The Manufacture of Mozart

[billl]

No,

The point IS relevant. I don't believe babies can fly 747's across the Atlantic from New York to London. I have seen no evidence of it. Nor do I believe children write symphonies, piano concertos or operas. But you believe the opposite. In the case of Mozart you believe he did so. And I am simply asking you to provide evidence of his musical and general education. Which you say is not relevant !

Hi Musicology, I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition. It is an interesting point, and I think it could help win people over if you could show them some evidence/documentation that would point conclusively (or, at least, close to conclusively) to another explanation for the young Mozart's output. I have typed in some (not all) names that you've mentioned, but I can't get anywhere on them using the internet.

And there's more - the musical score was not completed by Mozart. It was sent to Bonn before the premiere, according to the surviving correspondence of the Bonn music publisher Simrock. These are facts you do not know. It was in Bonn this music was all cobbled together.

Is it clear in the correspondence that music was cobbled together? I am not familiar with the role of publishing house at that time, but might it have been the case that it was the publisher's responsibility to provide adequate copies of the score for the orchestra(s) that would perform the composition on a tour? Until recently, providing sheet music was a very important responsibility for a publishing company. Again, maybe it's just a case where your enthusiasm and energy is taking things too quickly for me (someone who is not so familiar with the history of Mozart OR publishing companies, for that matter).

Also, are you or any of your colleagues in a position to provide links to documents, or make scans of them, maybe to produce some sort of website--it isn't expensive to set up the website. I think that could be a very effective way to make use of the internet, and make a case for the truth. There is a learning curve if you aren't experienced, but they make it pretty simple these days, especially if you are going to be providing mostly text, images, and photos/scans. I can see you have sufficient determination to do it!

Thanks Billl,

My comments on "Mozart: A Documentary Biography By Otto Erich Deutsch" as follows:

The online version is partially protected, particulary prohibiting access to data on my hero (as "Grimm" and less so as "Gluck").

IE If I still maintained the slightest doubt on my findings I would have to buy the book but this is not the case.

Of interest:

A. That "Gluck", shortly after his return to Europe from America (as Chastellux and La Luzerne) visits Vienna, enjoys a Mozart concert and invites the Mozarts to dinner, March 12th-16th, 1783, (p305), while Mme d'Epinay lies dying (+15th April 1783- IF she did!).*

B.The fact that a month after "Gluck" aranges his alleged death in Vienna November 15th, 1787, the Holy Roman Emperor disbands the German Opera (With Aloisia Weber joining the Italian Company and Mozart going "italian" too, at least in Vienna.)

(detailed 1787 timeline under preparation.)

Cheers!

*If "Gluck" had a twin brother (as many of his alias do, including Myslivecek) one cannot really tell who is who. The same for another "Gluck" presence in the book, p 205, on August 6th, 1782 (repetition in his favour of Mozart's Entfuhrung aus dem Serai) while Chastellux is still in America.

Hi yanni! You provide a timeline here, but I'm not familiar enough with the characters and the typical pace of travel in Mozart's time, so I'm not sure exactly how you are making a case here. I have seen you refer to someone with various aliases (Gluck, etc.). Can you explain who he is, who "Gluck" is supposed to be, and how those things figure in this quoted post. I see you say it is hard to keep track of who is who--but you are connecting him (I think) to a woman I am not familiar with either.

Maybe your more detailed timeline will clear that stuff up, I'm mainly posting because I was thinking "more detailed" might end up meaning that there would be more entries in the timeline, and maybe more characters I don't know.

I understand that answers to my questions might be somewhere above in this thread, but it is a ton of material, and it isn't really clear to me. I am very interested if this book from Google Books might provide you with a chance to show us a bit of how actual documentation is supporting your position. And of course, any other more useful/clearer documents would be great, if they have made it online.

Thanks!

[stlukesguild]

Hi Musicology, I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition.

