And what is 'outrageous' about the theory that George Onslow was with L v Beethoven (1770-1827) in Vienna ? Nothing. (Especially since one source tells us exactly that).
Answers on a postcard to -
'I never examine this subject but it must be an outrageous conspiracy theory all the same'
c/o Monochrome Education Department
Room 101
The Cultural Pantheon
Babylonia
George Onslow
Piano Trio in E Flat (1818)
3rd Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVNrBTTM0PY
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Last edited by Musicology; 05-02-2011 at 03:47 PM.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
For sure those are questions that can't be confidently addressed beyond any doubt but let me direct you to one William Shakespeare.
About 2 facts are known about old Bill Shakespeare. The most renowned and celebrated figure in Western literature. Very very little is known for certain about any portion of his life and the huge blanks have been filled with conjecture and suppositions much like yours. All based on tiny strands of 'evidence' twisted and turned to fit each individuals theory. Whether it be that the real author of the works attributed to Shakespeare were penned by Marlowe or even that they were conceived by a woman.
You seem to be a poor fellow who is the victim of the same weakness and careleness. Because of the omissions in his early life vis-a-vis his schooling and musical education you have capitalised on it using them as a launching pad for your diatribe against a genius. You piece together tiny shreds of evidence and construe them so that they conform to you unsubstantiated theory.
The lack of information regarding his education seems to have driven you to the conclusion that something must be amiss and that he can't possibly have had the skills and faculties needed to compose the works ascribed to him. Whether this is indolence on your part I don't know but it seems that a lot of your 'evidence' is based on the points that not much is known of Mozart's early life. And that therefore this means we have to judge Mozart in the negative and take away from him all of his successes and deduce that they were written by another hand.
That seems incredibly harsh and cavalier of you. You have nothing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mozart lifted from other composers.
The fact that an opera of his was well received or not is of little consequence in the argument as to whether the work was his own or whether the work was good. Several explanations can be put forward to account for a poor public response but of course you will repudiate all of them in your condescending way because it doesn't conform to your view.
(Now who is suffering the effect of cognitive dissonance?)
The Magic Flute and La Clemenza di Tito for example were not received very warmly at their premiere due to the unusual allocation of the tickets. Government ministers and political functionaries distributed the tickets among their own kind and so many true music lovers and connoisseurs of the art - who helped direct public opinion on an opera - were not present and again Mozart's innovation was difficult for people to comprehend and appreciate. As I'm sure you know many artists are not appreciated in their own time.
Other operas like Cosi fan tutte contained themes of immorality among others that were distasteful to the upper classes. The marriage of Figaro upset the aristocracy also and has always been described as revolutionary (whether with intention or not) and caused citizens in France to seriously question the governance of the Ancien Regime. Not a recipe for success when you are making music for an elite class.
So you see how easily things can be explained?? But yet you cannot accept anything that goes against your theory. I can understand that, when you have dedicated nearly 2 decades to uncovering a conspiracy that never existed. 20 years of work wasted can be tough to swallow I am sure.
That cognitive dissonance can be a ***** but your acceptance will begin the healing process.
This helps your case not one iota. In every piece I have read on Mozart the author has invariably conceded that Mozart's listing as a 'Kapellmeister' is inaccurate as his title was 'composer for the court.'
However there is no evidence to suggest Mozart lied and was responsible for the misrepresentation. In fact if Mozart had insisted on appropriating the title of Kapellmeister on the playbill it would ahve done him more harm than good.
Latest Blog: An Impassioned and Immediate Response to Dan Hodges, Political Writer, Daily Telegraph.
http://britishpharaoh.wordpress.com/
At his mother's burial in Paris, Mozart promoted his father to 'kapellmeister'! (Saint Eustace register), but don't let the fact affect your dialogue with "Musicology".
BTW "Bates" would be a more artlike penname to pick-and less telling too!
Last edited by yanni; 05-03-2011 at 09:38 AM.
Patrick Bateman,
Thank you for directing me to one icon of English literature, the legendary William Shakespeare. You could not have given us a better example if you spent a whole lifetime. Since there is a vast literature (and many websites) reminding us the plays of William Shakespeare lack any evidence of having been written by William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. So they may actually have been written by others. So massive is the evidence he did not write them that professors of English literature have been impolitely and inconveniently saying so, for centuries. In books and lectures. Biographically and for many other reasons there are valid grounds to ask if William Shakespeare wrote (or did not write) 'his' plays. And it seems to me we should at least be familiar with the available evidence for and against if we are to have an opinion on it. So, rather than discouraging you I encourage you to have exactly the same attitude when it comes to W.A. Mozart - a musical Shakespeare, indeed. You have read only one side, haven't you ?
