozart's entire life that is free from lies, fakery, falsification, exaggeration and wholesale musical nonsense. This is the real truth of it. I assure you of this fact. And you can see it so year after year after year. Starting with the work known as K1 and ending with K626. If this too is OK with you, fine. Otherwise, forgive those who laugh at this blatantly Babylonian counterfeit of 'musical history' that is the Mozartean cult and those who may show you, on case after case, that 3,000 other composers wrote music in that century on which you have virtually no knowledge or interest.

Welcome to the artificially manufactured pantheon of western musical 'history' ! Why, you even celebrate its construction !

(Mozart was not the only fraud composer. Others included Handel, Josef Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven. But, to make a case in point let me finish with this simple point on Mozart. Do you know ONE piece of music by Mozart which you 'know' was composed by him ? And are you aware of any arguments why he did NOT compose it )?

If your answer to this question is 'yes' you deserve credit for having avoided the pitfalls of cognitive dissonance and are in a good state to put away the childish nonsense that is the Mozart myth. I strongly recommend you call your beliefs on Mozart in to question. Since there are tons of reasons.

You love, in fact, the music of an industry that was created for W.A. Mozart. Which, of course, is your right to do. But I must remind you it will cause you cognitive dissonance if you ever call his myth and the attribution of this music to Mozart into serious question. But please, please, see both sides of the story. The evidence already posted on this thread for his early years is refuted by nothing. Because it is the evidence. That's how musicology works. And you welcome this, don't you ? The alternative is more infantile silliness.

In the final analysis, do not be dogmatic about a myth which started with Leopold Mozart and which has been carried on for 200 years by corporate and fraternal nonsense. Sponsored and patronised by the controllers of 'education' and 'culture' with zero cross examination of its track record. Since the actual facts are clear. They are available today as never before. And they point, conclusively, to the fact, that children love fairy stories. They depend upon them, in fact. Remove the 'stereo spectacles', examine both sides, and you will see things very clearly.

May I suggest you examine the theatre score of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' held today at the Austrian National Library. A score used at the premiere of that opera in Vienna on 1st May 1786 which is riddled with crude musical and other errors. It's not music by Mozart. It's a hastily made 'arrangement' of already existing music. Not by him. With newly added Italian text by Lorenzo da Ponte. Predating by many years the commercially available 'autograph' today being sold by the Packard Institute. Why not examine that score in Vienna for yourself ? The 'experts' never seem to do so. Is that an amazing fact, or what ? Since none of these Mozartean 'experts' have done so in almost 200 years. This is typical. And it's a prime example of Mozart mythology.

But hey, I don't want to ruin your fairy story. I want only to rescue you from a paradigm. And which systematically obscures from view the facts of the case. I think the correct word is 'occultist'. But that sort of nonsense has no future. Welcome to musicology !

Best wishes

---

You haven't touched upon a single objection I brought up. You just (most likely) copied and pasted - for the most part - an already saved script from your word processor.

Your conjecture and flimsy quasi-corroborative 'evidence' refutes nothing. How can it be that evidence and research conducted by myriad of other biographers and musicologists to support Mozart's authenticity is erroneous and cannot serve to repudiate your research, but yet you have the authority to disregard anything that disagrees with your spurious assertions?

It's perfectly charming to be controversial but a lot of your suppositions rest on a slightly odd signature here and there, his celebrity and the fact he couldn't find a permanent position outside of Salzburg.

You claim there is no evidence for him even being a competent performer. Well I would think 1,000 florins stipend in the court of Prince bishop Colloredo would attest to the fact he was an consummate performer. Yes this post is a rather weak one but let's not forget that hostility Maria Theresa had for the Mozart's once Wolfgang outgrew his child prodigy status.

The Habspurgs had a broad influence throughout Europe and Maria Theresa's distaste for the Mozart's prevented him from ascended to a position at a more prestigious court. Not to mention the fact that the most sought after positions in a European court almsot invariably went to italians at the time.

Mozart compounded the problem of work by his penchant for the Weber family particularly Aloysia and later Constanze. His father continually berated him for his frivolous attitude and not taking his career and future seriously.

Mozart derided the aristocracy throughout his life and was conscious of their supercilious attitude towards him and was often met with indifference when the child prodigy novelty wore off.

His early years as a travelling phenomenon obviously affected his reputation and image when he finally gained liberty from the controlling Leopold. His early role as a virtuoso in a travelling circus, performing concerts all around Europe led to him being scoffed at by the aristocracy and most poignantly Maria Theresa.

Anyone who knows the society of the mid to late 18th century will understand that talent and innate genius takes a back seat to breeding, status and what is essentially marketablilty to the upper classes. Unfortunately Wolfgang was bereft of the latter 3. Which accounts for his inability to find employment suitable for his talents.

Mozart would lament in private correspondents and letters to his father regarding the reluctance for anyone to take on a musician of his own genius. It seems that -although arrogance or megalomania might be a possibility -a man who is devoid of real raw talent would lament his ineptitude and resign himself to the obscurity he deserves. But rather he and leopold would accrue debts and spend countless money on travelling around Europe looking for the position his genius rightfully deserved.

Leopold in his letters and in person always pushed Wolfgang to travel and find a position of prestige in a European court. Even when a relatively handsome paid job was always in Salzburg. It seems that if he was nothign special a job like that would satisfactory. Instead they spent obscene money on manmy journeys around Europe and risked the wrath of their patron to take leaves of absence to travel around Europe (representing the Prince Bishop abroad in the process)

and the Princ eBishop was only too happy grant permission for these trips (osten not suspending their stipend) so that they could spread Salzburg's prestige. It seems that if Mozart was a mediocre musician not only would Wolfgang - and often Leopold as well since you know both at one time were in the pay of the prince bishop - not be able to take such frequent leaves of his post but the prince bishop would surely not be so tolerant as to 1. employ a poor musician 2. allow him to represent Salzburg in Europe.

Patrick,

Unless you can say with honesty you have examined the actual evidence I am not surprised by your reply. You see no problems in the Mozart myth although dozens have already been posted on his early years. Right on this thread.

Please write again if you have a specific question to ask. And then I will give you a specific answer. How about that ?