Child prodigies are not all that rare... but they don't really matter all that much. By this I mean that it is rare for the work of a child prodigy to stand a a major work of a mature artist. Mendelssohn is the other obvious example in music. His achievements are far better documented and include some 12 string symphonies written between ages 12 and 14. His Octet and Music for a Midsummer Night's Dream written at age 16 may be the the most youthful masterpieces in music (although Schubert also had composed a number of brilliant songs by this age).

The reality is that the youthful works of Mozart are not masterpieces. They are perhaps well-composed (at best) but they are not major works of art by any standard. Perhaps some of the most youthful of these were composed with the assistance of his father... or are even mis-attributed. The immature nature of these works in comparison to Mozart;s later works is one of the elements that most clearly suggest legitimacy. One cannot imagine a group of composers churning out compositions for Mozart as the front man in such a manner that clearly conveys the gradual development and maturity of the artist from very minor youthful works to the profundity of the final works.

[yanni]

I have seen you refer to someone with various aliases (Gluck, etc.). Can you explain who he is, who "Gluck" is supposed to be, and how those things figure in this quoted post. I see you say it is hard to keep track of who is who--but you are connecting him (I think) to a woman I am not familiar with either.

A very long story, Billl, how, hunting for roots to explain the premature selfdestruct 1925 death of my grandfather, a very active 1895-1919 greek tenor, I managed, via Edgar Allen Poe…
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15023
….to land in Paris, amidst the headquarters of “enlightment”..
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=35779
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=39455
http://www.online-literature.com/for...003#post639003
…to finally discover my own bloodlinks to the immortal alchemist, “comte Saint Germain”:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=43550

Who was “Saint Germain”?
He was born Gioachino Cocchi and, among his many other aliases, he is known today under the following music related “pennames”:
Jean Jacques Rousseau, Chr.Wil.Gluck,Melchior Grimm, Marquis de Chastellux, Myslivecek and Heinrich Koch (the last two aliases discovered while posting in this thread).

As per current mythology, Melchior Grimm and Rousseau shared among others a “common admiration” for Mme d’Epinay (aka Julie L’Espinasse).

I am very interested if this book from Google Books might provide you with a chance to show us a bit of how actual documentation is supporting your position.

My research would not have been concluded successfully if solely based on WHAT IS written, rather what IS NOT, in “books” (I am in full agreement with Musicology’s view on “manufactured truth”), many written either by my own ancestor-hero or his descendants and relatives(such as Gaston Leroux, see http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=669725) and friends (19th century French literature infact seems to concentrate on him generally).

Nevertheless your book confirmed what was troubling me for a long time now, the existence of “a brother” of Cocchi, perhaps a twin (Myslivecek allegedly hiding his deformed face so that Mozart would not recognise another “Durrazo-Gluck”),perhaps not.

The two brothers being both musicians and serving as top agents the French ministry of foreign affairs under so many aliases makes it impossible to distinguish who was who (the “alchemist” or the “musician”) for a specific time and/or political or musical achievement and all we are left with is “Rousseau’s” farewell blessing to “Gluck”....

Croyez-moi, mon cher prête-nom, ne nous brouillons jamais ensemble, car sans moi vous êtes nul. Je suis complaisant, vous le savez;je ne me refuse jamais au travail que vous désirez, quand vous vous donnez la peine de m'appeler et le temps de m'attendre : mais ne tentez jamais rien sans moi dans aucun genre ; ne vous mêlez jamais de l'impromptu en quoi que ce soit, si vous ne voulez gâter en un instant, par votre ineptie, tout ce que j'ai fait jusqu'ici pour vous donner l'air d'un homme pensant.

....and also the first US presidents "covering up" for "them" (naming "Grimm" as author of Raynal's "History of Philosophy" and blaming "Von Gleichen" for "Rousseau's" atheism-all four being the same),not with much success I fear, in their post 1815 correspondence.

Cheers.