On this thead we have seen that, contrary to hype, there is zero evidence for Mozart studying music, musical composition, keyboard, or even having given a single public concert in his own home town, (either before he started his childhood tours of safe, noble, patrons, nor even at any time in his entire life). Nor is there a shred of evidence for him learning composotion anywhere on the entire planet during his entire lifetime. Nor is there evidence (contrary to the hyperbole) that the music composed and published in his name from before 1781 (i.e. prior to his arrival in Vienna) was actually composed by him. Such evidence as we actually have shows the opposite - lie after lie, exaggeration after exaggeration, falsehood after falsehood, misattribution after misattribution, this able to be proved from before the time of his falsified exam in Bologna *(1770) onwards. This is an amazing fact. And it is contradicted by nothing. Nothing at all.
Now it seems what we believe of history should be based on something. Unless it is our faith. If Mozart is your faith I will step to one side and respect you, entirely. We will agree to disagree on your god. But such is toleration. May I ask on what fact your belief of Mozart's musical genius is actually based ? Since it is assumed, is it not ? Though you have not examined the question for yourself, and you think it is strange anyone else should so consistently try to expand your reading matter (and your thinking). Yet I must.
You refer also to 'Mozart's' famous Vienna operas. Well, let's start at the first. 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'. That music is not by Mozart. So said contemporary writers including those actually present at its premiere. Did you know this ?
As for Le Nozze di Figaro (1786) have you actually examined this subject, at all ? And will you please go to the Austrian National Library and look at the score of the opera held there from the premiere itself ? It is a hastily made arrangement of already existing music in a form that is virtually unperformable. This surely explains why it was booed off the stage a few performances later. It is music that was originally set to German text and only in Vienna later translated into Italian. But don't tell the children, will you ? Furthermore a version of this opera existed a year earlier. But don't tell the children, will you ?
As for Cosi fan tutte and The Magic Flute, here too you should be aware that both those operas are riddled with problems in attributing them musically to Mozart. This too you have never examined. Ask the composer Pavel Vranicky about that if you doubt it. Since entire sections come from his opera 'Oberon' staged months earlier at the same theatre. But don't tell the children, will you ? As for the Requiem (cough, cough). The contemporary writers of the time (e.g. those who wrote on music in the 1780's strangely do not list 'Le Nozze di Figaro' as being an opera by Mozart. Strange, isn't it ? And even on his death the publisher of the 'Nekrolog' on Mozart does not list 'Le Nozze di Figaro' as being an opera by Mozart. (Schlichtegroll). The reason for the omission is rather simple. Mozart did not compose that music. It was composed earlier by others. And it was arranged by a bungling and non-talented clown named W.A. Mozart. Who postured as a Kapellmeister long before he was granted that temporary post (a year later). Mozart was a fraud. Plain and simple. So say the facts.
Not a single opera score of Mozart was published in his entire life. That too is a fact. After which the music editors, revisers, and spin merchants set to work. To persuade you (successfully) by glossy eulogies that you know what you are talking about. While the facts erupt from the ground like misshapen stones to trip you up as you lecture us gently about the 'genius' of W.A. Mozart. You have been badly misinformed. But, at least, you are in the company of almost the entire musical community. Having never, once, questioned the subject yourself nor read a single book which calls it in to question. This IS Cogntive Dissonance par excellence. Since everything has its critics. Except the real and imaginary Mozart. Wunderkind of tourism and popular imagination. He deserves you and you, my friend, deserve him. As for the true composers of that music, never ask, will you ? They are not important.
Regards
Best wishes
p.s. You may be aware of several arias composed for Cosi fan tutte by a certain composer named Antonio Salieri ?
Last edited by Musicology; 05-03-2011 at 05:07 PM.
Why is it that due to the mere fact we don't know how Mozart received his education and from whom you feel that indicates beyond doubt that he can't have composed the works ascribed to him and then twist things to fit this idea.
But yet no one questions how a man who was completely deaf throughout most of his adult life (Beethoven) could compose some of the greatest works of the Classical period?