But let me ask you a question. You say the Archbishop of Salzburg allowed Mozart to represent Salzburg when on tour. Can you give us a single example of Mozart doing so ? Just one ? I will ask this easy question since you are sure it is true. Let's have your answer please. What I want (shock, horror !) is some actual evidence of Mozart 'representing' Salzburg at any time in his 7 years of childhood touring. Not a difficult question, is it ? But (I predict) one you will never be able to answer. Since Mozart 'represented' nobody. Except the Babylonian mythmakers of western musical 'history'.


Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

You haven't touched upon a single objection I brought up. You just (most likely) copied and pasted - for the most part - an already saved script from your word processor.

Your conjecture and flimsy quasi-corroborative 'evidence' refutes nothing. How can it be that evidence and research conducted by myriad of other biographers and musicologists to support Mozart's authenticity is erroneous and cannot serve to repudiate your research, but yet you have the authority to disregard anything that disagrees with your spurious assertions?

It's perfectly charming to be controversial but a lot of your suppositions rest on a slightly odd signature here and there, his celebrity and the fact he couldn't find a permanent position outside of Salzburg.

You claim there is no evidence for him even being a competent performer. Well I would think 1,000 florins stipend in the court of Prince bishop Colloredo would attest to the fact he was an consummate performer. Yes this post is a rather weak one but let's not forget that hostility Maria Theresa had for the Mozart's once Wolfgang outgrew his child prodigy status.

The Habspurgs had a broad influence throughout Europe and Maria Theresa's distaste for the Mozart's prevented him from ascended to a position at a more prestigious court. Not to mention the fact that the most sought after positions in a European court almsot invariably went to italians at the time.

Mozart compounded the problem of work by his penchant for the Weber family particularly Aloysia and later Constanze. His father continually berated him for his frivolous attitude and not taking his career and future seriously.

Mozart derided the aristocracy throughout his life and was conscious of their supercilious attitude towards him and was often met with indifference when the child prodigy novelty wore off.

His early years as a travelling phenomenon obviously affected his reputation and image when he finally gained liberty from the controlling Leopold. His early role as a virtuoso in a travelling circus, performing concerts all around Europe led to him being scoffed at by the aristocracy and most poignantly Maria Theresa.

Anyone who knows the society of the mid to late 18th century will understand that talent and innate genius takes a back seat to breeding, status and what is essentially marketablilty to the upper classes. Unfortunately Wolfgang was bereft of the latter 3. Which accounts for his inability to find employment suitable for his talents.

Mozart would lament in private correspondents and letters to his father regarding the reluctance for anyone to take on a musician of his own genius. It seems that -although arrogance or megalomania might be a possibility -a man who is devoid of real raw talent would lament his ineptitude and resign himself to the obscurity he deserves. But rather he and leopold would accrue debts and spend countless money on travelling around Europe looking for the position his genius rightfully deserved.

Leopold in his letters and in person always pushed Wolfgang to travel and find a position of prestige in a European court. Even when a relatively handsome paid job was always in Salzburg. It seems that if he was nothign special a job like that would satisfactory. Instead they spent obscene money on manmy journeys around Europe and risked the wrath of their patron to take leaves of absence to travel around Europe (representing the Prince Bishop abroad in the process)

and the Princ eBishop was only too happy grant permission for these trips (osten not suspending their stipend) so that they could spread Salzburg's prestige. It seems that if Mozart was a mediocre musician not only would Wolfgang - and often Leopold as well since you know both at one time were in the pay of the prince bishop - not be able to take such frequent leaves of his post but the prince bishop would surely not be so tolerant as to 1. employ a poor musician 2. allow him to represent Salzburg in Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Patrick,

Unless you can say with honesty you have examined the actual evidence I am not surprised by your reply. You see no problems in the Mozart myth although dozens have already been posted on his early years. Right on this thread.

Please write again if you have a specific question to ask. And then I will give you a specific answer. How about that ?

But let me ask you a question. You say the Archbishop of Salzburg allowed Mozart to represent Salzburg when on tour. Can you give us a single example of Mozart doing so ? Just one ? I will ask this easy question since you are sure it is true. Let's have your answer please. What I want (shock, horror !) is some actual evidence of Mozart 'representing' Salzburg at any time in his 7 years of childhood touring. Not a difficult question, is it ? But (I predict) one you will never be able to answer. Since Mozart 'represented' nobody. Except the Babylonian mythmakers of western musical 'history'.


Thank You

---

Way to circumvent a boat load of damning questions!

I would like to see your 'hard evidence' that proves that Mozart did not represent Salzburg during his travels and tours whether or not it was at the behest of the Prince bishop. Whether or not he was formally representing the town the fact is that as a court musician of a Habsburg if he was performing his or others' compositions then he was representing the court of the Prince Bishop. That is fact.
If you admit he toured abroad and travelled tirelessly for the position he so desired and deserved and if you acknowledge he was musician for the court in Salzburg then the only sensible reply is to agree with what I have stated.

Robert's strategy has long been to avoid any question that challenges his theory and then bombard you with a pile of questions referring you to what he asserts are legitimate documents (all ignored or covered up by experts in musicology). You note that he has been around... all over the musical forums... and been banned from all of them as a result of his posts. He survives here as a brilliant example of post-modern fiction.:smilewinkgrin:

Nissen, Constance and the Kochs* created the Mozart myth. Relative evidence has been presented here that Nissen WAS Mozart (as first observed by Henkel on 'their' same handwriting).

It's not just Mozart and his contemporary and previous music masters that are fake however, the whole 18th century history is a total fraud (or a masterpiece of art), both facts underlined by the 'unknown' identities of the 'Opera Phantom' and the 'immortal count de Saint Germain', their myths protected by Mozart's own.

*Including Ludwig 'Ritter von Köchel' whose wiki biography conveniently ommits his parents and or other Koch links.

Patrick Bateman,

I am still waiting for your evidence Mozart was 'representing Salzburg' during his travels and tours. And I have asked for some evidence of this.

It seems you are (as predicted) entering in to a phase of cognitive dissonance.Since you cannot answer this simple question. Care to try again ? Can't make it more easy, can I ?