[Musicology]

Hi there Bill,

Thanks for your post. You wrote -

I don't know how much Mozart wrote at an early age exactly, but I have always heard it was amazing, that he was a prodigy. I can understand that, at some point, it could become doubtful to someone that he managed it. There are musical prodigies out there (even today), I'm just not sure how often they are talented at improvisation and/or composition. It is an interesting point, and I think it could help win people over if you could show them some evidence/documentation that would point conclusively (or, at least, close to conclusively) to another explanation for the young Mozart's output. I have typed in some (not all) names that you've mentioned, but I can't get anywhere on them using the internet.


And you also wrote -

Is it clear in the correspondence that music (The Magic Flute) was cobbled together? I am not familiar with the role of publishing house at that time, but might it have been the case that it was the publisher's responsibility to provide adequate copies of the score for the orchestra(s) that would perform the composition on a tour? Until recently, providing sheet music was a very important responsibility for a publishing company. Again, maybe it's just a case where your enthusiasm and energy is taking things too quickly for me (someone who is not so familiar with the history of Mozart OR publishing companies, for that matter).

Also, are you or any of your colleagues in a position to provide links to documents, or make scans of them, maybe to produce some sort of website--it isn't expensive to set up the website. I think that could be a very effective way to make use of the internet, and make a case for the truth. There is a learning curve if you aren't experienced, but they make it pretty simple these days, especially if you are going to be providing mostly text, images, and photos/scans. I can see you have sufficient determination to do it!

//

In reply, yes, we are fed with the idea that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was such a great 'genius' that he was writing symphonies, concertos, operas, sonatas, and performing all round Europe as a virtuoso of legendary talent, this from an early age. In support of this fact (so-called) is a mass of surviving material. Let me touch on this material in a moment. There is so much of it, in fact, that any question of its authenticity is not even considered. Mozart is presented to us a musical superman, in fact. Who began as a musical super-boy. And as soon as we go down that path (which the industry are keen for us to accept from the start) we tend to throw away any fair and reasonable checks on what is actually being said. The story exists, 'therefore the story must be true'. Further supporting this view is a pile of musical manuscripts, reports, testimonies, and so on. So we have this mass of documentation, and we have almost 200 years of tradition, of belief. This seems, to almost everyone, to be conclusive 'evidence'.

Now, obviously, we can't expect to go into great detail here in short posts on Mozart's entire life, career and musical reputation. But let me sketch, at least, the material from his childhood and youth - that is, from the period of his famous tours of Europe. The time (shall we say) up until his 12th year (1768).

I will briefly do this in two posts. Here is the first.

The surviving material is of two kinds. Musical and non-musical. And, as said, it appears to be conclusive. Let's take the non-musical material first. Of what kind is this material ? Well, let's consider a child. Any child. Let's name this child 'John Smith'. Now, John Smith, a young child, is said to be a musical 'genius'. In fact, there is a ton of evidence to say John Smith is a musical genius. What sort of material is this ? Well, most (we find) is written by the father and close associates of this same John Smith. By Mr Smith. And Mr Smith is definitely keen we should believe his son is a prodigy of nature, a musical genius. We have his travel diaries, his correspondence, and so on. What else do we have ? We have reports from others who heard and or saw John Smith. Or who claim to have done so. In performance. So, from the start we have surely to agree that a massive amount of this material is biased, and was even at the time it was written. As for the rest, detailed research shows it to have been invented, for the benefit of John Smith's reputation. And this is able to proved beyond reasonable doubt.

As far as the musical material is concerned, various studies have been made of the musical manuscripts of 'Mozart' from his earliest years up until this date of 1768. These include over 20 symphonies which are still routinely called his though not one of them belongs to W.A. Mozart. In fact, they are attributed to him only by tradition. They are not in his handwriting. In fact, works of other kinds which do bear Mozart's handwriting are far more full of the handwriting of his sister, Nannerl Mozart, and that of his father, Leopold Mozart. For example, the first 20 symphonies, as said, are definitely not Mozart's - any more than they are yours or mine. (Mozart's father worked as a music dealer at this time and they could have come from many sources). The piano concertos attributed to Mozart at this time are also definitely not by him. 4 of these are arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and the rest are arrangements of works by other Paris-based German composers. But the truth of this was not known until the early 19th century. In the case of the concertos of J.C. Bach it was not finally known until 1908.

