The Manufacture of Mozart

[yanni]

You contradict yourself Musicology,

"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. "

"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."

...assuming -wrongly- that Vienna musicians were not part of the "structured society" of (what was left at the time of) The Holy Roman Empire of Austria thus staging a revolution against Mozart, the said society's elite choice, in Vienna(!).

As a Freemason, Mozart's father certainly implemented the "reform" plan and participated in promoting his son (as "the next prophet" of reform opera or perhaps simply as reform's "wunderkind"), hence the reaction of the 1768 Vienna musicians who were against reform (as "Jesuit controlled" or "educated" or because ordinary low grade musicians rarely revolt).

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

[Musicology]

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

OK, I made the offer. Right here on this thread. You can't accept a fair debate ? That's OK. You present your sources. I present mine. Can't get fairer than that, can you ? I've already offered to discuss ANY work by 'Mozart'. To compare versions of who wrote it (and who did not). You now describe your version as 'written and approved by the musicological establishment in various scholarly musical studies and biographies'. Great ! So give us your version of Mozart's musical and ordinary education and career up until his 12th year - i.e. 1756 to 1768. But you can't, can you ?

Case Closed

You contradict yourself Musicology,

"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. "

"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."

...assuming -wrongly- that Vienna musicians were not part of the "structured society" of (what was left at the time of) The Holy Roman Empire of Austria thus staging a revolution against Mozart, the said society's elite choice, in Vienna(!).

As a Freemason, Mozart's father certainly implemented the "reform" plan and participated in promoting his son (as "the next prophet" of reform opera or perhaps simply as reform's "wunderkind"), hence the reaction of the 1768 Vienna musicians who were against reform (as "Jesuit controlled" or "educated" or because ordinary low grade musicians rarely revolt).

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Yanni,

This thread is discussing the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. It is not discussing one of your favourite subjects, Melchior Grimm and Gluck. But if you wish to open a special thread on these subjects please do. In the meantime I will focus on the subject of Mozart up to the age of 12. Because otherwise people will get very, very confused what your posts are all about.

Regards

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.

This is really funny. Stlukesguild refers to a 'mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers'. This on the subject of W.A. Mozart.

Great ! So you have a massive advantage from the start. Let me grant you that. You have libraries of books on Mozart. So please present us here with some reliable evidence of W.A. Mozart's musical education and his musical achievements up until the age of 12 ? Up until 1769, that is. Not much to ask is it ? Tell us please where did W.A. Mozart study composition, harmony, orchestration, etc ? This is my ninth request for this basic information on this thread. And so far you and your 'mountain of musicological study, spanning two centuries and produced by thousands of credentialed researchers' have produced absolutely zero. And we are still waiting.

If you don't want to share it with us, fine. In that case forget it. Because this is fast becoming proof you have no such evidence. Your 'mountain' does not exist. Surely some exists so please produce it and I will produce evidence Mozart never studied music before he was 12 and that he produced virtually nothing of musical value up until that age.

A simple choice. A fair debate. You produce your evidence. I produce mine. Agreed ? And let readers decide who is producing the best case.

What do you say ? You can quote any published sources you like. From your 'mountain of evidence'.

If you agree I will do the same. In one week's time. So we both have time to put together our different points of view.

Can't get fairer than that.

1. Produce the evidence for Mozart's ordinary and musical education up to the age of 12.

2. Produce for us, please, a list of his major musical works written before he was 12 years old. That is, before 1769.

This simple request repeated, again, and again, and again. Just stretch over to your 'mountain' of published sources. So that this discussion is fair for both parties. The same rules. You produce your evidence and I produce mine. With readers making their own judgement on the evidence presented to them from both sides. That's fair. That's honest. You will have the honour of presenting us with quotes from standard textbooks. You will be defending Mozart's reputation. A simple job, yes ? Supported (you say) by hundreds of researchers over the past two centuries or so. What an honour for you ! A simple job that brings you a lot of credit ! With everyone judging the case. And everyone, at the start, in full support of your view. Can't get better.

Accept or not ?

[Babbalanja]

I've already offered to discuss ANY work by 'Mozart'. To compare versions of who wrote it (and who did not).

That's true. But when I asked about The Magic Flute, you simply asserted that Mozart didn't write it, pointing to 'numerous other composers' without support from any source. Was that supposed to be your evidence?

So give us your version of Mozart's musical and ordinary education and career up until his 12th year - i.e. 1756 to 1768. But you can't, can you ?

Once again, I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. I never claimed to have studied Mozart's life and career for over a decade, you did. I never claimed to have "massive" evidence proving that Mozart was just a fiction created by a vast historical conspiracy involving secret societies, you did.

Case Closed

Oh. Kay.

