The Manufacture of Mozart

[yanni]

...and yet another question, rhetoric as well in the meantime, must be raised:

Who was really this strange bohemian, Muslivecek,who had such an influence on young Amedeo during his stay in Munich, late 1777?

Quoting Wikipedia (Myslivecek):

In a letter to his father Leopold written from Munich on October 11, 1777, Mozart described his character as "full of fire, spirit and life." According to the same letter an incompetent surgeon burned off Mysliveček's nose while trying to treat a mysterious illness. A letter of Leopold Mozart to his son of October 1, 1777, refers to the illness as something shameful for which Mysliveček was deserving of social ostracism.
In the entire Mozart correspondence, no individual outside the Mozart family was ever the cause for so much outpouring of emotion as what is found in Wolfgang's letter of 11 October 1777.
Mysliveček never married and no names of lovers are recorded. Reports of romantic liaisons with the singers Caterina Gabrielli and Lucrezia Aguiari do not pre-date the publication of the fifth edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954). During the period of his activity as a composer of operas (1766-1780), Mysliveček succeeded in having more new opere serie brought into production than any other composer in Europe. Mysliveček and Gluck were the first composers raised in the Czech lands to become famous as operatic composers, but their operatic output exhibits few, if any, Czech characteristics. Mysliveček's operas were very much rooted in a style of Italian opera seria that prized above all the vocal artistry to be found in elaborate arias .

For an earlier version of Myslicevek's mysterious illness, see "Mozart: A Cultural Biography By Robert W. Gutman": Amadeo met the composer (a devoted jesuit no doubt), allegedly suffering from a venereal decease that had disfigured his face, in the garden of a Munich hospital. The source does not care to address the highly controversial issue of the "disabled czech's" enormous -as above and more-influence on young Mozart.

[Musicology]

...and yet another question, rhetoric as well in the meantime, must be raised:

Who was really this strange bohemian, Muslivecek,who had such an influence on young Amedeo during his stay in Munich, late 1777?

Quoting Wikipedia (Myslivecek):

In a letter to his father Leopold written from Munich on October 11, 1777, Mozart described his character as "full of fire, spirit and life." According to the same letter an incompetent surgeon burned off Mysliveček's nose while trying to treat a mysterious illness. A letter of Leopold Mozart to his son of October 1, 1777, refers to the illness as something shameful for which Mysliveček was deserving of social ostracism.
In the entire Mozart correspondence, no individual outside the Mozart family was ever the cause for so much outpouring of emotion as what is found in Wolfgang's letter of 11 October 1777.
Mysliveček never married and no names of lovers are recorded. Reports of romantic liaisons with the singers Caterina Gabrielli and Lucrezia Aguiari do not pre-date the publication of the fifth edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1954). During the period of his activity as a composer of operas (1766-1780), Mysliveček succeeded in having more new opere serie brought into production than any other composer in Europe. Mysliveček and Gluck were the first composers raised in the Czech lands to become famous as operatic composers, but their operatic output exhibits few, if any, Czech characteristics. Mysliveček's operas were very much rooted in a style of Italian opera seria that prized above all the vocal artistry to be found in elaborate arias .

For an earlier version of Myslicevek's mysterious illness, see "Mozart: A Cultural Biography By Robert W. Gutman": Amadeo met the composer (a devoted jesuit no doubt), allegedly suffering from a venereal decease that had disfigured his face, in the garden of a Munich hospital. The source does not care to address the highly controversial issue of the "disabled czech's" enormous -as above and more-influence on young Mozart.

Yanni,

I don't know how much of 'Mozart's' music you know. Listen to this from 1771. It's indisputably the style we associate with Mozart. And it was written while Mozart had written NOTHING of this quality himself.

Josef Myslivececk
Operatic Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
Italy
1771


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk

Furthermore, the name of Myslivececk is mentioned more times in the Mozart family correspondence than ANY OTHER COMPOSER !