And so, in example after example, there are compelling reasons not to attribute this material to the 'genius' of Mozart.

I will continue this in another post.

Regards

In the 18th century there were no telephones, no emails, poor transport, and the Mozart family were simply one of thousands, literally thousands, of people employed in a musical capacity across Europe. There were entire musical families in Italy, in Germany, in Bohemia, in France, in Holland and right across the continent.

But we are asked to believe that with W.A. Mozart he learned and wrote music at such a prodigious speed, and of such quality, that he first astounded Salzburg. Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, it doesn't exist. But we believe it all the same. In fact, detailed study shows the Mozart employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) was the one who sent Wolfgang to Italy in the first place ! Why ? To learn how to compose. How to write music. That is, he did not know these things before he left for Italy. And even in Italy he spent almost no time at any music school. In fact, a letter survives of Leopold Mozart (sent to Italy) in which he mentions the Prince Archbishop says his son knew nothing of music at all. It was for this simple reason that he (the Prince Archbishop Firmian) sent him there in the first place ! There is not a shred of evidence Mozart's father taught Wolfgang composition, or music theory to his son. Not any ! In fact, the father was a minor violinist of no great talent. Who was promoted to a 'vice-kapellmeister' position only weeks before he too left to travel Europe with his son. He never, at any time, taught anyone music or composition and he was a minor employee in Salzburg.

So how did his father arrange vast tours of Europe to princes, archbishops, dignitaries in a Europe already filled with talented musicians ? And why would anyone be remotely interested in Mozart from provincial Salzburg ? Can you image the logistics of arranging huge tours of Europe for a perfect stranger in every town and city where they went ? And where can we find these letters written by his father to all these strangers all across Europe ? They do not exist ! Nobody has ever seen them. But let's ignore this too.

So, how was this 'road show' arranged ? It's obvious there was some kind of management going on here. The impression is given that Europe couldn't wait to hear and see Mozart. When, in fact, the opposite is true. The whole thing was being 'stage managed' and this child, torn away from its childhood, and having at no point contact with other children of his age, was exploited. Plain and simple. Travelling thousands of miles across Europe in a coach. On roads that were poor in quality. Year after year. These are definitely not the conditions to learn anything. Nor are they conditions to practice playing piano, or to compose, or to have a stable and realistic musical career. Not even as an adult. But we choose to ignore that too. The elites who patronised Mozart did so because they were part of a structured society. The Holy Roman Empire. These elites could, and did, arrange for these visits. Not the father. They did so because they wanted to manufacture a reputation. For their own reasons. And they did so.

This musical fraud was finally challenged. It was inevitable. The case of Vienna, 1768 is one you might care to examine. You can see this refered to in the correspondence of Mozart's own father. When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds. Now, these events are not part of the official story. And exposure of the truth irritated Mozart' father. It was embarrassing. Nobody believed Mozart was a musical 'genius'. In fact, they believed the opposite. And they told them, to their faces. This finally ended in them getting a commission to write an opera. Known as 'La Finta Semplice'. But that commission was cancelled when, 5 months later, it was discovered that piece had not been written by the boy also. They returned to Salzburg, unpaid. And the theatre manager (Giuseppe Affligio) described it as a fraud. His own musicians agreed. An official investigation was started into this affair because it became a scandal. It was so damaging for Mozart's reputation that it remains, till now, edited out of virtually all biographies or altered to become a 'misunderstanding'. And it's just one example. In later years Mozart's powerful supporters arranged for the arrest of this same Vienna theatre manager. Accusing HIM of forgery ! And banning him from Vienna. To the island of Elba, where he died a few years later.