I am just curious
----By making the above point I do not accuse Beethoven of the misappropriations with which Musicology charged Mozart-----
Latest Blog: An Impassioned and Immediate Response to Dan Hodges, Political Writer, Daily Telegraph.
http://britishpharaoh.wordpress.com/
The 'mere fact' to which you refer (Mozart's lack of any musical education) is only one of dozens of anomalies from his childhood years alone. But it's as good a place as any to start. (I have already listed many others. And they grow each time we exchange posts). So, let me repeat my question. On what evidence (that is, on what verifiable evidence) do you believe in the story of W.A. Mozart, 'musical genius' ? A story you may agree is hardly if ever questioned despite these and countless other glaring problems. Despite the version of it given by a certain Leopold Mozart etc ? And it gets worse. I assure you. By the time we arrive at his 'Golden Years' in Vienna (1781-1791) the 'miracle' (musically) will become so huge, so preposterous, that you will find yourself climbing on the summit of western musical achievement and attributing it to a man who, till that decade, has been a verifiable clown. One who would be one again, there right in Vienna. A man who, even according to his own librettist (Lorenzo da Ponte) says lived 'unknown in Vienna, hidden, never having once shown his genius there'. This written after Mozart's death. That is surely quite a statement, isn't it ? So much for the fairy story of his wonderful career as a celebrated keyboard soloist and performer. I might add to this the musical publications of such notable writers as JN Forkel, Koch, and others, who say nothing of Mozart being a famous composer also - not even in Vienna in their publications on music in that same decade. Now, something is obviously wrong and as we examine his (alleged) public concerts as a soloist we find only further examples of fakery, newpaper exaggeration, and downright falsehood. This continuing up to the writing of the notorious Requiem. And for many decades after his death. Since more than 500 works nobody had ever heard of poured from the printing presses in the 6 decades before Ludwig Koechel finally published his official list of 'Mozart' compositions. None of which were offered to publishers during the last years of his 'poverty'. Now this too is surely strange, don't you think ? Koechel's catalogue finally appearing 3 whole faked biographies and 70 years later. In the early 1860's. If all of this and more is worthy of Mozart being the icon of western musical history, fine. I know, that even on this basis, it is of course nothing of the kind. Further confirmed when we examine each piece that is today attributed to him in some detail and its surviving documentary and other evidence. Since once again the story is the same.
Somebody wrote this music, for sure. But we are discussing, in fact, several dozen works that are loved worldwide. The vast majority of 'his' works of no great musical value. The whole thing was cleverly done, of course. With friends in high places. Same as Josef Haydn, and later, Beethoven. Same as Handel in England far earlier (whose musical plagiarism is as legendary as that of Pergolesi or Vivaldi). In fact the entire 18th century is riddled with false musical attributions. They were very much the norm. Mozart was no exception. But Mozart, of course, was to become a 'genius'. And, although we never define our terms in saying so, that means it's the equivalent of heresy to doubt it. Though, on issue after issue, at any period of his life and career, the defenders of his myth are strangely unable to defend their well known views on 'his' masses, concertos, operas, or anything else.
To think the unthinkable is, in this case, to consider that music and what we believe of it, is as corrupted and corruptible as virtually anything else in human history. Neither less nor more. As we find, I promise you, if we examine it in detail. If that is not where we begin when we examine Mozart it is surely where we can and must make our conclusion. Since there's nothing else for us to do but perpetuate what till now has been an unquestioned myth. Embellished and wrapped in eulogies. More sweetened by credulity than virtually any other subject in the entire history of music. As we must surely agree.
Regards
Patrick,
The history of musical attribution in the case of Beethoven is a can of worms in itself. Far more so than 'they' tell you. The 'greatest' works of the classical period - but can you name a few dozen composers of the time with which Beethoven can be fairly and honestly compared ? How many concertos do you know by others from Vienna of Beethoven's own time there ? Or symphonies ? Or from the time there of Mozart ? One asks these rather basic questions and they tend to look at their watches and have an urgent meeting somewhere. So much for 3,000 composers of symphonies and concertos in the 18th century. That's not a fair history of music is it ?