Ask me a specific question on Mozart and I will certainly answer you but do not pretend that you have answered. I have asked you only one question and you cannot answer it. That is the plain and simple fact.

Please give us proof W.A. Mozart was representing Salzburg at any time during the 7 years of his childhood tours of Europe. When, in fact, he was doing no such thing. We want the evidence.

Request Number 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

Way to circumvent a boat load of damning questions!

I would like to see your 'hard evidence' that proves that Mozart did not represent Salzburg during his travels and tours whether or not it was at the behest of the Prince bishop. Whether or not he was formally representing the town the fact is that as a court musician of a Habsburg if he was performing his or others' compositions then he was representing the court of the Prince Bishop. That is fact.
If you admit he toured abroad and travelled tirelessly for the position he so desired and deserved and if you acknowledge he was musician for the court in Salzburg then the only sensible reply is to agree with what I have stated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Patrick Bateman,

I am still waiting for your evidence Mozart was 'representing Salzburg' during his travels and tours. And I have asked for some evidence of this.

It seems you are (as predicted) entering in to a phase of cognitive dissonance.Since you cannot answer this simple question. Care to try again ? Can't make it more easy, can I ?

Ask me a specific question on Mozart and I will certainly answer you but do not pretend that you have answered. I have asked you only one question and you cannot answer it. That is the plain and simple fact.

Please give us proof W.A. Mozart was representing Salzburg at any time during the 7 years of his childhood tours of Europe. When, in fact, he was doing no such thing. We want the evidence.

Request Number 2.

---

You struggle and refuse to answer general never mind specific questions.

I was referring more to his late teenage years and early 20s when I spoke of his representing his hometown rahter than when Leopold was touring his 2 gifted children around Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Robert's strategy has long been to avoid any question that challenges his theory and then bombard you with a pile of questions referring you to what he asserts are legitimate documents (all ignored or covered up by experts in musicology). You note that he has been around... all over the musical forums... and been banned from all of them as a result of his posts. He survives here as a brilliant example of post-modern fiction.:smilewinkgrin:

---

But the real joy lies in little side notes such as this one:

Quote:

---

Mozart was not the only fraud composer. Others included Handel, Josef Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven.

---

It is at this point that any floating reader who was ever remotely in the smallest of danger of being sucked into the "The Great Mozart Conspiracy" (the point of which I am still not certain) comprehends.

If I may, a word of sales advice - if you want to convert people to believing something (and to be fair many people will believe anything) stick to one major conspiracy theory at a time (i.e. tackle Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, the moon landing/911 at a later date) and do so where you have a chance of succeeding. Perhaps try posting some comments on places like You Tube if you haven't already done so? You'll get some joy there no doubt. Also, why don't you try making a book about it as a popular thriller? Dan Brown did and look at him now.$$$$$$$:crazy:$$$$$$$ However, I suspect that there are less gullible people around on Lit Net.

Patrick,

You now tell us you are refering to Mozart's 'late teenage years and early 20's'. When, you say, ''Mozart was representing his home town of Salzburg''. Thanks for being more specific. But here too you are talking nonsense. (With respect).

You admit you have no evidence of Mozart 'representing Salzburg' before that date. Do you ? I am glad we seem to agree about that.

His 'late teenage years' would take us from, say 1773 onwards. (When he was 17).

OK, let me ask the same question again. (These childhood years have obviously not helped you). Can you provide evidence that W.A. Mozart was ''representing Salzburg'' from 1773 onwards ? Waiting for your evidence he did so from around 1773 onwards.

This will make interesting reading and your reply is much awaited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

You struggle and refuse to answer general never mind specific questions.

I was referring more to his late teenage years and early 20s when I spoke of his representing his hometown rahter than when Leopold was touring his 2 gifted children around Europe.

---

Mozart is a fairy story for those who love Babylonian versions of music 'history'. This thread contains numerous articles showing the fakery, exaggerations and downright fictions of Mozart's early career. Answered by nobody.

I repeat that any specific question on Mozart will be answered. We see that the myth makers have no answers when we ask them questions. What's new ? LOL

Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Robert's strategy has long been to avoid any question that challenges his theory and then bombard you with a pile of questions referring you to what he asserts are legitimate documents (all ignored or covered up by experts in musicology). You note that he has been around... all over the musical forums... and been banned from all of them as a result of his posts. He survives here as a brilliant example of post-modern fiction.:smilewinkgrin:

---

Hi Neely,

You are right. This thread is dedicated to the fake career of W.A.Mozart. You notice how simple questions on the official version are never answered. And you see how various articles are already on this thread which expose the lies, exaggerations and falsehoods of his early 'musical career'. Answered by nobody. As usual. The mythmakers are suffering from cognitive dissonance and are already out of their depth.

A pantheon of great composers of which Mozart is a prime example. All products of fake 'history'. With the actual evidence ignored. That's real smart, isn't it ?

So, one side presents the evidence and the other side shrugs their shoulders and cannot answer it.

Does this sound fair to you ?

Fairy stories do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

But the real joy lies in little side notes such as this one:



It is at this point that any floating reader who was ever remotely in the smallest of danger of being sucked into the "The Great Mozart Conspiracy" (the point of which I am still not certain) comprehends.

If I may, a word of sales advice - if you want to convert people to believing something (and to be fair many people will believe anything) stick to one major conspiracy theory at a time (i.e. tackle Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, the moon landing/911 at a later date) and do so where you have a chance of succeeding. Perhaps try posting some comments on places like You Tube if you haven't already done so? You'll get some joy there no doubt. Also, why don't you try making a book about it as a popular thriller? Dan Brown did and look at him now.$$$$$$$:crazy:$$$$$$$ However, I suspect that there are less gullible people around on Lit Net.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Patrick,

You now tell us you are refering to Mozart's 'late teenage years and early 20's'. When, you say, ''Mozart was representing his home town of Salzburg''. Thanks for being more specific. But here too you are talking nonsense. (With respect).

You admit you have no evidence of Mozart 'representing Salzburg' before that date. Do you ? I am glad we seem to agree about that.

His 'late teenage years' would take us from, say 1773 onwards. (When he was 17).