This is only a very small sketch of the true childhood years of W.A. Mozart. A project of fraud that had the support of fraternities and vested interests. And which has hardly been told. A clever fraud, for sure. In later years it was to continue. In fact, it was massively expanded. So that the fairy story would grow to giant size. Supported by some of the greatest music of the 18th century. Whose origins (like the childhood works) is rarely examined critically.

I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him. To the point where, after seeing a few hundred examples, it is possible to predict (and to know) that it came from other sources. An amazing story, for sure. But I think it's important we hear both sides of this story and any other which is widely taught and believed.

For sure, it's hard to compile all the evidence to show this is true beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the story has been disguised, hidden, and often obscured by the 'industry'.

Nobody denies some of this music is the finest of the 18th or or centuries. But it involved many people. Some of the most talented composers of his time. And publishers and biographers after his death. Only half a century after his death came the first 'catalogue' of 'Mozart's' music. So that the story, the reality, was buried, falsified, biographically and musically, and so that it would be extremely difficult to piece together what really happened.

I and others have worked in this field for a long time. The results of all this study must, of course, be compared with the works of your un-named 'experts'. That's only fair. But the general public can at least form their own judgement. And that's only fair. ''The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate'' - Dr. Wayne Dyer. (That was me. For years. Now I'm making up for lost time !). On a subject which, perhaps, may be of interest to others.

Does musical 'genius' exist ? Yes, of course ! Of course it does. But it's the product of long, long study and very hard work. Nothing else.

There is talent that can be and often is ignored by an entire generation. By the music industry. But it remains all the same. What of this ? Music 'beyond the music industry'. A celebration of something greater.

J.S. Bach
Oratorio
BWV 248/43-5
Chorus - 'Ehre sei dir, Gott, gesungen'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUsZ...eature=related

Regards

[Babbalanja]

I can tell you with certainty that virtually all works published and performed in the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are not composed by him.

To quote Robert himself, "Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, but we believe it all the same."

[Musicology]

To quote Robert himself, "Can anyone show evidence of this ? No, but we believe it all the same."

But it's true. And the longer this thread goes on the more obvious it becomes. Did they teach you to check what you are taught ? I mean, is it illegal ? Why not name another 'Mozart' work for us to check ?

There must be something wrong somewhere in the official story to make such a generous offer to you !! And it remains open. Can't do better than that, can I ?

[Babbalanja]

But it's true. And the longer this thread goes on the more obvious it becomes.

It only becomes obvious that you're not presenting any evidence to back up your claims. A lot of speculation and assertions, but nothing like what I said we'd expect to see if your claims are true: a confession by Mozart, testimony by whistleblowers inside the fraternities, documentation of the actual composition of Mozart's fraudulent works, etc.

Why not name another 'Mozart' work for us to check ?

You did a less than satisfactory job with the first one, merely asserting that The Magic Flute was the work of 'numerous other composers.' You're free to believe whatever you want, but you have yet to make a persuasive case.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

It only becomes obvious that you're not presenting any evidence to back up your claims. A lot of speculation and assertions, but nothing like what I said we'd expect to see if your claims are true: a confession by Mozart, testimony by whistleblowers inside the fraternities, documentation of the actual composition of Mozart's fraudulent works, etc.


You did a less than satisfactory job with the first one, merely asserting that The Magic Flute was the work of 'numerous other composers.' You're free to believe whatever you want, but you have yet to make a persuasive case.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

You have a strange attitude. Here are readers trying to judging a case. But are they judging it fairly ? Where are your expert sources who can defend the 'official' story ? Can you find at least one for us ? So that neutral readers can form a fair judgement ? Why is it so hard for you to give the 'official' story ?

All you can do is say 'it's up to you to prove the opposite'. Well, I've already done so. I've given a rough sketch of Mozart up to the age of 12. If you can produce your evidence of him being a musical 'genius' up until that date please do it. Let's see it. I mean, its been asked for over and over again. But where is the evidence ?

Believe what you like. But if you believe something is true why can't you produce any evidence ? Not even a basic sketch of what you believe to be true. If there is mountains of evidence why not produce some ? So that we can examine it fairly, here, on this thread ?