Finally, read any version of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. It will tell you (in the article on Myslivececk) that MANY works of Myslicececk are suspected as having been written for Mozart by Myslivececk. In fact, you will see in the footnotes the name of a Myslivececk biographer who says this himself ! Dozens and dozens of works. All part of the great scam, the great deception that is 'Mozart'. In fact, the number of works published in 'Mozart's' name that were later acknowledged to be by Josef Myslivececk is an issue also.

Is that enough ? Or shall we continue with living in fairyland ?

p.s. You might also read the notes on the Youtube address above. The debt of Mozart to Myslivecek is so plain that anyone honest can admit it. This IS the origin of much of 'his' music. And I know dozens of examples.

Here are the published comments to the above piece on Youtube -

Great composer! Myslievecek was the most prolific composer of opera seria in Europa (in his time). This opera seria was first performed on 26 December 1771 at the Teatro Regio Ducale in Milan. Undoubtedly Mozart in the 1770s adopted Myslivecek's stylilistic models (for example in his opera ''Mitridate, Re di Ponto'').

KingofNoldors (8 months ago) Myslivecek is a genius! I don't know why his music is fallen into obscurity for almost two century. And I've the suspect that Mozart could be copied something by the composition of the Divin Boemo.

Thrax1982 (8 months ago) No doubt he did, but in 18th century it was more of a compliment than a grave injury as it is seen today. I imagine that vast majority of composers of the era engaged in this sort of copying and borrowing to some extent.

KingofNoldors (8 months ago) Yes, you're right. Copyright doesn't exist in 18th century, and arrangement of a composition by another musicist it's not a shame. However I think that part of Mozart's genuis is due to the capital importance of other compositors, like the great Myslivecek.

egapnala65 (8 months ago) I'm waiting for somebody to post the "Aria in Dis", the main theme of which was used by Mozart as the main theme of one of his Flute Concertos. It even has a Horn obligato.

kirschhofbarokni (8 months ago) Show Hide - Yes, you're right, and I've read something that Mozart loved music of Hasse, and that it had some influence on him as well, but I remember from books, when Mozart said, that Italian opera of Hasse is all the same, only Myslivecek s the good one

kirschhofbarokni (8 months ago) Could you give me more information about the CD and especialy the interprets? I am interested in it very much.
Thrax1982 - I don't know anything abot any cd (it's likely some old radio broadcast), from the info I've managed to gather on the internet the opera was performed in Czech with castrato parts transposed to tenors and basses.
egapnala65 Incidentally the opening of Mozart's 21st Piano Concerto appears in the finale. Interesting eh?

egapnala65 (9 months ago) To think he has been stashed away in obscurity whilst the world has been in thrall to the later, inferior, overtures of Mozart.

[yanni]

Having jointly sailed past your "jesuit reef", Musicology, I was hoping we would be focusing next on Mozart's "manufacturer", hence my last two rhetoric questions (the first of which btw is purposely "the wrong question", a distraction!) on Musli-vecek (to honour his swiss links).

BTW Tamerlano was first performed not just anywhere in Italy, 1771, but in "Teatro Ducale"*, Milano on the 26th December of the year.
The same date marks the alleged death of "Claude Adrien Helvétius"- (December 26, 1771) founder of "La loge des "Neuf Soeurs....la fille posthume d'Helvétius"

For your information "Myslivecek" was just another alias of "Gluck-Helvetius" (...and "his", per above post, horns introduction was patented by Gluck if I rightly remember)!

Now please answer my first- "wrong"- question rightly!


*On 15 October 1771 Austrian duke Ferdinand married Maria Beatrice Ricciarda d'Este. Festivities arranged for this occasion also included the operas Ascanio in Alba by Mozart(??) and Il Ruggiero by Johann Adolph Hasse.

[isidro]

One may believe this conjecture my dearest musicology and I have to give you kudos for your remarkable amount of research. But can it not be that Mozart was manufactured by his circumstances and historical context no more than you and I are in ours? Surely he was subject to the cultural histories and idiosincracies that surrounded his circumstances, but can that conclusively prove that he himself did not at all create the music for which he is credited? Yes, they may have nods and threads to past historical events, religious circumstances and the like. But that is what makes up the human psyche, consciously or subconsciously and to a great degree makes us who we are. If his mind did not take all these things together and create musical masterworks from them, then who is to say that you did not come up with these conclusions but that they were planted in your mind by those who did research before? It seems like a psychological certainty that Mozart indeed did write his own texts though of course like the rest of us drew off of those masters that came before him, whose music he heard often in his own upbringing and training and which solidified into his subconscious.