Strange how, in fact, George Onslow (whom I posted on yesterday) was also deaf in one ear. Yet he wrote symphonies that were as popular in those times as Beethoven's own and which surely rank musically with those of Beethoven himself. The similarities in their styles are very striking. And that's just one example. Though Onslow is today virtually unknown. I could also mention two orchestrated cantatas of state written for the death of Emperor Josef in 1790 and for the accession of his successor and today attributed to the young Beethoven in Bonn. (Numbered WoO87 and Wo88 respectively). They too are remarkable music. And they are definitely not by Beethoven. They are actually works by Andrea Luchesi. Another unknown composer. Though they contain music that Beethoven (his student) later used over and over again. (Those works of state were of course the business of the Kapellmeisters to compose and not 20 year old music students).
The problem here is not so much 'who wrote what'. We know beyond reasonable doubt that many works that are attributed to various 'star' composers of the 18th and early 19th centuries (such as Mozart and Beethoven) were actually not composed by them. But whether Beethoven wrote 'his' music or Onslow wrote 'his' and the extent to which editors and revisers prepared them for publication and performance are really not that important. Far more important is the evidence indicates others did. But this, of course, ruins the fairy story. So it tends to be ignored. Welcome to the emerging music industry. A one sided eulogy. Music deserves better.
George Onslow
Second Movement
Scherzo
Symphony No. 4
http://www.mediafire.com/?oemywidmyzw
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Kapellmeister of Bonn (between 1771-1794 and Beethoven's first music teacher)
Section from Cantata on the Death of the Emperor Josef (1790)
Performed that year in Frankfurt
Wrongly attributed to the 20 year old L. Van Beethoven (Luchesi's music pupil)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=758IftBZ0T8
OK I will indulge you Musicology. Apprise me of how many works by Mozart you believe are actually written by him? Give me a rough number and a few examples.
If anything has come from your hogwash regarding Mozart it is that you have turned me on to the music of George Onslow. Great stuff.
It would be quite the elaborate ruse if this Mozart myth was planned from the start.
I would have thought the amateur and immature but impressively pleasant nature of his Minuet in G, K1 and his subsequent Minuets and first Sonatas would prove that Mozart knew musical composition (where from and who by is immaterial, the proof is in the pudding.) Why can't the compositions themselves serve as proof of his satisfactory music education. Just because the information on where and who is not not recorded or available anymore should not induce the definitive conclusion that he must not have any musical training. A golden rule for an historian is never to make assumptions without any facts. This is what I mean by twisting things to fit your model.
So I think in order to win any credibility you need to abandon this argument. Since the evidence of his early compositions provides more proof than you have.
Latest Blog: An Impassioned and Immediate Response to Dan Hodges, Political Writer, Daily Telegraph.
http://britishpharaoh.wordpress.com/
Patrick Bateman,
Thank you for your noble gesture of 'indulgence'. Although I must warn you they (indulgences) have the habit of being responded to by letters firmly nailed to church doors ! The antidote to them is oxygen. You may be interested to know a certain Herr Fugger, (papally approved administrator of the same traffic) made a nice percentage from that giant business of indulgences for years and even enjoyed a monopoly as he toured through German speaking towns. It was a nice little earner, as they say. That's the same family who (by one of those marvellous accidents of fate) were to become early sponsors of a certain Leopold Mozart of Augsburg, later of Salzburg.
But I pass on quickly from that murky episode of history to answer your request for a list of genuine Mozart works. Well, some of, that is. I can submit others later.
Let me start here. And in the most helpful way I can. If you are ever in polite company and the subject of music is being discussed (and Mozart in particular) you may wish to share the fact there is a species of musical work which he, W.A. Mozart, definitely produced throughout most of his career. And which are really his attempts in that form. I refer to Mozart's canons.
The earliest of these canons date from around 1772 (his Italian tour period) and the latest from late 1788 (several years before his death). They are an almost ideal subject if we are to fairly assess Mozart's abilities as a composer. (That is, if we wish to gloss over the fiasco of his musical exam in Bologna). And musical canons were (you may know) often produced by composers among themselves at that time. So they are an ideal, almost unique chance for us to examine Mozart as a composer. Technically, that is.