We see, in fact, that he never went to school. That he never studied music. That he never studied harmony, orchestration, composition under any teacher. Not even in Italy. Don't you think this matters ?

For sure, this is not unusual. Your attitude was mine too. It seemed so impossible. But the closer you examine this subject the more it becomes clear that it's really a cleverly manufactured story.

I don't claim to have infallible proof. But it seems to me correct, beyond reasonable doubt. Since I've examined this issue from the time of his childhood up until his death (and the decades beyond) from many, many sources, and in much detail. I feel it's a view worth comparing with your 'official' story.

[Babbalanja]

Robert,

It's one thing to assert that there has been a great deal of exaggeration and error in Mozart scholarship over its two centuries. However, you're making the claim that Mozart didn't compose any of the works attributed to him, and that secret societies were and are still behind the manufacture and maintenance of his legend out of thin air. If you make surprising claims that go against everything that we understand about a historical figure, people usually expect strong evidence to back up those claims.

What you call the "official story" isn't mine, and I'm not obliged to defend it. You're the one claiming to be "certain" that Mozart didn't compose any of his works, but you're trying to avoid the burden of proof.

Do you have a confession from Mozart that he was a no-talent fraud who merely signed his name to the work of others?

Do you have testimony from people involved in the great Conspiracy, outlining its methods and aims?

Do you have documentation of the actual composition of these monumental works, signed by their real composers?

Then why should anyone else believe your claims?

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

What you are really asking Musicology to provide, Babba, is concrete evidence, even a confession, that phantoms exist.

Well, they don't, except in opera (and some other places you bypass in a hurry)!

Cheers.

[Babbalanja]

What you are really asking Musicology to provide, Babba, is concrete evidence, even a confession, that phantoms exist.

No, it's just plain old, ordinary historical research. If, as Robert says of his case, "the evidence is massive," why won't he present any of it? If he's up to assuming the burden of proof, why does he spend so much time demanding evidence from others?

Regards,

Istvan

[billl]

As far as the musical material is concerned, various studies have been made of the musical manuscripts of 'Mozart' from his earliest years up until this date of 1768. These include over 20 symphonies which are still routinely called his though not one of them belongs to W.A. Mozart. In fact, they are attributed to him only by tradition. They are not in his handwriting. In fact, works of other kinds which do bear Mozart's handwriting are far more full of the handwriting of his sister, Nannerl Mozart, and that of his father, Leopold Mozart.

This sounds like it would be good evidence that Mozart didn't write the symphonies. (That is, if the 'original' hand-written manuscripts were not in Mozart's handwriting as documented elsewhere, indeed if there were great variety in the handwriting and musical notation).

If there were existing copies, and we could have them scanned (they probably have been somewhere) then it would probably be possible to compare them to Mozart's signature on other scans that are stored online. Maybe this has already been done? If there were a link we could click on, that would be a powerful aid in presenting this case. Especially if important examples could be connected together via text, on a single web page.

In fact, detailed study shows the Mozart employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) was the one who sent Wolfgang to Italy in the first place ! Why ? To learn how to compose. How to write music. That is, he did not know these things before he left for Italy. And even in Italy he spent almost no time at any music school. In fact, a letter survives of Leopold Mozart (sent to Italy) in which he mentions the Prince Archbishop says his son knew nothing of music at all. It was for this simple reason that he (the Prince Archbishop Firmian) sent him there in the first place !

It seems that Mozart's youth and lack of musical education are key components in making this case convincing. There might also be a very elaborate web of false or misleading documentation that I imagine might be awkward to succinctly present as being evidence of fraud. However, this line of argument quoted directly above seems to reflect passages from a book or documented quotations/testimony of some form. How are Mozart's employer's intentions clear to us? How can we be sure that Mozart didn't attend any school or teacher during his stay? Can you point us to the letter you mention that is written by Leopold Mozart, or provide a more complete sampling of the text and/or context? Again, if you were able to come across this letter, then I think that it might have made it online somewhere by now. If no one else will do it, again, I think you would be doing your work a great service by acquiring the scans yourself somehow.