OK, let me ask the same question again. (These childhood years have obviously not helped you). Can you provide evidence that W.A. Mozart was ''representing Salzburg'' from 1773 onwards ? Waiting for your evidence he did so from around 1773 onwards.

This will make interesting reading and your reply is much awaited.

---

In spring of 1781 Wolfgang was in Munich and had exceeded the 6 week leave granted him by Colloredo.

Colloredo was in Vienna to be with his ailing father and (since Wolfgang was still receiving his stipend and had made a handsome amount from the opera Idomeneo. Colloredo ordered Wolfgang to come to Vienna and perform concerts so that he could essentially 'show him off' which Wolfgang wa sobliged to do. But afterward he still refused to return with the other court musicians to Salzburg. Wolfgang felt that his luck was changing and that he hate great opportunity in Vienna after success with Idomeneo in Munich and after the death of the hostile Maria Theresa.

Wolfgang petitioned for his resignation from his post in Salzburg to be formally accepted but by this point Colloredo was so infuriated with Wolfgang's actions and his episodes of impropriety when among other Habsburg royals that he was intent no to grant this secession and therefore make it impossible for mozart to gain a position at another court (since it would indecorous and out of the question for a royal to accept a musician into his court who was already still in the employment of another.)

My congrats for the royal wedding, Robert, along with best wishes, longevity etc.

In the Westminster abbey, no less, where babylonian Haydn enjoyed babylonian Handelbach's commemoration, 220 years ago.

Patrick,

Is this the best you can do ?

An un-named source ? That's poor stuff, isn't it ?

For your information and education, Mozart in late 1780/early 1781 was NOT 'on tour' in Munich. Nor was he representing Salzburg. He had been there in Munich for several months already (arriving there during the winter of 1780 with no music ready for rehearsal) before he was given a further 6 weeks stay there in early 1781. The disastrous preparations and premiere of that opera 'Idomeneo' is clearly a subject you have never examined. Furthermore, the commission to write 'Idomeneo' (whose music is not actually by Mozart) did not come from Salzburg. And Mozart was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in Munich at any time. Nor was he, as said, on tour. Nor did he perform in Munich. He was, yet again, being granted permission to have a giant stay away from Salzburg and never once claimed to be 'representing' Salzburg. Nor did anyone else say differently at any time. Nor was he ever paid for 'composing' that opera (Idomeneo). Because, in truth, he never composed it.

He was still on the staff of the Salzburg Hofkapelle. As was his father. But he was certainly not 'representing' them. There is not a shred of evidence he was in Munich representing Salzburg. Nor any from any of his many musical tours that he was 'representing' the Salzburg Hofkapelle. He was of course representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who wanted to make him an iconic composer. And who did so. Several months after this opera fiasco in Munich he came to Vienna. After a few weeks of which he (officially) became a freelance composer. Having never, at any time till then, represented in any capacity whatsoever the musical court of Salzburg. If you can show us differently, please do so. Nor did W.A. Mozart, during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood, give a single concert in Salzburg. He was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in any sense. He was, as said, from the time of his childhood onwards until the day of his death representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who manufactured his career.

If, however, you can show us differently, please do. With some evidence. The entire touring career of Mozart has NOTHING to do with him 'representing' Salzburg. Indeed, nobody in Salzburg knew what all the fuss was about. The boy had never studied anything and had spent zero time at school. He was 'representing' only the fairy story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

In spring of 1781 Wolfgang was in Munich and had exceeded the 6 week leave granted him by Colloredo.

Colloredo was in Vienna to be with his ailing father and (since Wolfgang was still receiving his stipend and had made a handsome amount from the opera Idomeneo. Colloredo ordered Wolfgang to come to Vienna and perform concerts so that he could essentially 'show him off' which Wolfgang wa sobliged to do. But afterward he still refused to return with the other court musicians to Salzburg. Wolfgang felt that his luck was changing and that he hate great opportunity in Vienna after success with Idomeneo in Munich and after the death of the hostile Maria Theresa.

Wolfgang petitioned for his resignation from his post in Salzburg to be formally accepted but by this point Colloredo was so infuriated with Wolfgang's actions and his episodes of impropriety when among other Habsburg royals that he was intent no to grant this secession and therefore make it impossible for mozart to gain a position at another court (since it would indecorous and out of the question for a royal to accept a musician into his court who was already still in the employment of another.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Patrick,

Is this the best you can do ?

An un-named source ? That's poor stuff, isn't it ?

For your information and education, Mozart in late 1780/early 1781 was NOT on tour in Munich. Nor was he representing Salzburg. He had been there for several months already (arriving during the winter of 1780 with no music ready for rehearsal) before he was given a further 6 weeks in early 1781. The disastrous preparations and premiere of that opera 'Idomeneo' is clearly a subject you have never examined. Furthermore, the commission to write 'Idomeneo' (whose music is not actually by Mozart) did not come from Salzburg. And Mozart was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in Munich. Nor was he on tour. Nor did he perform. He was, yet again, being granted permission to have a giant stay away from Salzburg and never once claimed to be 'representing' Salzburg. Nor did anyone else say differently. Nor was he ever paid for 'composing' that opera (Idomeneo).

He was still on the staff of the Salzburg Hofkapelle. But he was certainly not 'representing' them. There is not a shred of evidence he was in Munich representing Salzburg. Nor any from any tour that the was representing the Salzburg Hofkapelle. He was representing W.A. Mozart and the fraternities who wanted to make him an iconic composer. Several months after this opera fiasco in Munich he came to Vienna. After a few wees of which he (officially) became a freelance composer. Having never, at any time till then, represented in any capacity whatsoever the musical court of Salzburg. Nor did W.A. Mozart, during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood, give a single concert to Salzburg. He was NOT 'representing' Salzburg in any sense.

---

Are you a complete ****tard??

I am not specifically talking about him formally representing Salzburg and trying to win the town and Prince Bishop prestige. He was a court musician from Salzburg. Everything he did, every note he played, every commission he fulfilled was a reflection on Salzburg.

To say Idomeneo was a disaster is preposterous. Yes it only endured 3 performances that year but there is no shred of evidence that speaks of it being a great success or an epic failure.