While he may have repeated subconsciously or even consciously some of these it proves only that he is in fact a human being like the rest of us and was forged by the experiences and opportunities afforded him. No?

[Musicology]

Having jointly sailed past your "jesuit reef", Musicology, I was hoping we would be focusing next on Mozart's "manufacturer", hence my last two rhetoric questions (the first of which btw is purposely "the wrong question", a distraction!) on Musli-vecek (to honour his swiss links).

BTW Tamerlano was first performed not just anywhere in Italy, 1771, but in "Teatro Ducale"*, Milano on the 26th December of the year.
The same date marks the alleged death of "Claude Adrien Helvétius"- (December 26, 1771) founder of "La loge des "Neuf Soeurs....la fille posthume d'Helvétius"

For your information "Myslivecek" was just another alias of "Gluck-Helvetius" (...and "his", per above post, horns introduction was patented by Gluck if I rightly remember)!

Now please answer my first- "wrong"- question rightly!


*On 15 October 1771 Austrian duke Ferdinand married Maria Beatrice Ricciarda d'Este. Festivities arranged for this occasion also included the operas Ascanio in Alba by Mozart(??) and Il Ruggiero by Johann Adolph Hasse.

Yanni,

The subject under discussion is Josef Myslivececk. A person whom you have now decided is yet another alias.

I don't mind playing 'join up the dots' but you are so busy making dots readers must wonder if you have any lines to offer ?


Regards

[Musicology]

One may believe this conjecture my dearest musicology and I have to give you kudos for your remarkable amount of research. But can it not be that Mozart was manufactured by his circumstances and historical context no more than you and I are in ours? Surely he was subject to the cultural histories and idiosincracies that surrounded his circumstances, but can that conclusively prove that he himself did not at all create the music for which he is credited? Yes, they may have nods and threads to past historical events, religious circumstances and the like. But that is what makes up the human psyche, consciously or subconsciously and to a great degree makes us who we are. If his mind did not take all these things together and create musical masterworks from them, then who is to say that you did not come up with these conclusions but that they were planted in your mind by those who did research before? It seems like a psychological certainty that Mozart indeed did write his own texts though of course like the rest of us drew off of those masters that came before him, whose music he heard often in his own upbringing and training and which solidified into his subconscious.

While he may have repeated subconsciously or even consciously some of these it proves only that he is in fact a human being like the rest of us and was forged by the experiences and opportunities afforded him. No?

Hi there Isidro,


The blind virtuoso pianist and composer, Theresia von Paradis (1759-1824). A Rondo for Piano and Orchestra. Falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart for almost 200 years. Like all the rest. Composer of almost 24 piano concertos (all stolen, all lost). One of the greatest pianists of the 18th century who toured for many years in Europe and was celebrated in Vienna, Paris and London. A woman who, shortly before her death in 1824 said to a friend -

'And do you suppose that I, a woman, would be believed, or that my music would survive, in some form when... But what point is there to dwell on the subject of its loss ? It is not lost - it survives - and you may always hear it'.

So it proves to be. She, (von Paradis) had a major part to play in the creation of 'Mozart's' piano concertos. One of the principal parts, in fact. Along with several others whose names are hardly known.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAyR-Soe4Ac

Regards

Robert (Newman)

[yanni]

Be a true sport, Musicology, and please answer my rhetoric question #1.

As for "losing the reader":

I was not the one who tried to hang it on the jesuits, neither did I "ommit" Gluck* from my list of bohemian composers, the "little prophet from Bohemia", so "close" to "Jesuits" Holbach(Gluck's mysterious Paris publisher alias, whose "System de la Nature" is often attributed to elder Mirabeau) and Rousseau!

Did you know that Musli-vecek had a twin brother?

Cheers!