This musical fraud was finally challenged. It was inevitable. The case of Vienna, 1768 is one you might care to examine. You can see this refered to in the correspondence of Mozart's own father. When they arrived in the Austrian capital the musical 'hype' was compared with the reality. By the musicians of Vienna themselves. For weeks they were laughed at. As frauds. Now, these events are not part of the official story. And exposure of the truth irritated Mozart' father. It was embarrassing. Nobody believed Mozart was a musical 'genius'. In fact, they believed the opposite. And they told them, to their faces. This finally ended in them getting a commission to write an opera. Known as 'La Finta Semplice'. But that commission was cancelled when, 5 months later, it was discovered that piece had not been written by the boy also. They returned to Salzburg, unpaid. And the theatre manager (Giuseppe Affligio) described it as a fraud. His own musicians agreed. An official investigation was started into this affair because it became a scandal. It was so damaging for Mozart's reputation that it remains, till now, edited out of virtually all biographies or altered to become a 'misunderstanding'.

Here again is an excellent opportunity to provide evidence that might open the lay-person's eyes. As it is, it is difficult to do a search online for something like "Vienna 1768 Mozart" and come up with the sources for information you are providing. Which books, journals, articles, letters, etc. is this information culled from? Does it exist online? Do you own texts with this information in them (and do you have a scanner or digital camera?)? In particular, I wonder if Mozart's father's letters could be provided online (or an appropriate selection from a book of the collected letters) somehow. I doubt that his father's interpretation of the mockery in Vienna would have been a lamentation of the fact that it had been discovered that his son were a fraud (or at least I doubt that would be the unmistakable content of the letter, based upon the letter alone), but I wonder if you have other material from the time that would make your reading of them compelling. And again, if the letters are online or something, it would be great if we could have a look.

I understand that proving inconsistencies in a made-up history would be daunting, and much would hinge on details that would be meaningful only to one who had perhaps invest a large amount of time with a wide variety of characters and events in a diverse set of documents. I think, however, that you would be aiding yourself greatly if you took some time and put together an understandable presentation of these particular points, providing documentation, etc. As it is, a skeptic is left in the unnecessarily inconvenient position of having to purchase various books collecting a lot of letters and other documentation, in order to evaluate the strength of your theory in relation to these events. If you could convince them on the correctness of your interpretation on these three points that I've quoted, I think quite a few of them might be more than happy to look further into this, with much more sympathetic ears.

[Musicology]

This sounds like it would be good evidence that Mozart didn't write the symphonies. (That is, if the 'original' hand-written manuscripts were not in Mozart's handwriting as documented elsewhere, indeed if there were great variety in the handwriting and musical notation).

If there were existing copies, and we could have them scanned (they probably have been somewhere) then it would probably be possible to compare them to Mozart's signature on other scans that are stored online. Maybe this has already been done? If there were a link we could click on, that would be a powerful aid in presenting this case. Especially if important examples could be connected together via text, on a single web page.



It seems that Mozart's youth and lack of musical education are key components in making this case convincing. There might also be a very elaborate web of false or misleading documentation that I imagine might be awkward to succinctly present as being evidence of fraud. However, this line of argument quoted directly above seems to reflect passages from a book or documented quotations/testimony of some form. How are Mozart's employer's intentions clear to us? How can we be sure that Mozart didn't attend any school or teacher during his stay? Can you point us to the letter you mention that is written by Leopold Mozart, or provide a more complete sampling of the text and/or context? Again, if you were able to come across this letter, then I think that it might have made it online somewhere by now. If no one else will do it, again, I think you would be doing your work a great service by acquiring the scans yourself somehow.