So Robert's claims were that "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" and "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." Dramatic claims indeed, ones that fly in the face of everything we know about Mozart.

In support, Robert asserted that Mozart couldn't compose because he received no formal musical training. He denied that Mozart's father Leopold, a composer as well as the author of a prominent educational treatise on violin, could have trained him, claiming (without citing a source) that Leopold had plagiarized his book anyway.

Then Robert pointed out that many works initially attributed to Mozart (in particular his early works) were later discovered to be composed by others. He never explained why this means that all works attributed to Mozart are therefore fakes. Using this logic, I could say that police have found counterfeit money, therefore all money is counterfeit.

When discussing specific works (like The Magic Flute) universally accepted by professional musicologists to have been composed by Mozart, Robert merely asserts that the work was not composed by Mozart and expects this to suffice as evidence.

When pressed for evidence or asked to cite sources for his assertions, Robert asks those questioning his theory to provide evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of any mode of responsible inquiry, a refusal to assume the burden of proof that speaks volumes about not only the strength of his case, but also the nature of his research.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

That's true. But when I asked about The Magic Flute, you simply asserted that Mozart didn't write it, pointing to 'numerous other composers' without support from any source. Was that supposed to be your evidence?

Once again, I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence. I never claimed to have studied Mozart's life and career for over a decade, you did. I never claimed to have "massive" evidence proving that Mozart was just a fiction created by a vast historical conspiracy involving secret societies, you did.


Oh. Kay.

So Robert's claims were that "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" and "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." Dramatic claims indeed, ones that fly in the face of everything we know about Mozart.

In support, Robert asserted that Mozart couldn't compose because he received no formal musical training. He denied that Mozart's father Leopold, a composer as well as the author of a prominent educational treatise on violin, could have trained him, claiming (without citing a source) that Leopold had plagiarized his book anyway.

Then Robert pointed out that many works initially attributed to Mozart (in particular his early works) were later discovered to be composed by others. He never explained why this means that all works attributed to Mozart are therefore fakes. Using this logic, I could say that police have found counterfeit money, therefore all money is counterfeit.

When discussing specific works (like The Magic Flute) universally accepted by professional musicologists to have been composed by Mozart, Robert merely asserts that the work was not composed by Mozart and expects this to suffice as evidence.

When pressed for evidence or asked to cite sources for his assertions, Robert asks those questioning his theory to provide evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of any mode of responsible inquiry, a refusal to assume the burden of proof that speaks volumes about not only the strength of his case, but also the nature of his research.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan,

This is my fourth request for a fair exchange of views. You (and others) are making the claim that W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was a musical genius. Who had amazing talents as a composer from the time of his childhood onwards. These are your claims. If you want to abandon these claims, fine. If you believe them to be true we want to see your evidence. In return for which I will present evidence which indicates the opposite. We also want to see evidence of his schooling, musical and non-musical. And all of this, we are told, exists in almost 200 years of published studies. Mozart was a 'musical genius' and we want to see some evidence. So, can you help your colleagues present your case ? From all this mass of 'evidence' ? Not much to ask, is it ? And, in return, in one week, I can produce contrary evidence. So fair minded readers here can form their own judgement. That is fair, reasonable and honest. Yes ? We start with his musical career up to 1769. Up to the end of his 12th year. OK ? After all, these ARE your views, aren't they ?

As for the much later (1791) 'Magic Flute' I have already indicated that it borrows heavily from Paul Wranitsky's opera 'Oberon'. And even that it's Overture comes from a piano sonata by another composer. This is clear, simple to understand, not difficult. I further indicated that the musical score (used for rehearsal and performance) was not finished in Vienna but was sent to musicians in Bonn. According to a letter written by the Bonn publisher Simrock to Gottfried Weber. This is just a small example of why the 'Magic Flute' is not by Mozart.

But let me return to Mozart's childhood. Up to the end of his 12th year.

Do you accept or not ?

You write -

I'm not the one making claims, so I'm not obliged to present evidence.

You certainly ARE making claims ! You believe Mozart was a musical 'genius' from childhood onwards. And we want to see what evidence you have to support them. We want the details of his education. I am making claims too. So, let the readers form their own judgement on the evidence.

Thank You

[Babbalanja]

These are your claims. If you want to abandon these claims, fine. If you believe them to be true we want to see your evidence.

Please show me where I ever claimed Mozart was a genius. I never made any such claim.

I don't know why you're looking at this as some sort of debate, Robert. It's not about a "fair exchange of views." You started this thread, you claim to have evidence of a huge historical conspiracy among Jesuits and Freemasons to manufacture the Myth of Mozart out of thin air, and you claim that Mozart didn't write any of the music attributed to him.