*Or was it "Grimm" (who also played the harpsichord, see "Rousseau's" Confessions)?

[Musicology]

I enjoy listening to classical music, but freely admit I am not a student of the genre, and after reading all this nonsense, I am glad that I do not try to study everything.

Jozanny,

I'm glad you don't also ! With an attitude like yours classical music is the only field of human study that escaped corruption, falsehood, icon builders, hype and downright fiction.

Dream on !

All the best.

[Musicology]

Be a true sport, Musicology, and please answer my rhetoric question #1.

As for "losing the reader":

I was not the one who tried to hang it on the jesuits, neither did I "ommit" Gluck from my list of bohemian composers, the "little prophet from Bohemia", so "close" to "Jesuits" Holbach(Gluck's mysterious Paris publisher alias, whose "System de la Nature" is often attributed to elder Mirabeau) and Rousseau!

Did you know that Musli-vecek had a twin brother?

Cheers!

Yanni,

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known. You seem to agree with this. That Mozart was not a 'genius'. At any time.

Yes, Myslivececk had a twin brother. I won't mention that Myslivececk was educated by the Jesuits In Prague - the same place where, after Mozart's death, hundreds of works nobody had ever heard of began to be published in 'Mozart's' name. (This took years to achieve. The selection process required a whole group of editors, music publishers and others). It took forgery, theft, invention, and even the writing of bogus biographies.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people. During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts, the careers of many others who are hardly known. This was achieved because the entire music industry was controlled. By the Jesuits and their supporters. Both before 1773 and after it. It involved the supply of music to an organisation who eventually published it in the name of Mozart. Whose story is almost unknown.

The story we have of Mozart's career is of course fiction. But fiction so persistant and so rarely cross-examined that it virtually controls textbooks on music history.

The music itself is often beautiful. That's why it became 'his'. But its story is that of the labours of people whose names (for different reasons) are today little known. Hidden by the 'music industry' and by the 'experts'.

What they wanted was control. Control of the music industry. Control of what is believed and taught. Control of Mozart's life and career at every stage. Even at the expense of reality itself. And they did it. By dominating the field of music publishing, books on music history, and musical performance. So the myth became 'history' and the truth was thrown in the trash. Easier to control a musical icon from Salzburg than to tell the real story of dozens of people.

Now, if people say you are not 'cultured', that you have not studied (and idolised) the music of W.A. Mozart, you can smile.

Why ! Any child who plays the piano these days is described as 'the next Mozart'. There are organisations who believe listening to Mozart increases your I.Q. and those of unborn babies. There are a thousand Korean Mozart wannabeees on Youtube who can play a sonata on the piano. This is 'proof' they are 'geniuses'. The industry loves such hype. It's like those pilgrimages of mediaeval times. Where the icon is carried around like the clay idols of Babylon.

In the late 18th century the founder of the science of musicology, a German named J.N. Forkel, was hated. Why ? Because he taught that the music really worthy of appreciation was not popular but was music that was of use to students of music. In all ages. Including the wonderful and ignored works of J.S. Bach. He warned that commerce was soon going to produce ignorance.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach. Why not ? Because their 'education' so-called, was built on heroic myths. He (Bach) had to be 'rediscovered' by them in the 19th century. It's laughable. The most wonderful master of harmony. God's answer to musical hyperbole. A man whose music was hardly known and who had even been ignored by most of his own generation. Who lived only to serve others. Unapplauded and yet sublime.

But that's what happens when an industry dominates what we believe and want to believe.


J.S. Bach
Cantata 140
Opening Movement

(Miraculous harmony and invention)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC35GS88OqA

and -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE3vIONoYWc

- DITTO -


Thanks

[yanni]

"Yes, Myslivececk had a twin brother."

So says Wikipedia but we both agree that the "manufacturing the truth" process-still at work-may well include Musli-vecek/Gluck/Rousseau/Grimm etc who had every reason to invent another convenient replica just in case.

"It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts, the careers of many others who are hardly known. This was achieved because the entire music industry was controlled. By the Jesuits and their supporters. Both before 1773 and after it."