We can only discern how it was received from a scarce few documents that offer some subjective opinions of contemporaries (mainly those involved in the production) On the whole the opera was praised and any serious criticism was likely due to the strange and new styles of music within the opera.
The singers found it to contain some of the most beautiful music they ever heard.

You still haven't addressed my evidence of Wolfgang's representing bishop and Salzaburg in Vienna at Colloredo's behest.


And the only evidence you provide is your dogmatic tone.

You have shown nothing to corroborate your charming little fiction

Thank you Yanni,

I am not a royal watcher myself. But, speaking of auspicious weddings -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oldsmiths.html

How touching !!

(This one got far less news coverage). The bloodlines are in full production in Babylonia !!

'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories'. (GWB)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

My congrats for the royal wedding, Robert, along with best wishes, longevity etc.

In the Westminster abbey, no less, where babylonian Haydn enjoyed babylonian Handelbach's commemoration, 220 years ago.

---

Patrick,

Thank you for your highly intelligent post.

And you are going to provide us with a bill board, an advertisement, an example, a proof (just one) of W.A. Mozart 'representing' Salzburg, aren't you ? From any time in his entire career. We are still waiting for even one piece of evidence. We have already abandoned his childhood and youth because that produces zero evidence. So much for the real purpose of 7 years of childhood touring, if the reason was to bring credit to Salzburg !!! (Silence - Commerical Break). There must surely be lots of such proofs from 1773 onwards, right ? Pity we can't find a single example also, isn't it ? Not one.

'Idomeneo' (1781) and aged 25 was a total disaster. It was a farce. For example, Mozart was never paid for 'composing' it (unless, of course, you have some evidence otherwise). Nor have you read local newspaper reports of it being staged there from the time. The records of who was paid what in the months leading up to this farce still exist today in Munich. Why not read them ? There is however no record of W.A. Mozart being paid to compose that opera in Munich in those records. Unless, of course, you can show us differently. All very strange, isn't it ?

The Archbishops of Salzburg (and there were several) colluded in this fairy story of a manufactured Salzburg musical genius. It was very Babylonian. They allowed his father and himself (and his sister also) years of paid absence from Salzburg with neither of those children ever having learned composition, music theory, performance on keyboard or even an ordinary education during their entire life in Salzburg. Strange also, yes ? This is what we should expect, of course, isn't it ? Nor is there a single record of a public musical concert ever given by W.A. Mozart in Salzburg before the public. Unless you can show us differently. Strange, yes ? He who was 'representing Salzburg' didn't even perform in Salzburg !! And we find, in fact, even as late as 1770 (at the age of 14) faked music exams at Bolgona in Italy. Already given on this thread. And a series of musical works being repeatedly and falsely attributed to Mozart which, in fact, he never wrote. This continues all of his life.

Would it not be best for you to accept your Mozart mythology flies in the face of the actual, verifiable evidence ? Yes, it would.

Cognitive Dissonance is we see having its (predictable) effects on your posts. Because we keep asking you for evidence to support what you believe and we never get any. But I realise you love the fairy story. This I respect. Please do not confuse it with reality, however.

P.S. We DO have a playbill from Vienna 1786 (the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro') which describes W.A. Mozart as a Kapellmeister. Well !! That proves he was 'serving Salzburg', doesn't it ? No, it doesn't. W.A. Mozart lied on that playbill about being employed as a Kapellmeister just like his father lied about being a Kapellmeister during their 3 tours of Italy. 'Like father, like son', of course. LOL !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

Are you a complete ****tard??

I am not specifically talking about him formally representing Salzburg and trying to win the town and Prince Bishop prestige. He was a court musician from Salzburg. Everything he did, every note he played, every commission he fulfilled was a reflection on Salzburg.

To say Idomeneo was a disaster is preposterous. Yes it only endured 3 performances that year but there is no shred of evidence that speaks of it being a great success or an epic failure.

We can only discern how it was received from a scarce few documents that offer some subjective opinions of contemporaries (mainly those involved in the production) On the whole the opera was praised and any serious criticism was likely due to the strange and new styles of music within the opera.
The singers found it to contain some of the most beautiful music they ever heard.

You still haven't addressed my evidence of Wolfgang's representing bishop and Salzaburg in Vienna at Colloredo's behest.


And the only evidence you provide is your dogmatic tone.

You have shown nothing to corroborate your charming little fiction

---

Yep, I see what you mean.

Have been asking myself a lot on the Rothchilds bloodline lately, their origins (Wiki) only beginning 1750's or so.

Anyhow, about Mozart, Colloredo and late 1780: One should really highlight Fiala with his lame biography(as lame as Koechel's whose father was a treasurer.)

Yes, Yanni, Josef Fiala is an interesting character. Recruited from Munich and he ends up living in Mozart's own home in Salzburg. For years. Along with several other composers. It's just a coincidence, of course. I mean, it becomes laughable.

On the playbill of a virtually unknown performance of 'Figaro' (11th April, Frankfurt, 1785) we see the name of Madame Fiala, his wife. Who was an actress and singer of the time. Just a coincidence, of course.

This a year before the premiere of 'Mozart's' own 'Figaro'. (Itself an arrangement of already existing music, as said).

As we have read before -

'We must not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Yep, I see what you mean.

Have been asking myself a lot on the Rothchilds bloodline lately, their origins (Wiki) only beginning 1750's or so.

Anyhow, about Mozart, Colloredo and late 1780: One should really highlight Fiala with his lame biography(as lame as Koechel's whose father was a treasurer.)

---

And here is the playbill for the 'Figaro' that was staged at Frankfurt fully a year before 'Mozart's' opera in Italian. (April 1785).

You cannot read the names clearly on this print but one of the performing company at that Frankfurt performance is a certain Madame Fiala, who, by one of those amazing coincidences, just happens to have been living in Salzburg in the home of a certain W.A. Mozart at that very time - with her husband, the composer, Josef Fiala. Refered to by Yanni. Nothing strange about that, of course !!! :crazy:

(She was employed at the time by Grossmann, whose theatre group was on tour in Germany. The Grossmann group having for many years been employed by Bonn for staging shows and theatrical productions). The very place where Mozart boasted that he would soon become Kapellmeister. But never did. So they 'owed' Mozart a favour. They gave him one, staging various of 'his' operas during the 1780's. It was all very successful. And we believe it, don't we ?

