The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Musicology,

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

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

If Gluck was Cocchi and Cocchi was himself Italian I leave you to explain it yourself !

History says Gluck was a Bohemian, born at the estate of Lobkowtiz.

[Babbalanja]

Stlukesguild, I commend you on your skill in shining the harsh light of skepticism on the smoke and mirrors of the Mozart Myth. Musicology (or Robert Newman, as he calls himself elsewhere on the Internet) has a conspiracy theory that he's refined through years of dedicated hackwork, quote mining, and confirmation bias. At this point, any factoid he can point to proves the Big Conspiracy. But there's no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this vast plot.

Case in point, Robert points to the fact that Koch's 1793 work on concerti doesn't even mention Mozart. Certainly it indicates how far Mozart's stock had fallen so soon after his death. But is it really what we'd expect to see if there were such a vast systemic scheme to create a musical superstar out of the no-talent Mozart even during his lifetime?

The logical leaps Robert makes are remarkable. He considers Mozart a no-talent who was guilty of plagiarism, so that means Mozart never wrote a note of music himself! He says many works originally attributed to Mozart have since been attributed to other composers, so this means every work attributed to Mozart is a fraud!

His ad hoc explanation for handwaving away any criticism of this half-baked theory is the vast power of secret cabals such as the Jesuits and the Freemasons. This is pretty convenient, since by definition any claims he makes about their machinations is pure speculation.

And why hasn't Robert produced a work to be reviewed and assessed by credentialed musicologists? He seems to be wasting a lot of time on message boards that would be better spent getting his monumental book written and published.

Once again, Stlukesguild, fine work.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

If Gluck was Cocchi and Cocchi was himself Italian I leave you to explain it yourself !

History says Gluck was a Bohemian, born at the estate of Lobkowtiz.

I see you trying the "heads I winn, tails you lose" approach, Robert, running for cover under this very same "history" you already labelled an utter lie.

The "StLuke-Babbalanja" duette should, imo, avoid using hot air to inflate their balloon. Recent experiments demonstrated that even helium-filled balloons are doomed as UFO's....and so are flying sausages!

(Alternatively they should study Chastellux's influence on Th.Jefferson on how to "read" english grammars and dictionaries:

Within a quarter of a century of Jefferson's change of mind, Coleridge decided that he had discovered a new, or rediscovered the old, principle of English verse--the accentually based line: that poets for four hundred years had lost contact with the essential rhythm of the language. So, if de Chastellux and (now) Jefferson and subsequently Coleridge were correct, what of the collective opinion of grammarians, elocutionists, and lexicographers? )

[Babbalanja]

The "StLuke-Babbalanja" duette should, imo, avoid using hot air to inflate their balloon.

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

[yanni]

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

Stoicism/scepticism will not bring you Nirvana, Babba, perhaps you should try the stylite approach to matters!

[Musicology]

Stlukesguild, I commend you on your skill in shining the harsh light of skepticism on the smoke and mirrors of the Mozart Myth. Musicology (or Robert Newman, as he calls himself elsewhere on the Internet) has a conspiracy theory that he's refined through years of dedicated hackwork, quote mining, and confirmation bias. At this point, any factoid he can point to proves the Big Conspiracy. But there's no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this vast plot.

Case in point, Robert points to the fact that Koch's 1793 work on concerti doesn't even mention Mozart. Certainly it indicates how far Mozart's stock had fallen so soon after his death. But is it really what we'd expect to see if there were such a vast systemic scheme to create a musical superstar out of the no-talent Mozart even during his lifetime?

The logical leaps Robert makes are remarkable. He considers Mozart a no-talent who was guilty of plagiarism, so that means Mozart never wrote a note of music himself! He says many works originally attributed to Mozart have since been attributed to other composers, so this means every work attributed to Mozart is a fraud!

His ad hoc explanation for handwaving away any criticism of this half-baked theory is the vast power of secret cabals such as the Jesuits and the Freemasons. This is pretty convenient, since by definition any claims he makes about their machinations is pure speculation.

And why hasn't Robert produced a work to be reviewed and assessed by credentialed musicologists? He seems to be wasting a lot of time on message boards that would be better spent getting his monumental book written and published.