Here again is an excellent opportunity to provide evidence that might open the lay-person's eyes. As it is, it is difficult to do a search online for something like "Vienna 1768 Mozart" and come up with the sources for information you are providing. Which books, journals, articles, letters, etc. is this information culled from? Does it exist online? Do you own texts with this information in them (and do you have a scanner or digital camera?)? In particular, I wonder if Mozart's father's letters could be provided online (or an appropriate selection from a book of the collected letters) somehow. I doubt that his father's interpretation of the mockery in Vienna would have been a lamentation of the fact that it had been discovered that his son were a fraud (or at least I doubt that would be the unmistakable content of the letter, based upon the letter alone), but I wonder if you have other material from the time that would make your reading of them compelling. And again, if the letters are online or something, it would be great if we could have a look.

I understand that proving inconsistencies in a made-up history would be daunting, and much would hinge on details that would be meaningful only to one who had perhaps invest a large amount of time with a wide variety of characters and events in a diverse set of documents. I think, however, that you would be aiding yourself greatly if you took some time and put together an understandable presentation of these particular points, providing documentation, etc. As it is, a skeptic is left in the unnecessarily inconvenient position of having to purchase various books collecting a lot of letters and other documentation, in order to evaluate the strength of your theory in relation to these events. If you could convince them on the correctness of your interpretation on these three points that I've quoted, I think quite a few of them might be more than happy to look further into this, with much more sympathetic ears.

Bill,

This is a good post of yours. I will try to post here within the next week or so documentary support for the issues raised by me on Mozart up to the age of 12. Not all, by any means, but the names of published sources, of studies made into musical manuscripts, letters, dates, events etc. which support all of the above.

Regards

No, it's just plain old, ordinary historical research. If, as Robert says of his case, "the evidence is massive," why won't he present any of it? If he's up to assuming the burden of proof, why does he spend so much time demanding evidence from others?

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

I have just agreed (after Bill's post here) to post some of the proofs in support of my position within the week. Taken from published studies of documentary evidence. This on the life and career (alleged) of W.A. Mozart up until his 12th year (1768). It would greatly help if you could produce/provide documentary evidence which proves the opposite of what I've already posted here. Since, at the moment, we have one side presenting evidence and the other sitting as if they have nothing to say of any substance.

Let readers judge both sides of this case. We want to see your evidence of Mozart being the composer of symphonies, concertos and operas before his 12th year, and of his legendary status as a composer and performer up until that year of 1768. We want to see documentary evidence of his musical and non-musical education. The kinds of things which, you believe, are widely available in published literature.

I will post, as promised, within one week from now.

Regards

[Babbalanja]

It would greatly help if you could produce/provide documentary evidence which proves the opposite of what I've already posted here. Since, at the moment, we have one side presenting evidence and the other sitting as if they have nothing to say of any substance.

No, what we have is one side making extraordinary claims but offering no evidence to support his assertions, and the other pointing out the flaws in the claimant's logic.

I'll say it as many times as I have to: I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. Presumably people here are smart enough to realize that there's a generally accepted version of the Mozart myth you're so determined to demolish, written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies.

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

Regards,

Istvan

[stlukesguild]

I hope they're also perspicacious enough to wonder whether it's likely that this mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers, often at odds with each other over various issues in Mozart's life and career, is the carefully-crafted product of a vast historical conspiracy that covers its tracks with staggering precision.

But hey, you never know.

A perfect story for J.L. Borges... and I am a sworn Borgesian so I cannot help but appreciate it. Imagine the absolute brilliance of this conspiracy. They not only were able to write music for Mozart... but also Haydn and the young Beethoven. The were able to compose a body of work that maintained a sense of continuity while remaining unique to each composer. At the same time, they provided each composer with a body of work that showed a clear progression or development from youthful and immature music to the brilliant sophistication of the late work. They were able to forge thousands of documents and silence hundreds of voices of observers who must have known the truth. The conspiracy was so brilliantly conceived that it fooled several centuries of historians and musicologists... any number of whom were credentialed specialists in the field who had waded through the endless documentation. Sheer genius! A narrative worthy of a novel by Umberto Eco... or Dan Brown.