Ah, we all love great fairy stories, don't we ?

And some say Mozart did not compose the Requiem !! Why, it's so rude of them !!!

http://www.mediafire.com/?mizhcymjyzj

'We must never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' (GWB)

G. Wolter (1901)
Records of the Grossmann Theatre Group

Entry for 11th April 1785
Frankfurt am Main

http://www.mediafire.com/i/?acw8fk5ifcaihaf

(The very performance involving Madame Fiala, wife of the composer Josef Fiala, a year prior to the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro').

He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II

after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator

Good day

QUESTIONS TO PATRICK BATEMAN

1. Who was paid 450 Florins by Josef 2nd ?

2. When ?

3. For what ?

Since you never tell us your sources or provide details of exactly what you are speaking about let others judge who is an imbecile and an agitator. But let's avoid silly comments. We are interested in evidence, aren't we ? Do you have some ??

So we are waiting, once again, for details of what you are talking about. This is not your strongest ability, is it ? And, from a young age (and who can doubt it ?) you were a consumer of myths. But these, when you reached adulthood, were still the best show in town. And thus, as a purveyor of myths (and as a wholesale consumer of them yourself) you blundered on. Saying something and nothing at the same time. Never staying on one point nor once questioning their truthfulness but firing off posts like a sawn off shotgun. Or, as has been written elsewhere, 'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools'.

(If I told you Ronald Macdonald was paid a million dollars by Frank Sinatra you would expect me to provide evidence of when, where, and for what). If that was under discussion. Is your universe differently constructed from ours ? Evidence please. Thank You.

You have of course abandoned your argument that Mozart 'represented Salzburg' haven't you ? It has been lost in the haze of your mythology. We have not missed this fact.

The debilitating effects of Cognitive Dissonance afford us no better example than the form and substance of your wayward posts.

I consider you to be among the most gifted, talented, and brave Mozarteans I have had exchanges with. Which says a lot for you. But God knows what it says of Mozarteans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II

after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator

Good day

---

Now, that's a convincing argument!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

He was paid 450 florins by Joseph II

after your previous post I have inferred that you are an imbecile and agitator

Good day

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Now, that's a convincing argument!

---

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

Musicology has reached the same conclusion as I did, following a totally different methodology.

He is absolutely right on Mozart, has in the meantime accepted that the 'manufacture' included other composers as well, but is still fixed to keep out from the 'manufactured' pool, his safehaven, JSBach, even if he repeatedly failed to provide relative evidence (of Bach being a different man than Handel).

He spent 20 years working on Mozart research (as compared to my ten years on 'roots').

We are both apparently much older than you are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

---

Patrick,

It's a strange world you want us to believe in. A man can amass dozens/hundreds of discrepancies in the official fairy story of Mozart's musical career. Starting with the unresolved basic questions (still unanswered) such as who taught him music, and composition, where he went to school, where he started to play keyboard, when and where he composed music that has been attributed falsely on a wholesale scale to him at each and every point in his life (and beyond it). The posthumous rise to iconic status of a legend. Controlled by the fraternal editors of musical 'education'. Why his music exam in Bologna was clearly faked. Why dozens, even hundreds of works were attributed to him, published in his name, and said to be his that were not, in fact, composed by him. You can show example after example of fakery, exaggeration and mythology. And they never, ever have an answer. They never will. Because the truth is Mozart Studies don't work like that. They never have. They are 'pseudo musicology'. For a pseudo civilization of their invention.

The only reason Patrick Bateman subscribes to the Mozart story is he cannot imagine anything except Mozart's popular myth. He has never examined these issues. He never provides evidence. His alleged 'true authorities' on that topic are never actually named. He has yet to provide us here with a single source. He changes the subject with every post. And yet he claims to have put forward a 'convincing argument'. Where, but in the fairlyland world of Mozart Research would anyone give him credibility ? Nowhere. And this is the nonsense which is said to be the best documented, factual record of western musical history ! It's laughable.

You should stay with your myths. And let others stay with actual, verifiable, detailed evidence. The sort you have obviously never read. That it the antidote to your admitted 'rapacious' idolisation of Mozart.

(Cognitive Dissonance is an inability to handle things outside of your paradigm). We wish you a speedy recovery !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

---

Here I agree with Yanni.

On this subject the Mozarteans are utterly unable to support their fairy story when its basic details are called in to question. It stinks. It always has. It's 'pseduo musicology' and it's a fairy story dressed up as musical history. So says the evidence. One side presents evidence after evidence. The other side produces nothing.

I agree with Yanni on that fact. Food for thought for the writers of textbooks, for lecturers and for the spreaders of corporate fiction. It is, in fact, part of the cultural side of Babylonian globalism. It always was. 200 years of fiction. Constructed before your eyes and loved by the gullible. At the expense of reality. They wanted control of a vital subject. Music. And they got it. The pantheon of great composers was manufactured by them. So say the facts. The rest was/is invention, myth making, deals made by patrons, publishers, and occultist slaves. The gods of the state. They don't like reality.

As for Mozart, stick around. We examine this nonsense year by year. Let's see which side is presenting evidence and which is not. I think you have your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Musicology has reached the same conclusion as I did, following a totally different methodology.

He is absolutely right on Mozart, has in the meantime accepted that the 'manufacture' included other composers as well, but is still fixed to keep out from the 'manufactured' pool, his safehaven, JSBach, even if he repeatedly failed to provide relative evidence (of Bach being a different man than Handel).

He spent 20 years working on Mozart research (as compared to my ten years on 'roots').

We are both apparently much older than you are!

---

Patrick,

Nobody is 'privy' to information. It has to be sought. That takes a lot of time. And, when it has been examined we can then say with certainty that things are so. The commentators and historians to which you refer appear to be unable to answer basic questions about Mozart's early and later career. So, if they are worthy of your respect and belief why not give us their actual statements on these issues ? Just a few will do.