Once again, Stlukesguild, fine work.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

You say there is 'no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this plot'. But that's just plain wrong.

You believe in a Mozart detached from time and space. In fact, the average Mozart enthusiast knows almost nothing of music and the musical scene at the time of their hero. It's not your fault. It is the result of a 'science' which is no science. Which never allows cross-examination of its claims. So we are kept ignorant of reality, virtually all the way through their defence of his myth. If the story of Mozart is true why is it that at each and every stage of his life and supposed career as a musical genius there are massive, huge, discrepancies between the legend and historical/documentary reality ? I cannot invent them. They either exist or they do not exist. Grant me that, please ! They actually exist, by the hundred. On even the most basic issues. Closer study proves that even the musical manuscripts are very often not in Mozart's hand. And those which are (there being no less than 3 'Mozart' forms of handwriting to start with !) are often works by other composers.

You refer to the published work of Heinrich Koch (1793) published only 2 years after Mozart's death, which discusses piano concertos but does not mention Mozart ! Yes, and why is this ? Maybe Koch suffered from amensia ? What chance is there Koch would not refer to Mozart if 'his' 27 concertos (most of which, we are told, were played and celebrated in Vienna for years) were unknown to Koch in 1793 ? Isn't this a real problem ? You surely admit that it is. But it gets worse. In other musical writings of the time, such as the Musical Year books of the founder of musicology, J.N. Forkel, he gives a small paragraph to Mozart. But he does not credit Mozart with being the composer of major operas such as 'Figaro'. Nor does he speak of any such reputation as a virtuoso performer and famous figure in musical Vienna. He refers (in 1789) only to the eventual appearance of a score of 'Abduction from the Seraglio' in Mozart's name which appeared in print 4 years after its Vienna premiere. And it appeared only with a short selection of music from that opera. In fact, the diaries of the time (such as that of the opera enthusiast Count Zinzendorf) tell us 'this music is NOT by Mozart'. Speaking of that very opera ! And Zinzendorf should know - he attended the premiere of that opera in Vienna ! Finally, how is it that the famous librettist of Mozart, Lorenzo da Ponte (a supporter of the Mozart myth) said 'he, Mozart, was completely unknown to the people of Vienna during his lifetime and was unable to demonstrate his genius to that city' !!! So much for the famous W.A. Mozart, piano virtuoso and famous composer in Vienna for the last 10 years of his life. Yes ? Time after time, after time, the myth falls to pieces and fraud/exaggeration and falsehood are proved.

If Mozart really wrote these 27 piano concertos how is it that after 200 years of Mozart study we have not a single set of performance parts from Vienna for any one of these 27 concertos for the period when he was supposedly famous for performing them ? Not a single concerto. In fact the conductor scores come almost entirely from Salzburg and they have a very different story. Where have the performance parts of these 'Mozart' piano concertos from Vienna disappeared to ?

The reports we have of Mozart's performances in Vienna can be proved to be false. In some cases it's embarrasing. Notices appeared in the newspapers for performances which never, actually, happened. As I show in some detail.

The manfuacture of Mozart as a 'musical genius' was the takeover of the music industry, by the fraternal elites who had controlled music for centuries but who, in the 19th century, needed a musical 'genius' to continue their control. They manufactured one. It was not new. They had done so before. But this time it was to be the icon of Mozart. One of the icons of the 'enlightenment'. As for reality, well, who cares ?

Regards

It's called skepticism, yanni: a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

You're free to believe whatever you want, of course. But don't resent the fact that some people aren't as credulous as you when it comes to theories about secret societies and vast historical plots.

I think we have arrived at a time in human history where the role of conspiracies, hidden agendas, propaganda, and official explanations is shown to be a major factor in human affairs. The difference is that some accept this fact and others live in denial of it. Easier to believe in a candy floss Mozart than to study reality in any detail.

You hear it all the time. 'I don't believe in conspiracy theories'. And these are the same people who accept 'official' conspiracies all the time. The tragedy of 9/11 (according to the official report) was the product of a conspiracy. So says that report, no less than 3 times, in its own text. But that fact is OK, because it's an 'official' conspiracy.

No, let's be honest. Conspiracies are all too common. We don't like to admit it. Our courts are full of them. Virtually every crime of any size is a conspiracy as any judge will tell you.

