Mozart in English

[yanni]

German gifts are usually free, but their antidotes are very costly.

Yanni,

Bach is of course a free gift. Those who are really poor believe differently.

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

[Musicology]

This gift was suppressed, by Germans themselves. For decades. And it requires no antidote. Just listen to it.

There ! That is easy, isn't it ?

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

German gifts are usually free, but their antidotes are very costly.

[yanni]

In a linguistic wrap up of 18th century history of western culture:

"Gift" means "poison' in german, the latter deriving from french "poisson' meaning fish.

You should have used 'present' instead.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I have developed a rather rapacious obsession of Mozart. I'm currently reading a biography by Piero Melograni (it seems Italians biograph the man more than any other nationality) and a book compiling all of Mozart's letters.
It is gradually taking over my life. I haven't listened to any other composer for about 2 weeks recently because I have jsut had a fresh impetus to listen to Mozart. I am fortunate enough to have an invaluable piece of kit. A box set containing 170 CDs with nothing but Wolfgang Amade on them.
I even have a framed portrait of the great man on my wall incongruously hanging next to a canvas print of Marvin Gaye.

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.

So naturally I like this thread.

Musicology is quite an interminable chap.

The fact that no one can bring up a primary source that convincingly casts doubt over the authenticity of Mozart's compositions being his own speaks volumes. Mozart was biographed extensively following his death by contemporaries who had met him and those who had not. They make no mention of scandal involving his compositions other than the ones that are beyond doubt. The only scandal was in his personal life.
Accusations of Mozart's misappropriation of others' works is based on conjecture, likeness to other composers' works (we call that INFLUENCE) Nobody calls Beethoven a thief and fraud for his early works which are blatantly in the shadow of Mozart's works.
This doubt over authenticity is no more than a witch hunt. I mean basing it on likenes to other composers works or changes in handwriting are quite pathetic. A lot of suppositions are grabbed at so as to reinforce half assed theories. "...and it bears a likeness to Haydn's 38th, which proves such and such" What piffle.

We could do that kind of thing with works that are known to be Mozart's beyond doubt and those that are considering other composers' pieces to prove that they are indeed belong to W.A Mozart.

Nothing said on here can be substatiated by a primary source or even an epistle of any kind from a contemporary. And evenm if there was accusations on paper from his contemporaries one could explain that in the same weak way that the conspiracy theorists try and reinforce their fallacies. With subjective explanations and suppositions

"They were jealous... It was Maria Theresa's doing... he continually upset the aristocracy and they wanted to get their own back by dragging his name through the dirt... Rivals vied for positions at European courts against Mozart" etc etc

Hi Robert

There is a ver important text written by Corrado Ricchi which Bianchini has cited in his paper refering to the events of 1770 in Bologna with Mozart. It is stated clearly there that the voting for Mozart was NOT unanimous. But we are always told he passed his examination with all white balls. Aren't we ? However, we see now, the actual records of the examination which Luca Bianchini has attached show the vote contained both black and white balls. What do you think ? What the hell have these scholars been teaching around the world on Mozart in the light of these facts ?

"Moreover, the judges of the Academy did not give them a great deal of insight. In their report of that day they stated that one Francesco Piantanada was admitted with all white votes (and also his relative Giovanni Piantanida) while, concerning Mozart, they make only a reserved and cold statement which, when allowing for the circumstances, his exam result was considered sufficient – ‘As the votes in his case were concerned it is certain they were not all white: but in any case the jury found in his favour’"
(Corrado Ricci)

This post ignores the attitudes of Italians towards non Italian musicians and the prominence of Italian composers in European courts.

The allegations against Mozart are all one way. A true Historian and biographer worth his salt knows never to lean to one side on anything he encounters. It's like these people are setting out to besmirch Mozart's name and using anything they discover (or appear to discover) in the negative without suggesting any possible alternatives.

The fact that nothing concrete comes from the 18th century tells us a lot and with Mozart's reputation and with him being anathema to the aristocracy of the time and to rival composers you can never be sure if any primary evidence is factual or malicious and false.

All we can say for certain is there are flimsy but it some cases strong doubts over Mozart's signature being worthy of almost 200 of his compositions. But even these compositions if not solely completed by Mozart have his stamp on them.

Musicology gets around

http://www.talkclassical.com/865-con...e-musical.html

[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

[Patrick_Bateman]

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.

[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

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_Bateman]

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.

[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.

[yanni]

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.

[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.

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.

[Patrick_Bateman]

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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

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

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.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ However, I suspect that there are less gullible people around on Lit Net.

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ However, I suspect that there are less gullible people around on Lit Net.

[Patrick_Bateman]

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.)