We all inherited this problem. The difference is that criticism finally got a hearing. And it came with lots of good arguments. Welcome to the real world of academic research. Compare this with what we have been 'taught'. You see that one side lives in a vacuum free from criticism and the other is ready and willing to examine these issues fairly, openly and honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

I have several posts that force a convincing argument and they are backed up with as much evidence as Musicology's posts...none.

I can only use what I read, hear and see from true authorities on the topic.

That musicology believes he is privy to information and 'evidence' that all these commentators and historians are not seems very remote.

---

My friend, my advice is to post the music you have been listening to in the classical music thread. Alternatively, you could post the films you have been watching in the film thread. Or look to the jazz thread, or the crush thread etc, etc...:smilewinkgrin:

"Bateman" huh?
Good choice, heh-heh, but the subject IS exhausted!
And, indeed, Musicology is, most propably, privy to more information than he cares to admit!

I liken you two gentlemen to the myriad of Kennedy conspiracy theorists. If you over analyse every shred of data you are bound to equate 2 + 2 as 5.

There is evidence that links the CIA to JFK's assassination, evidence that proves the Mafia as accountable. Some clues point to Cuban ex pats who felt betrayed by the Kennedy administration as the culprits. Other findings attribute the assassination to the Russians and other Communist agents. Even claims that J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ were behind it have found credence. (All these huge clouds over what really happened and the evidence is not yet 50 years old, whereas fellas you are trying to overhaul 2 centuries of fact with weak 'evidence' from sources which you have not divulged.) Even when primary evidence disproves your theory (you brought up the playbill earlier) you disregard it as a lie or Mozart's fabrication. On what grounds may I ask? Are you so omniscient that you can obliterate all evidence contrary to your beliefs so that it supports your fantasy?

In many things it is usually advisable to call a spade a spade. In conclusion gentlemen

Mozart was a genius of immeasurable talent.

Now if you will excuse me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2IHh...layer_embedded

This thread is a thing of beauty.

:smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

My friend, my advice is to post the music you have been listening to in the classical music thread. Alternatively, you could post the films you have been watching in the film thread. Or look to the jazz thread, or the crush thread etc, etc...:smilewinkgrin:

---

Don't tell me you are a proponent of this dastardly denigration of a musical visionary?

Patrick,

The reason we think you are wrong is simple. You cannot provide evidence when you are asked for it. You've been hugely misinformed on virtually every aspect of Mozart's life and career. This is not your fault. It's just a fact. I have been writing to your supposed 'experts' for years on these points. They are simply not able to provide any evidence on basic issues. When you show them documentary and other evidence their eyes glaze over, they look at their watch and have another appointment. Others (more honest) wink and admit that it's all nonsense. A pattern has emerged. You've been grossly misinformed.

So, you choose the Mozart myth or the one of actual reality. The one we find in close study of biographical and musical evidence or the one the industry has created for you.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the litany of conspiracy theories you refer to. My business is to point you to the facts, to raise questions on conventions, and to ask if you really are interested in a fair and honest discussion.

Thank You

I leave it here with a celebration at the fall of Babylon -

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

I liken you two gentlemen to the myriad of Kennedy conspiracy theorists. If you over analyse every shred of data you are bound to equate 2 + 2 as 5.

There is evidence that links the CIA to JFK's assassination, evidence that proves the Mafia as accountable. Some clues point to Cuban ex pats who felt betrayed by the Kennedy administration as the culprits. Other findings attribute the assassination to the Russians and other Communist agents. Even claims that J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ were behind it have found credence. (All these huge clouds over what really happened and the evidence is not yet 50 years old, whereas fellas you are trying to overhaul 2 centuries of fact with weak 'evidence' from sources which you have not divulged.) Even when primary evidence disproves your theory (you brought up the playbill earlier) you disregard it as a lie or Mozart's fabrication. On what grounds may I ask? Are you so omniscient that you can obliterate all evidence contrary to your beliefs so that it supports your fantasy?

In many things it is usually advisable to call a spade a spade. In conclusion gentlemen

Mozart was a genius of immeasurable talent.

Now if you will excuse me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2IHh...layer_embedded

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Patrick,

The reason we think you are wrong is simple. You cannot provide evidence when you are asked for it. You've been hugely misinformed on virtually every aspect of Mozart's life and career. This is not your fault. It's just a fact. I have been writing to your supposed 'experts' for years on these points. They are simply not able to provide any evidence on basic issues. When you show them documentary and other evidence their eyes glaze over, they look at their watch and have another appointment. Others (more honest) wink and admit that it's all nonsense. A pattern has emerged. You've been grossly misinformed.

So, you choose the Mozart myth or the one of actual reality. The one we find in close study of biographical and musical evidence or the one the industry has created for you.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the litany of conspiracy theories you refer to. My business is to point you to the facts, to raise questions on conventions, and to ask if you really are interested in a fair and honest discussion.

Thank You

I leave it here with a celebration at the fall of Babylon -

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

---

I cannot believe that all these men and women have dedicated their lives to a lie which - according to you - is so blatant and that only you have seen the light and know the 'truth'. If the 'facts' are in such abundance and your 'evidence' of the falsehoods and 'evidence' against the Mozart myth are so clear cut then why is it that I can only discover this 'truth' on an internet message forum?

People love controversy and people love even more to be controversial and go against the grain. So why has someone not pounced on this and shown Mozart to be the fraud he apparently is?

The evidence is in primary sources and contemporary accounts, myriad letters and other correspondence. Payments Mozart received, the royalties his son received as soon as copyright laws and artists right were being created in the early 19th century.

Haydn himself extolled Mozart's talents.
It is known that Mozart imitated other composers and improved upon their works but this was usually only an exercise in displaying his superiority over other composers as well as showing a reverence for the composers he admired (such as Bach, Handel and his good buddy Franz Josef Haydn) but the accusations and very idea that Mozart stole from other composers is unfounded.


I ask you sir for your evidence.

Kindly send me one of these emails you so frequently dispatch to my 'experts' that cause them to cower and recoil and scramble for explanations.