We must simply respect fair, honest, investigative research. We must examine issues from more than one side. That is a fair and reasonable basis on which to form a judgement on any issue. Conspiracy or not.

Regards

[Babbalanja]

Istvan,

You say there is 'no coherent, verifiable, detailed scenario for this plot'. But that's just plain wrong.

So where is it, Robert? All I ever see from you is a long litany of perceived anomalies in the official Mozart biography. Anomalies might be gold bricks in the stairway to Tinhat Heaven, but they don't add up to anything without a comprehensive, coherent alternative scenario to explain them.

I've never seen you present documented evidence supporting your claim that the Jesuits and Freemasons hired composers to create all the works now falsely attributed to Mozart. All I've seen you present is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the two hundred year history of Mozart scholarship. There's a big difference between the two.

Regards,

Istvan

We must simply respect fair, honest, investigative research. We must examine issues from more than one side. That is a fair and reasonable basis on which to form a judgement on any issue.

No one ever disputed this fact. I just think it's reasonable to show the same degree of skepticism to any 'alternative' scenario as we show to the 'official' one.

[yanni]

No one ever disputed this fact. I just think it's reasonable to show the same degree of skepticism to any 'alternative' scenario as we show to the 'official' one.

The only problem with Robert's scenario is his "blame the jesuits" conclusion(!), totally unfounded yet shared by Dan Brown and, as I had the misfortune to realise last night, by the "author" of the film "Mission Impossible III" as well (Tom Cruise's last finest).

Sorry folks but Rome never interfered in the theft of your "rabbitsfoot", now as always safely guarded by the same old braves of the "IMF" (Impossible Mission Forces, naturally).

You are in good company Robert!

[Babbalanja]

The only problem with Robert's scenario is his "blame the jesuits" conclusion(!)

My first problem with Robert's scenario is what exactly is it?

In conspiracy theory world, it's best to keep the specifics to a minimum, so that you can handwave away any criticism of your ideas as a "straw man." But this reduces the debate to a futile shell game. Did the secret societies hire composers to write Mozart's works during his lifetime, or did they just exaggerate his importance long after his death? Did Mozart plagiarize certain ideas of others, or was there a systemic plot to attribute others' works to him? These are not the same claims, and it's unclear which ones Robert is making.

The second problem is that the 'evidence' he always refers to isn't what we'd need to see to support his claims. He hasn't shown documentation of this vast Jesuit/Freemason conspiracy, he's relying on wild speculation. And the 'discrepancies' he uses to dispute the authorship of certain of Mozart's early works doesn't support his claim that (as he says in his OP), "the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire".

Take a closer look at what Robert is offering, and you'll see it's a vague fantasy backed by an incoherent slew of factoids.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

Istvan,

Robert decided to join this forum when he realised that:

This thread by Yanni is consistent with the findings of my own research on the career of Mozart. (Mozart was patronised by Baron Grimm from an early date).

The Voltaire/Grimm/Rousseau relationship is endlessly fascinating.

He has however not followed my suggestion (expressed early in this thread) to study my roothunting research (ending Robert's "endlessly fascinating Voltaire/Grimm/Rousseau relationship" and solving a few more "secret societies mysteries" of their time) herein, the results of which are somewhat(!) contrary to "conventional truth".

His "manufactured Mozart" claim is correct but he is wrong( both conventionaly and conveniently) on the manufacturer.

Re Conspiracy theories and your relative skepticism here is a quote from GenealogyNet that might turn you to a believer:

Mussolini Worked For MI5 Agents
Benito Mussolini may be among history's most notorious fascist dictators, but evidence suggests he worked for British secret services during World War I.

Historian Dr Peter Martland says MI5 records show it paid "Il Duce" £100 per week, about £5,000 today,to spread pro-war propaganda via his newspaper.

The Cambridge University academic made the discovery while studying the papers of former agent Sir Samuel Hoare MP.

Mussolini's socialist publication, Il Popolo d'Italia, carried a key voice because it served the factory workers of Milan whose output was essential for the war effort.


Cheers.