Anyone who truly had evidence supporting such a theory would have presented it by now. You've had ample time to make your case. Considering your evasion in the face of requests for evidence, it's beginning to seem like a hoax.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

.....redemisti crucem passus;
tantus labor non sit cassus.

So you can't or won't answer my question, huh?

I repeat:

Ten years later a curious event takes place very much concerning your "manufactured Mozart" as well as my "heroes":

23 January 1778 L.Mozart writes to his son that the Austrian prince has decided to create in Vienna a german comique opera and has assigned the task to Gluck and Salieri. (p416 W. A. Mozart By Hermann Abert, Stewart Spencer, Cliff Eisen) but on his next letter Febr 9th advises that in his next trip to Paris WA Mozart should avoid at all cost (the bad company of) Gluck (who is obviously in Paris) and only meet Melchior Grimm. (footnote 167).

Can you please explain what was happening at the time or shall I do it?

Cheers!

PS My compliments nevertheless for your "granting absolution" (by not mentioning them) to the Jesuits (in your last post above) !

Your reply:

Yanni,

This thread is discussing the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. It is not discussing one of your favourite subjects, Melchior Grimm and Gluck. But if you wish to open a special thread on these subjects please do. In the meantime I will focus on the subject of Mozart up to the age of 12. Because otherwise people will get very, very confused what your posts are all about.

Regards


If you forgot what this thread was about, please see your own post #1 in this thread*, Musicology, and my immediate reply (#2).

Seems to me, you keep on contadicting yourself reducing meanwhile the discussion to Mozart's diapers.

Cheers!



*Quoting from Musicology's post #1 :

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

[Musicology]

No problem. They clearly don't want to discuss Mozart's childhood, and his musical reputation up to the end of his 12th year. Fine. They just believe what they are told. But when you ask them for some evidence they can't provide it. No matter how often you ask them. They just talk about 'tons of evidence'. I have a decade's experience of this in other conversations. The myth is never examined in detail.

Yanni wants to talk about 1778 (when Mozart was 22 years old !) and others want to say nothing. But the conversation has moved on to the specific subject of his musical 'genius'. That means that we examine part of a huge subject.

That's OK. It's normal. Let people form their own judgement. The specific subject I've offered to compare notes about are the years of his childhood education and childhood musical career.

I've tried to pin this issue down to a specific time. His childhood. Could easily have chosen his youth, his adulthood, his final 10 years in Vienna. But I had to start somewhere. So I tried to start with the years of his childhood. As anyone can see.

Yanni, in the next few days, I will come back about the years you are refering to. Just making a point. The Mozart fairy story does not allow us close examination of the basic facts.

[yanni]

To include me in "they" is the last thing I expected of you, Robert.

The only reason I continue to press you is because you are grossly mistaken both with your first "The Jesuits" and next "The Holy Roman Empire's Elites" compulsive-obsessive(?*) assumptions on Mozart's manufacturer!

THE "REFORMISTS" manufactured Mozart (propably to hide "Gluck" and his "music" behind him).

Instead of admitting it, you select to deviate from your original purposes and run for cover in "Mozart's "diapers", aided by StLuke-Babba's sophistic duet, thus confirming my earlier "sine qua non" allegation!

Cheers.

*http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156 ("Gluck" is missing there too.)

[Babbalanja]

They just talk about 'tons of evidence'.

Robert, the only one talking about 'tons of evidence' here is you. You're the one who said:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that 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

The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century.

So far you've demonstrated that no one at Literature Forums is a credentialed musicologist with source documents handy on the life and career of Mozart. Well done. But as far as providing persuasive evidence of your claims, you're much less forthcoming than you initially claimed to be.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Robert, the only one talking about 'tons of evidence' here is you. You're the one who said:

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that 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

The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear.

If you need proof to support what I have said, please ask and I will be very happy to provide it. My area of knowledge is the history of music in the 18th century.

So far you've demonstrated that no one at Literature Forums is a credentialed musicologist with source documents handy on the life and career of Mozart. Well done. But as far as providing persuasive evidence of your claims, you're much less forthcoming than you initially claimed to be.

Regards,

Istvan

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

Take your time. Shall I post this again in a month's time ? How about 1 year ? I present evidence and you present evidence. So readers can judge for themselves. Having both sides.

Fair enough, yes ? StLukesguild speaks of lots of experts, lots of evidence. We want to see some.

We cannot prove a negative. So let's see some evidence that Mozart was a childhood musical genius. Otherwise we go round and round in circles. Those who believe this can't provide any. In fact, if you examine the actual documents, the musical manuscripts, you find the opposite. So, in fairness, let's compare our evidence. That's what I'm suggesting. You will conclude that the Mozart story is fiction. It was invented, exaggerated, and grossly manufactured.