Robert,
It has been a long time my friend. If I may beg your pardon to interrupt the current line of discussion regarding Mozart and the Italian Job, I would like to address an earlier post submitted by Mr. Patrick Bateman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

...I'm visiting Salzburg and Vienna in September (kill 2 birds with one stone and get a bit of Johann Strauss II appreciation in there too.) It's getting to the point where I am actually considering eclipsing my Batman and Danmgermouse costumes and going to Reading Festival 2011 dressed up as the maestro.

---

Patrick, you mentioned that you will be visiting Salzburg in a few months. Upon reading this, I became very excited and envious. Salzburg was a destination of mine back in 1988. I still recall humming the tune Edelweiss while snacking on a Mozartkugeln as I entered Getreidegasse 9. Salzburg Cathedral, St. Peter’s and the accompanying cemetery is wonderful and the view of the Salzach river from the Hohensalzburg castle is breathtaking.

You mentioned “2 birds”, why not shoot for three? This is a perfect opportunity to dispel the mystery behind Mozart’s early education. Oh…forgive me, I see you are wondering what in the heck is he talking about? Please refer to post no. 10 of this thread.

If you could possibly set aside perhaps one hour during your visit and head up to the hermitage in the cliffs overlooking St. Peters and the cemetery to verify if Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia (aka “The Bermuda Triangle” among his hermit contemporaries) slate tablets are still on display. At the time I visited, the tablets were set in a small niche carved into the stone wall of Andiamo’s hermit cell.

The conspiracy theorists and Dumas would forever be in your debt.


.

All four members of the 'Mozart Justice Squad' on here appear to have the same unpalatable condescending and supercilious tone. Funny that, especially since one of the four is clearly Musicology's alter ego.

Desperate times really do call for desperate measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle

Robert,
It has been a long time my friend. If I may beg your pardon to interrupt the current line of discussion regarding Mozart and the Italian Job, I would like to address an earlier post submitted by Mr. Patrick Bateman.



Patrick, you mentioned that you will be visiting Salzburg in a few months. Upon reading this, I became very excited and envious. Salzburg was a destination of mine back in 1988. I still recall humming the tune Edelweiss while snacking on a Mozartkugeln as I entered Getreidegasse 9. Salzburg Cathedral, St. Peter’s and the accompanying cemetery is wonderful and the view of the Salzach river from the Hohensalzburg castle is breathtaking.

You mentioned “2 birds”, why not shoot for three? This is a perfect opportunity to dispel the mystery behind Mozart’s early education. Oh…forgive me, I see you are wondering what in the heck is he talking about? Please refer to post no. 10 of this thread.

If you could possibly set aside perhaps one hour during your visit and head up to the hermitage in the cliffs overlooking St. Peters and the cemetery to verify if Andiamo Burmudez de Azpeitia (aka “The Bermuda Triangle” among his hermit contemporaries) slate tablets are still on display. At the time I visited, the tablets were set in a small niche carved into the stone wall of Andiamo’s hermit cell.

The conspiracy theorists and Dumas would forever be in your debt.


.

---

Thank you for your proposed amendments to my itinerary. I shall take them into consideration.

It seems Musicology has declined my challenge.

He cannot overturn over 200 years of musical history like he claims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

Don't tell me you are a proponent of this dastardly denigration of a musical visionary?

---

What? What? Don't suggest such a thing - how could you?

I was merely trying to save you :mad2:time.

I'm hurt and wounded. I think you should PM me a beer as recompense...enjoy the trip though, it should be amazing. Pah, thinking Neely could get caught up in this.

[QUOTE=yanni;1029772 ...but the subject IS exhausted!
[/QUOTE]

If only! But it isn't, because Musicology has no intention of allowing it to be. After all, what would he do with his spare time were it not for this thread and its forerunner that he initiated months (though it seems like years) ago?
Of the innumerable quotes he has made throughout the course of his dissertation, it's significant that the one that stays in the mind is that of George W Bush warning about conspiracy theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

What? What? Don't suggest such a thing - how could you?

I was merely trying to save you :mad2:time.

I'm hurt and wounded. I think you should PM me a beer as recompense...enjoy the trip though, it should be amazing. Pah, thinking Neely could get caught up in this.

---

Ahhh I beseech you to pardon me squire.
I thought your post was telling me to do all those things because I am in my own fantasy land by not seeing 'the light'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick_Bateman

Ahhh I beseech you to pardon me squire.
I thought your post was telling me to do all those things because I am in my own fantasy land by not seeing 'the light'.

---

That's OK, that's the Internet/email for you isn't it - things can be read both ways? I'm still suffering minor heart palpitations from it, but I'll get over it...

I do think Musicology/Robert/Yanni figure should write a novel about it though - The Mozart Fakery - $quids in$, knock Dan Brown off the top spot and save us all the pain.

"Yanni" and "Musicology" both sign by their real names their conclusions (identical on Mozart's 'manufacture' at least), as any reader of re threads may find out.

As far as I am concerned: I joined this forum Dec 2005 aiming to confirm/expand my findings on an unknown 'greek side' of Edgar Allan*Poe , http://www.online-literature.com/for...esc&sort=views, a thread which has since attracted, by far,the most views and received the highest ratings on its subject.

"Musicology" appeared much later, attracted by my next threads (on Gluck, Grimm, Rousseau and the Opera Phantom, see http://www.online-literature.com/for...003#post639003 ), aiming to discuss his favorite and only subject, Mozart, limiting it however to a minimum.

Antonios Emm. Kokkinis, aka "Yanni", Athens, Greece.

PS My conclusions on a 'Koch-Koechel' manufactured Mozart (among other), are also crosschecked and reconfirmed by Dorothea Link's** "Mozart’s appointment to the Viennese court" (discrediting Koechel's conclusions).

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Link%20...dex,180707.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"Allen" actually.
**Chair, Classical Music, Hodgson School of Music, The University of Georgia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

That's OK, that's the Internet/email for you isn't it - things can be read both ways? I'm still suffering minor heart palpitations from it, but I'll get over it...

I do think Musicology/Robert/Yanni figure should write a novel about it though - The Mozart Fakery - $quids in$, knock Dan Brown off the top spot and save us all the pain.

---