[Babbalanja]

Re Conspiracy theories and your relative skepticism here is a quote from GenealogyNet that might turn you to a believer:

Mussolini Worked For MI5 Agents

Well, a couple of decades before WWII, things were very different in Europe and allegiances were pretty complicated. I have no problem believing that Mussolini was involved in espionage with his future enemies, if there's credible documentation that says so.

It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. If you offered as evidence the fact that Mussolini couldn't have lived at the address historians say he did during WWI, so therefore he might have worked for MI5, I might be less inclined to believe it.

The skeptical approach only favors evidence over speculation. And I'm sticking to it.

[Musicology]

So where is it, Robert? All I ever see from you is a long litany of perceived anomalies in the official Mozart biography. Anomalies might be gold bricks in the stairway to Tinhat Heaven, but they don't add up to anything without a comprehensive, coherent alternative scenario to explain them.

I've never seen you present documented evidence supporting your claim that the Jesuits and Freemasons hired composers to create all the works now falsely attributed to Mozart. All I've seen you present is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the two hundred year history of Mozart scholarship. There's a big difference between the two.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

Please consider what you are saying. You are saying all you have seen is a list of discrepancies, misattributions, and errors in the 200 year history of Mozart scholarship. OK, let's stop at this point. Let's call this our Base Camp, if you will.

The first proof that a subject is worthy of study is whether the evidence supports it being studied in the first place. If someone invents a 'science' which says the moon is made of green cheese it will soon collapse, because there is no evidence of it. Therefore the first test here is passed. We agree we have a subject worth studying, worth examining. May I suggest you pitch your tent there, in the foothills of the mountain, so to speak, so that you can consider where you must go next as we examine this subject in greater detail.

You have said that no evidence has been presented that the Jesuit Order and the Freemansons (and other fraternities) stage managed the career of Mozart. Well, with respect, the evidence is massive. It exists from the time of his childhood right to the year of his death in 1791. It literally throws itself at us when we examine the subject in greater detail. I did not examine this subject only from Base Camp. I examined in much, much, greater detail. Historically, musically and in many other ways. Only a very small fraction of this has been discussed here. Of course.

Regards

Well, a couple of decades before WWII, things were very different in Europe and allegiances were pretty complicated. I have no problem believing that Mussolini was involved in espionage with his future enemies, if there's credible documentation that says so.

It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. If you offered as evidence the fact that Mussolini couldn't have lived at the address historians say he did during WWI, so therefore he might have worked for MI5, I might be less inclined to believe it.

The skeptical approach only favors evidence over speculation. And I'm sticking to it.

Me too. I wish Mozart scholarship would do the same. They do not. They invent fables, myths, which people believe. But those fables and myths are almost never cross-examined. Which matters if we really are interested in evidence.

Virtually nothing said and written about Mozart and his career is fact. It's really a fiction. Yes, there was a musician called W.A. Mozart. Yes, various works were published in his name (though nearly 5 times as much after he had died). And yes, there were stories and reports of him being a musical superman. But when we start to examine these reports, these stories, the documents, the manuscripts themselves, the source material, the legends, the industry itself, we slowly but surely start to realise the scale of the fiction. This process occurs in two stages - not one.

1. OK, Mozart was probably a massive exaggeration and his career was most probably exaggerated and falsified.

2. So, now we have established this to be true beyond reasonable doubt, how do we explain the origins of this music, its great beauty (in many cases) and the rise of fame of Mozart as a 'musical genius'.

You will appreciate these are great questions. We have only skimmed the surface of them in this thread. I know very well what critics will say. I know their arguments very well. And, for sure, I know how hard it will be to call convention in to question. But that is what I am doing.

Why would people go to such vast lengths to manufacture the career of a 'musical genius' ? It sounds bizzare, strange, almost impossible. It was done for various reasons. Not least the control of the emerging music industry by those who were the patrons of musical art, the control of performance, the control, in fact, of musical history. And to bring glory (and prestige) to Vienna as the 'city of music'. These are just a few of the reasons. Culture is as much a product of fakery, exaggeration and intrigue as almost any other field of human history. The case of Mozart is another example. In any field of study where cross-examination or criticism/accountability is not welcomed we will see the rise of fictions, legends, falsehoods and myths. These taught in the name of reality. In this case the fraud was very well constructed. It seems almost impossible to expose. It consists of mountains of 'proofs'. It sounds crazy to question it. When I was earlier I would never have thought of such an idea. But, slowly, this has been done on a subject that I've examined in great detail. This process calls in to question his entire musical career and his musical reputation. Amazing but true. And that's good. Let the 'experts' come and show us where it's wrong. That's fair enough, yes ?