You are jumping to hasty and illogical conclusions again to prove what exactly?

That the countereformists (Jesuits) created the reformists (in philosophy and art, including music) to keep on ruling the globe?

I suppose that's why Deutsche Grammophone (jesuits disguised as lutheran reformists perhaps?) are financing Magdalena's "Beauty of Transformation" favouring Mozart instead of his manufacturer (and top "transformer", Gluck/Muslicevek etc etc, the man with the thousand faces), huh?

http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/s...arias&DETAIL=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_Ko%C5%BEen%C3%A1

Not so, my dear Watson.

(and the same goes for you, dear Magdalena "K": There is no beauty in "our" particular "transformation", just a pile of lies!)

[stlukesguild]

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known.

Please use the appropriate terms. This thread is built upon the THEORY (the FICTION or the FANTASY) accepted and promoted by virtually no one but yourself that Mozart's music was fabricated as part of some grandiose conspiracy ala Foucault's Pendulum or more appropriately, a Dan Brown novel. The "facts" that you post here can undoubtedly be easily discredited by any true musicologist which is one reason that you have chosen to promote at a literature site where you might be reasonably assured that the majority lack the ability to challenge your assertions. The other reasons for your postings are a promotion of your proposed book on this very topic (Spam?) and the fact you have been banned from virtually all music discussion boards.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people.

To what purpose? You propose some vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people and unquestionably a fortune... to what end? To simply establish a Viennese or German musical genius? To steal musical dominance away from the Italians (as if Bach, Telemann, Gluck, and others had not already achieved this). And how was this achieved? To control the music industry? As if that were a goal worthy of such efforts at that point in history.
And this was achieved through the combined efforts of some consortium of composers who miraculously had the ability to compose a body of work for Mozart and for Haydn that maintained a continuity and yet were distinct from each other. And this consortium was brilliant enough to create a body of music that clearly conveyed the development of the individual "fictive" composers from early immaturity to later profundity. Yet today... in Hollywood we have a collection of artists, film-makers, composers, etc... unlike anything the 18th century might have imagined... and yet... in most instances... they are unable to produce anything approaching the artistic brilliance of Mozart?

During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts...

If you were truly able to PROVE this, you would have already achieved the greatest breakthrough in the history of musicology and your proofs would have already be commonly discussed among musicians, music historians, etc... But of course you argue there is some great conspiracy still at work to suppress the facts. It makes for an unassailable position: You assert that a great part of what we know of musical history was completely fabricated as part of some vast conspiracy of which only you know the truth and then claim that the same grand conspiracy is still at work to suppress your facts from being accepted. In some camps this might be called delusional.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach.

You have stated this falsehood again and again. Mozart, himself composed several transcriptions of Bach's works, including that of Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II of the Well Tempered Clavier. Exposure to Bach (as well as Haydn) inspired Mozart's later efforts in the string quartets and can be especially seen in the fugal structure of the final section of the "Jupiter" symphony. Haydn was also knowledgeable and appreciative of Bach... although he was more influenced early on by the work of his son C.P.E. Bach. The reality is that baroque music in general became largely ignored during to "classical" period. Handel and Vivaldi were equally seen as "outdated". Indeed, Handel's operas (and most baroque operas in general) are only now receiving the sort of attention they deserve, while Vivaldi is now receiving the attention as a result of the current recordings of a vast cache of scores long housed away. The current situation in classical music in which we have access via recordings to a vast array of music from the present back through the middle-ages and beyond... and in which orchestras and operas focus a great deal of their repertoire upon the works of older composers is not the same situation as that of centuries past.

Of course... I may have taken it all wrong... you may be proposing a great fiction... in which this is all perfectly suited to a literature site. Of course nothing you have yet proposed suggests anything more than a variation on the DaVinci Codee. You might wish to read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum... the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories.

[yanni]

Read Marilyn_M_Barnewall's "Big Boys and Their Synthetic Political and Financial Toys", StLuke:

As "no true musicologist", she leaves out of her "conspiracy theory" the arts alltogether.

But she does include everything else!