Here are the works in that form that are by Mozart -
K73i Canon in A for 4 or 5 voices in 1 1772
K89 73k Kyrie in G for 5 voices in 1 1772
K73r 4 Riddle Cannons 1772
K73x 14 Canonic Studies 1772
K229 382a Canon in C minor for 3 voices in 1 c1782 ?Vienna
K230 382b Canon in C minor for 2 voices in 1 c1782 ?Vienna
K231 382c Canon in B flat for 6 voices in 1, "Leck mich im Arsch" c1782 ?Vienna
K233 382d Canon in B flat for 3 voices in 1, "Leck mir den Arsch" c1782 ?Vienna
K234 382e Canon in G for 3 voices in 1, "Bei der Hitz' em Sommer ess ich" c1782 ?Vienna
K347 382f Canon in D for 6 voices in 1 c1782 ?Vienna
K348 382g Canon in G for 12 voices in 3, "V'amo di core teneramente" c1782 ?Vienna
K507 507 Canon in F for 3 voices in 1 After June 3, 1786 Vienna
K508 508 Canon in F for 3 voices in 1 After June 3, 1786 Vienna
K508A Canon in C for 3 voices in 1 After June 3, 1786 Vienna
K508a 2 Canons in F for 3 voices in 1, 14 Canons in F for 2 voices in 1 After June 3, 1786 Vienna
K515b Double Canon in F for 4 voices in 2 April 24, 1787 Vienna
K509a Canon in G for 4 voices in 1, "Lieber Freistadtler, lieber Gaulimauli" After July 4, 1787 Vienna
K553 Canon in C for 3 voices in 1, "Alleluia" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K554 Canon in F for 4 voices in 1, "Ave Maria" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K555 Canon in A minor for 4 voices in 1, "Lacrimoso" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K556 Canon in G for 4 voices in 1, "G'rechtelt's enk" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K557 Canon in F minor or 4 voices in 1, "Nascoso e il mio sol" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K558 Canon in B flat for 4 voices in 1, "Gehen wir im Prater" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K559 Canon in F for 3 voices in 1, "Difficile lectu mihi Mars" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K560a 559a Canon in F for 4 voices in 1, "O du eselhafter Peierl" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K560b 560 Canon in F for 4 voices in 1, "O du eselhafter Martin" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K561 Canon in A for 4 voices in 1, "Bona nox, bist a rechta Ox" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
K562 Canon in A for 3 voices in 1, "Caro bell'idol mio" Sept. 2, 1788 Vienna
562a Canon in B flat for 4 voices in 1 ?1780s ?Vienna
Anh. 191 562c Canon in C for 4 voices in 1 ?1780s ?Vienna
Close study of their contents shows this man was of no real musical talent. Most of the above are written in octaves. Which is absurd. Ludicrous, in fact. Many of them are clumsy, ugly, disjointed, of virtually no musical value whatsoever. They are works of a musical ignoramus. Of a man who has never studied voices or part writing in music. Yet they are eulogised in widely available textbooks as models of musical perfection ! Most teenage students of music could do better. And that is as true of the early ones as the last.
I might also refer you to the 'Mozart' concerto KV268, a piece so grotesque in every way in its original form that its publishers had to completely re-orchestrate and revise the score before they ever dared to publish it and have it commercially recorded. Still others, realising it was trash, refused (and still do) to accept it as Mozart's. Though the score is certainly in his hand. And it has been commercial released and sold. (Such is the industry, you understand ?). Today known as Mozart's Violin Concerto Number 6. It's a heap of clumsily handled generalisms. Even after major musical surgery. A musical pig's ear.
So here KV268/1, highly sanitised by editors and publishers before ever being released for public consumption and still as ugly as the canons. I will not speak here of dozens of other absurdities. Though, if you require an encore can provide one. The slow introduction to the Symphony KV444 is another. etc. (a symphony actually by Michael Haydn that was falsely published as Mozart's up until the early 20th century but on which he, W.A. Mozart, attempted a slow introduction. It's nonsense).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_kqL-1tAHU
Always remember, 'Everything you have heard is true' (and that's official).
Thank You
Patrick Bateman,
I was, for many years, among countless admirers of 'Mozart's' music who, like countless commentators and biographers, floated without question on the transcendental cloud of his cultural and musical status (by which his contact with the real world and real people was only of incidental, even peripheral importance). This being an experience somewhat like following a beautiful bubble, floating high above the heads of we as its unquestioning admirers, and delighting and fascinating us with its ability to change colour without notice. Though it had the habit, from time to time, to cause us, from time to time, to walk in to all too real lamp posts. There was however no discrepancy, biographical or musical, that would shake my faith in his iconic rule. In the details of his life and musical achievements. Indeed, I learned to give the benefit of the doubt to the most glaring absurdities. As one does.