Regards

[Babbalanja]

You have said that no evidence has been presented that the Jesuit Order and the Freemansons (and other fraternities) stage managed the career of Mozart. Well, with respect, the evidence is massive.

But you haven't presented any of it.

Did I miss where you showed signed declarations from these secret societies, declassified documents outlining their plan to manufacture the Mozart myth? Did you ever present a letter or memoir from the genius who really composed The Magic Flute, detailing the motives and methods of his assistance in this monumental fraud? Did you show us Mozart's written confession that he was a huge no-talent who depended entirely on the works of others (at the behest of the Jesuits and Freemasons) for his catalogue and reputation?

No, you've just presented various anomalies in the Mozart biography, such as misattributed early works. You've made grandiose pronouncements about how brainwashed everyone but yourself is by the Mozart Myth. And that's supposed to convince us of the existence of this vast historical conspiracy?

All I'm doing is being as skeptical of your claims as I would of anyone else's. If someone presents records from MI5 showing that Mussolini was on the payroll during WWI, I accept the claim. But unless you show me evidence that secret societies manufactured the Mozart Myth out of thin air, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,

Istvan

[stlukesguild]

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.

This must surely be one of the most inane parts of your entire theory. You ask that we accept the idea that a vast conspiracy was undertaken by various clandestine societies (a conspiracy that continues into the present) which involved the labors of untold hundreds... the enforced silence of who knows how many (including the true composers of Mozart's masterworks who one would assume would wish the world to know the truth)... the falsification of historic documents... and an expenditure of what must have amounted to a sizable fortune all to what purpose? The control of a non-existent music "industry" in the day before copyright laws and sound recordings made music in any way truly profitable. But then again... haven't you also argued that the moon landing was another falsification engineered by Hollywood film studios and the government?

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

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

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

Robert, can you kindly tell me where you studied music and musicology? Perhaps it was the Royal School of Music, London where you have stated you studied Music/Orchestration/Harmony/Instrumentation from 1970-1974... except that such a school never existed. Or perhaps such was a misprint and you meant the Royal College of Music (which has no record of an alumni by your name).

Or perhaps you can kindly tell me the names of a number of credible musicologist or music historians who have seriously embraced your theory. Certainly a theory as ground-breaking as your would be an assurance of near instant academic stardom for the musicologist who could prove it in academic circles. Or perhaps you wish for us to believe that the music field is the sole discipline in academia where alternative theories and continued investigative research are frowned upon... or the Jesuits and Illuminati are still pulling the strings behind the whole scene and hushing these academics up with threats against their wives and families... or promises of a lifetime supply of Viennese chocolate Elvises and videos of the moon landing.

[yanni]

"It's not like MI5 could gain by admitting this if it weren't a fact, so this leads me to believe it's more likely true. "

So you have come to a conclusion afterall Babba, even before my Mussolini.

An ex skeptic turned pessimist-realist?

"Grimm", a "brother" freemason of Leopold Mozart, started manufacturing Mozart's myth, December 1763*. ("The Chevalier de Saint-Georges: virtuoso of the sword and the bow" by Gabriel Banat, p 106).

HE did not complete the task however:

In 1778, after the death of Voltaire, Grimm (heavily involved in world affairs at the time and mourning the death of his friend Voltaire) lost interest on his ex protegee(Mozart writes to his father that atheist Voltaire died a well deserved dog's death) already convinced that Mozart did not have a future as a musician (let alone as opera composer).

With "Grimm" and "Gluck" being the same person, evidence is needed to document:

a) If "Gluck" ever supported Mozart post 1778 (or was seen anywhere mid 1779-late 1782 ie during "Chastellux's" visit to America).
b) The timeline of "Gluck's" (and Cocchi's) vast archive of opera documents changing hands, post 1787 ("Gluck's" alleged death).

*1763 marks the conclusion of the Seven Year War (defeated Austria loses Poland).