Cheers!

virtually no one

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

In the name of all that's holy! Is this horse not sufficiently dead? This meciless beating is too much for mine eyes the bear. Let us all come together and accept the truth about the "day the music died" in Mexico City.

[Musicology]

This thread is on Mozart. On the fact that the music of 'Mozart' was written by various other composers whose names and whose careers are hardly known.

Please use the appropriate terms. This thread is built upon the THEORY (the FICTION or the FANTASY) accepted and promoted by virtually no one but yourself that Mozart's music was fabricated as part of some grandiose conspiracy ala Foucault's Pendulum or more appropriately, a Dan Brown novel. The "facts" that you post here can undoubtedly be easily discredited by any true musicologist which is one reason that you have chosen to promote at a literature site where you might be reasonably assured that the majority lack the ability to challenge your assertions. The other reasons for your postings are a promotion of your proposed book on this very topic (Spam?) and the fact you have been banned from virtually all music discussion boards.

So now you see ? The entire thing was engineered. The manufacture of the Mozart story took the organisation of dozens, even hundreds of people.

To what purpose? You propose some vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people and unquestionably a fortune... to what end? To simply establish a Viennese or German musical genius? To steal musical dominance away from the Italians (as if Bach, Telemann, Gluck, and others had not already achieved this). And how was this achieved? To control the music industry? As if that were a goal worthy of such efforts at that point in history.
And this was achieved through the combined efforts of some consortium of composers who miraculously had the ability to compose a body of work for Mozart and for Haydn that maintained a continuity and yet were distinct from each other. And this consortium was brilliant enough to create a body of music that clearly conveyed the development of the individual "fictive" composers from early immaturity to later profundity. Yet today... in Hollywood we have a collection of artists, film-makers, composers, etc... unlike anything the 18th century might have imagined... and yet... in most instances... they are unable to produce anything approaching the artistic brilliance of Mozart?

During his lifetime and beyond. It's a big and complicated story. Proved only by detailed research of manuscripts...

If you were truly able to PROVE this, you would have already achieved the greatest breakthrough in the history of musicology and your proofs would have already be commonly discussed among musicians, music historians, etc... But of course you argue there is some great conspiracy still at work to suppress the facts. It makes for an unassailable position: You assert that a great part of what we know of musical history was completely fabricated as part of some vast conspiracy of which only you know the truth and then claim that the same grand conspiracy is still at work to suppress your facts from being accepted. In some camps this might be called delusional.

J.S. Bach ? The Viennese had never even heard of Bach.

You have stated this falsehood again and again. Mozart, himself composed several transcriptions of Bach's works, including that of Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II of the Well Tempered Clavier. Exposure to Bach (as well as Haydn) inspired Mozart's later efforts in the string quartets and can be especially seen in the fugal structure of the final section of the "Jupiter" symphony. Haydn was also knowledgeable and appreciative of Bach... although he was more influenced early on by the work of his son C.P.E. Bach. The reality is that baroque music in general became largely ignored during to "classical" period. Handel and Vivaldi were equally seen as "outdated". Indeed, Handel's operas (and most baroque operas in general) are only now receiving the sort of attention they deserve, while Vivaldi is now receiving the attention as a result of the current recordings of a vast cache of scores long housed away. The current situation in classical music in which we have access via recordings to a vast array of music from the present back through the middle-ages and beyond... and in which orchestras and operas focus a great deal of their repertoire upon the works of older composers is not the same situation as that of centuries past.

Of course... I may have taken it all wrong... you may be proposing a great fiction... in which this is all perfectly suited to a literature site. Of course nothing you have yet proposed suggests anything more than a variation on the DaVinci Codee. You might wish to read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum... the perfect tale of those who become obsessed with their own labyrinthine conspiracy theories.

stlukesguild,

I will answer your lengthy post below this. The 'labyrinthine conspiracy' is the official myth of Mozart. And always has been. As any fair person can see if they examine the facts.

[Musicology]

In the name of all that's holy! Is this horse not sufficiently dead? This meciless beating is too much for mine eyes the bear. Let us all come together and accept the truth about the "day the music died" in Mexico City.

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

You can use other threads, can't you ?