Please show me where I ever claimed Mozart was a genius. I never made any such claim.

I don't know why you're looking at this as some sort of debate, Robert. It's not about a "fair exchange of views." You started this thread, you claim to have evidence of a huge historical conspiracy among Jesuits and Freemasons to manufacture the Myth of Mozart out of thin air, and you claim that Mozart didn't write any of the music attributed to him.

Anyone who truly had evidence supporting such a theory would have presented it by now. You've had ample time to make your case. Considering your evasion in the face of requests for evidence, it's beginning to seem like a hoax.

Regards,

Istvan

The only hoax is the Mozart story. We haven't had any evidence that Mozart was a musical genius. And we are asking about the first 12 years of his life. All you have to do is produce some evidence. What's so difficult ? The hoax is that so far nobody can do it.

I have told you from the start. There is simply NO evidence of Wolfgang Mozart learning composition, music theory, orchestration, etc etc. and the evidence we do have shows he knew virtually nothing. This is not acceptable to you.

So, when you speak about a 'hoax' maybe the hoax is the Mozart story ? Which, after all, is what it seems to be.

I have examined this subject in a lot of detail. So have others. But maybe you can rescue Mozart from this embarrasing situation ? I invite you to do it. Just present us here with some details of his musical and other education. Just give us a list of 'his' musical works before 1769.

What's the problem ?

[stlukesguild]

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

I gotta give it to you, Robert. You have an ability to maintain your delusions. Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale? Your strategy... if we can call it that... is ridiculous. You come here making wild assertions that challenge accepted historical facts... back them up with a bunch of of what you declare to be "facts"... and then proclaim victory because no one here is interested enough to double check these facts for you? As I and others have repeatedly stated it is you who are making assertions contrary to historical fact... contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field... as such the burden of proof is entirely your own. What part of this don't you understand?

[yanni]

Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale?

A soulless soliped's reply to Robert's solemn solecism!

[Musicology]

I think readers here are starting to realise there is no real evidence of Mozart being a 'musical genius'. None of him being a 'childhood musical prodigy' that can be presented here. And over 200 years of books on Mozart are available for you to consult.

We want some evidence of Mozart's musical and academic education as a child. You have provided none. We also want some evidence of the musical works he is alleged to have composed before 1769. Surely, surely, you can help us ?

If this simple request is too difficult just tell us.

I gotta give it to you, Robert. You have an ability to maintain your delusions. Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale? Your strategy... if we can call it that... is ridiculous. You come here making wild assertions that challenge accepted historical facts... back them up with a bunch of of what you declare to be "facts"... and then proclaim victory because no one here is interested enough to double check these facts for you? As I and others have repeatedly stated it is you who are making assertions contrary to historical fact... contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field... as such the burden of proof is entirely your own. What part of this don't you understand?

'Contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of experts in the field'.

OK, let's see some of this expert evidence. Please present some of it here, on this forum, for readers to see for themselves. Show us the long awaited basic details of Mozart's musical and other education. And tell us about 'his' musical compositions up until the end of his 12th year.

You seem to have gone very silent, StLukesguild. Your 'experts' have disappeared. Abandoning you in your hour of greatest need !

Simple request. Request number 5. If you do this for the members here I will present evidence that shows the opposite. So that readers can judge both sides of this issue side by side. And not just one side. You with your 'expert' evidence and me with other evidence. A fair discussion for members here to form their own judgement.

It can't get fairer than that. You will become a cultural hero and will even receive a cultural certificate from the Mozarteum, the European centre of study on the life and career of Mozart, based in Salzburg, Austria. And you will definitely receive a 10% discount on all Mozart chocolates.

So, do you agree, or not ?

[Musicology]

Where do you get the idea you have convinced a single sole here as to your tale?

A soulless soliped's reply to Robert's solemn solecism!

The overwhelming 'evidence' of the musical superman, W.A. Mozart (1756-1791)

'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
(Simon and Garfunkel)

[yanni]

Check out "The Comte de St. Germain" by Isabel Cooper-Oakley concerning "Myslivecek=Gluck=Comte de Saint Germain=Rousseau" and their relations to prince Lobkowitz (page 33 among others).

On same subject: Check out Tufano, Lucio (2006) Josef Mysliveček e l’esecuzione napoletana dell’Orfeo di Gluck (1774). Hudební věda, 43 (3). pp. 257-279. ISSN 0018-7003 (On Musli-vecek "manipulation, and execution of the score" of Gluck's 1762 piece)

Gluck's last Viennese opera was Paride ed Elena (3.11.1770 Wien B).
All his next works are staged in Paris, France.

Cheers.