Bringing to mind that famous statement of the apostle Paul, that 'when I was a child, I thought as a child' etc.
Since which date entropy and contradiction combined and I (with other dissenters) came to the realisation that myths operate and are sustained by fuel that has nothing to do with reality or with the hard facts of musical reality or history.
I take heart in the fact that a detailed examination of Mozart's life and career (made by me and other colleagues) confirms to all who are of enquiring mind a procession of absurdity, of assumption, of eulogy, so stupendous in size, so relentlessly taught at academic and cultural level, so rarely questioned in any meaningful sense, that some underlying cause for its success (his fairy story) must exist. And it does. The fact of which now sustains my heresy and confirms you too are close to musical canonisation, since you are (drum roll) a defender of Mozartean convention. Able to grant indulgences and a consumer of his glory.
Thus, there are two Mozarts. One of popular imagination and the other of reality. Separated from the history of music by human nature, commerce, the academic world, and by vested interests.
....a detailed examination of Mozart's life and career (made by me and other colleagues) confirms to all who are of enquiring mind a procession of absurdity, of assumption, of eulogy, so stupendous in size, so relentlessly taught at academic and cultural level, so rarely questioned in any meaningful sense, that some underlying cause for its success (his fairy story) must exist. And it does. The fact of which now sustains my heresy....
"The Genius of Mozart is mourning and weeping over the death of her pupil. She has found a refuge but no occupation with the inexhaustible Haydn; through him she wishes to form a union with another. With the help of assiduous labor you shall receive Mozart's spirit from Haydn's hands. "
Read more: http://www.musicweb-international.co...#ixzz1LSTZ9rTe
Ah, yes Yanni. You should tell readers that famous statement on Beethoven was made by Count Ferdinand von Waldstein, aided by that well known Mozart patron Prince Karl Lichnowsky, and (surprise, surprise !) that well known member of the Bavarian Illuminati, Baron Gottfried van Swieten. And there's Lobkowitz also acting as an early patron in Vienna of Beethoven. (Just as he had been years before for Mozart). It's a small world, for sure ! (This particular statement by Waldstein (friend of Casanova) was made several years after publication (in 1783) in the Illuminati music publication 'Cramer's Magazine' of the absurd view that the 13 year old Beethoven may become the 'next Mozart'. How is that for musical coincidence ?
We all love musical 'geniuses' who have been manufactured with the assistance of such men, don't we ? But don't tell the children !
Last edited by Musicology; 05-05-2011 at 05:55 AM.
But I already did in previous. All four were either the same man (FJHaydn/Casanova etc) or two brothers.
Anyway, the famous 'Mozart inspired' Beethoven quintet question may be easily answered bearing in mind Mozart was alive far longer than his death but otherwise occupied at the time. 1796 is a very interesting year but so is 1765and many others.
Last edited by yanni; 05-05-2011 at 07:58 AM.
My subject is Mozart. You may talk of aliases forever. It does not interest me because it never finds any support. It does not work with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach or Handel. You relapse in to this idea over and over on thread after thread. Whenever you have the slightest excuse. What we want to have is some evidence. If you have some please present it. Otherwise it is only an irritation to me. Lacking any verifiable evidence.
Please make another thread and give us some solid evidence. Life is too short to go round and round in circles.
Your latest contribution being -
All four were either the same man (FJHaydn/Casanova etc) or two brothers.
Mozart bibliography is extensive enough to support all your fantasies, Robert.
But it doesn't add up, doesn't make sense, and neither do you, the twenty year expert on Mozart's diapers exclusively!
You see, Mozart problematic (life details, music) is not exclusive but covers his associates/promoters/manufacturers and his contemporary and previous composers as well- they are all more problematic than M in fact-and unless they are also examined along with M, no clarity can be reached on 18th cent musicmasters.
So, go ahead and define your research limits as narrow as it suits 'you' and your 'cover all other lies' subject!
Last edited by yanni; 05-05-2011 at 11:29 AM.
Yanni,
If you have solutions please provide them. With evidence. Or else you are just increasing the problems. That is my view.
And my posts are not confined to Mozart's childhood years. Read the thread in the last few days. I have posted several times on Mozart's Vienna career. You have obviously not read them. But you never read what is inconvenient, do you ?
Last edited by Musicology; 05-05-2011 at 01:55 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote