The Manufacture of Mozart

[yanni]

A true "Mozart basher" should have addressed quite differently my "no comment" post above:

Having left nothing but his music behind, Mozart, should not be compared with Rousseau whose contribution to "philosophy" and "current matters" is long recognised as "immense" .....

...long before, that is, the allegation that "Mozart's" music was in fact Rousseau's, came to light in this thread.

So, the question arises, why would a Mrs Karakelle bother to confuse her students with such nonsnensical comparisons*....tasting much like your familiar "hang it on the jesuits" soup?

For your perusal:

The centralized higher education system in Turkey and the national music teacher training program since 1998 : an analysis
Auteur : Sibel Karakelle
Éditeur : 2006.
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/77547890

Mehmet Akif Ersoy:
Turkey’s “national” poet, highly revered by Ataturk and his “Grey wolves”, composer of the lyrics of the Turkish National Anthem,1873-1936, of Albanian origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Akif_Ersoy

*"The Carriers of Enlightment: Mozart and Rousseau in the 18th century Europe" ,by Sibelle Karakelle of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey, 2007

[Petrarch's Love]

Good golly, I can't believe this thread has made it all the way to lucky page 13. Couldn't you all be spending your time listening to music?

Ha haaa xDD thank you for that!! It completely made my day xD

Glad I could provide some entertainment Queen of the Night. I gather you're a fan of "He who must not be named?" Perhaps you'd like to join us on the classical listening thread for some other musical discussion.

One might start with any of the following:

W.A. Mozart- Hermann Abert
Mozart: A Life- Maynard Solomon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography- Piero Melograni
Mozart: A Cultural Biography- Robert Gutman
Mozart's Letters, Mozart's Life- Robert Spaethling
Mozart: The First Biography- Franz Xaver Niemetschek
1791: Mozart's Last Year- H.C. Robbins Landon
Mozart: A Musical Biography- Konrad Kuster
Mozart: The Early Years- Stanley Sadie (Editor of the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
Mozart: A Documentary Biography- Otto Erich Deutsch

Thanks for the list, St. Luke's.

[yanni]

(Harvard, 1998)

Intersection Between Rousseau, Mozart to be Explored by Bin Ebisawa
By Cassie Ferguson

The world contains a few experts on philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and a few on composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but of those experts, very few indeed have made any kind of connection between the lives of the two 18th-century giants.

President of Kunitachi College of Music in Tokyo, Bin Ebisawa will be presenting a little known intersection between philosophy and the aesthetics of music in an upcoming colloquium on "Rousseau and the Mozarts -- Their Relation Considered." The seminar will be held in the Thompson Room (Room 110) of the Barker Center on Monday, April 27, at 4:15 p.m.

[Musicology]

Good golly, I can't believe this thread has made it all the way to lucky page 13. Couldn't you all be spending your time listening to music?




Glad I could provide some entertainment Queen of the Night. I gather you're a fan of "He who must not be named?" Perhaps you'd like to join us on the classical listening thread for some other musical discussion.



Thanks for the list, St. Luke's.

Yes, the list of books on Mozart is very, very long. We consider ourselves to be 'educated' by believing them. Although, the last time we asked for some details of Mozart's musical education and achievements up until the age of 12 we could find not a single reference or source. Despite weeks of trying on this forum. Nobody had an answer. LOL ! Wonder why ? So much for the 'expert' textbooks, yes ?

The Mozart myth was in some ways very cleverly put together. In other ways it was crude stuff. It involved lots of trusted people and lots of sheer nonsense. But much of the evidence was, of course, destroyed. And whole areas are to this day off-limits to researchers. The facts had to be carefully obtained. But now the picture is very much more clear.

13 pages is minor. We have Mozart forums where thousands of pages of eulogy, hyperbole, popular fiction and plain idolatry are its main feature. As for listening to music, try listening to some by Mozart's contemporaries. Men such as Vanhal, Myslvivececk, Sarti, Paisiello, Wranitsky, to name only 5 of around 30 who make up 'Mozart's' music. They might surprise you. It would certainly end the black hole of ignorance which is the main feature of a Mozartean education. Do yourself the great favour of listening to composers of Mozart's own time. Those close to his career. But hey, I don't want to be too controversial ! LOL

Musical history versus Corporate Mythology.

Yes, certainly, Yanni. Rousseau is of the very same libertine network as Mozart. The so-called 'Enlightenment'. The occultist marriage of secularism designed to inflitrate parts of society which would not succumb to mainstream Romanism. Emerging from Venice.

Read about Rousseau in Venice ?

Rousseau was no composer. He, like Mozart, was a con-man, a fraud, a stooge of the Jesuit led 'enlightenment' philosophy. A Jesuit Order, incidentally, which had as its earliest supporter the Venetian Cardinal Contarini.

(Harvard, 1998)

Intersection Between Rousseau, Mozart to be Explored by Bin Ebisawa
By Cassie Ferguson

The world contains a few experts on philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and a few on composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but of those experts, very few indeed have made any kind of connection between the lives of the two 18th-century giants.

President of Kunitachi College of Music in Tokyo, Bin Ebisawa will be presenting a little known intersection between philosophy and the aesthetics of music in an upcoming colloquium on "Rousseau and the Mozarts -- Their Relation Considered." The seminar will be held in the Thompson Room (Room 110) of the Barker Center on Monday, April 27, at 4:15 p.m.

[yanni]

Yes, certainly, Yanni. Rousseau is of the very same libertine network as Mozart. The so-called 'Enlightenment'. The occultist marriage of secularism designed to inflitrate parts of society which would not succumb to mainstream Romanism. Emerging from Venice.

Read about Rousseau in Venice ?

Rousseau was no composer. He, like Mozart, was a con-man, a fraud, a stooge of the Jesuit led 'enlightenment' philosophy. A Jesuit Order, incidentally, which had as its earliest supporter the Venetian Cardinal Contarini.

Having declared yourself already a non expert on Rousseau and the Enlightment and having limited to suffocation your “conclusions” on Mozart's manufacture(failing to exhibit the slightest interest so far as to who, why, when started it and who continues it today) and losing your temper the moment a different theory than your "the jesuits did it" was expressed, you can hardly expect to be taken seriously in your last namecalling "assessment" on Rousseau!.

Alas, Deutsche Grammophone’s promotion of Mme Kotzena’s Mozart-Gluck-Myslivecek works, along with the more scholarly “studies” by Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin, both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau, are to blame for your last outburst:

They, in chorus, answer “who continues the manufacturing today?” thus making nonsense of your “theory”… and not just that!

Cheers!

Other readers may find the following thread on Rousseau of interest :
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=39455

[Petrarch's Love]

Yes, the list of books on Mozart is very, very long. We consider ourselves to be 'educated' by believing them. Although, the last time we asked for some details of Mozart's musical education and achievements up until the age of 12 we could find not a single reference or source. Despite weeks of trying on this forum. Nobody had an answer. LOL ! Wonder why ? So much for the 'expert' textbooks, yes ?

Musicology--Well, I cannot either consider myself educated about Mozart or believe in any book or theory until I have read several, which is something I have not done. I know very little about the documentation or theories about Mozart's life one way or the other. I've read quite a bit of your theory here, and it made me interested in reading what you're reacting against, which I assume is presented in books like the list St. Luke's Guild offered. I presume that if your case is a strong one you will have no objection to a person reading the alternate views.

. As for listening to music, try listening to some by Mozart's contemporaries. Men such as Vanhal, Myslvivececk, Sarti, Paisiello, Wranitsky, to name only 5 of around 30 who make up 'Mozart's' music. They might surprise you. It would certainly end the black hole of ignorance which is the main feature of a Mozartean education. Do yourself the great favour of listening to composers of Mozart's own time. Those close to his career. But hey, I don't want to be too controversial ! LOL

I listen to music widely but have studied it very little in any formal capacity, so I cannot claim to have a "Mozartean education," characterized by black holes or otherwise. I haven't heard works by many of the classical Mozartian contemporaries you name, and I like the idea of expanding/deepening my listening interests. So thank you for your list too! I've learned something already by searching youtube for Paisiello and finding the overture to his Il Barbiere di Siviglia. I hadn't been aware of the previous version and I am quite enjoying its sprightly overture. I do appreciate any suggestions that can lead me to happy listening. After all, it is the beauty of the music which is most important.

[Dinkleberry2010]

This is the truth of the matter (I have spent fifty years researching): Mozart had two pet dogs named Rousseau and Voltaire. These dogs were incredibly intelligent and Mozart taught them to read and write. The dog Rousseau wrote The Confessions, and the canine Voltaire wrote Candide. Any one who denies this is obviously part of a vast conspiracy headed by the Jesuits.

[Musicology]

Hi there Petrach's Love,

Here is an elegant aria from a virtually unknown opera 'Armida' by Italian opera composer Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802). It's written in a style very similar to that which we usually associate with Mozart. (They were both contemporaries and in fact they were closely associated. The facts of their association not generally known). This particular opera was one of about 30 by him and was written slightly earlier than 'Mozarts' Le Nozze di Figaro. (You may notice the opening few moments of this short piece closely resemble the famous opening of the 2nd Movement to 'Mozart's' Piano Concerto No. 21 (2nd Movement).

Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802)
Aria
'Lungi Dal Caro Bene'
Opera - 'Armida' (premiered at St Petersburg, Russia, 1786)
Soloist - Renata Tebaldi

http://www.mediafire.com/?zqul5to4gtk

Yes, alternate views are always welcome ! Good to know you are a great listener. These days closely listening to music is a sign of real musicality. More so, perhaps, than ever before.

Regards

This is the truth of the matter (I have spent fifty years researching): Mozart had two pet dogs named Rousseau and Voltaire. These dogs were incredibly intelligent and Mozart taught them to read and write. The dog Rousseau wrote The Confessions, and the canine Voltaire wrote Candide. Any one who denies this is obviously part of a vast conspiracy headed by the Jesuits.

Great ! Maybe you can tell us -

a. Why the term 'jesuitical' has been defined as being devious, elusive, and downright fraudulent ?

b. Why conspiracy theories are so often associated with the Jesuits ? Just a coincidence, right ? Or is it something to do with their history, perhaps ? LOL !!

Thanks for the revelations on Mozart's dogs. You would make quite an amusing fiction writer.

Having declared yourself already a non expert on Rousseau and the Enlightment and having limited to suffocation your “conclusions” on Mozart's manufacture(failing to exhibit the slightest interest so far as to who, why, when started it and who continues it today) and losing your temper the moment a different theory than your "the jesuits did it" was expressed, you can hardly expect to be taken seriously in your last namecalling "assessment" on Rousseau!.

Alas, Deutsche Grammophone’s promotion of Mme Kotzena’s Mozart-Gluck-Myslivecek works, along with the more scholarly “studies” by Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin, both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau, are to blame for your last outburst:

They, in chorus, answer “who continues the manufacturing today?” thus making nonsense of your “theory”… and not just that!

Cheers!

Other readers may find the following thread on Rousseau of interest :
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=39455

Yanni,

Research consists of a little more than simply quoting other people who refer to other people. Useful though that may be. Mozart's musical work has NOT been 'traced to Rousseau' by anyone. Since any such work was not Mozart in the first place. But if you can show some music attributed to Mozart which has been proved to be by Rousseau, please do so here and don't leave us in suspense, will you ? LOL

You say this has already been done by ' scholarly “studies” by ''Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin'', both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau. Great ! Share some of their findings with us here, please ! After all, you make the claim and we want to see some evidence.

'Scholarly studies' are said to say Mozart learned music as a child. That he studied harmony, orchestration and composition as a child. But the questions remain completely unaswered weeks later. Where did he study harmony, orchestration, and composition as a child ? From whom ? When ? Any 'scholarly sources' ? Request Number 24.

And so we go round in circles. Still waiting for some 'scholarly answers' on these too. LOL !

Now, Janni, you make these claims about Rousseau. Any factual support ? Any at all ?

[Babbalanja]

I know very little about the documentation or theories about Mozart's life one way or the other. I've read quite a bit of your theory here, and it made me interested in reading what you're reacting against, which I assume is presented in books like the list St. Luke's Guild offered. I presume that if your case is a strong one you will have no objection to a person reading the alternate views.

You'll get a lot out of doing it that way. The "theory" you mention here is a mere parody of responsible research, depending on mining factoids from legitimate researchers and making fantastic claims about secret societies which by their very nature can never be verified. In Robert's own words from the OP to this thread, these are his claims:

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, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view.

You may notice that the "theory" is put forth by delegitimizing mainstream Mozart scholarship (which he calls "corporate mythology" and "a fairy tale") as well as indicating what the theorist claims are anomalies in the conventional Mozart narrative. This is the exact opposite of how honest research is conducted: one can't dismiss the work of a Mozart scholar in one breath and then use his work to support a point in the next. Furthermore, weaknesses in the conventional narrative can't be considered support for any one alternative narrative. But by making people concentrate on these perceived anomalies, the theorist may distract observers from the fact that he isn't actually presenting evidence to support a coherent alternate scenario.

A recent item this theorist has presented demonstrates the futility of this methodology quite well. He presented a quote from Abert's adoring biography W.A. Mozart. Out of this 1500-page biography, Robert discussed these two sentences at great length:

"An enterprising publisher in Berlin, Johann Julius Hummel, claimed that, although unmusical, he could cast a critical eye over the works that were submitted to him and see whether they were worth publishing. He did not have a good word to say about Mozart and even boasted that he had returned several of his works as unpublishable"

Now in the context of the work, it appears that Abert was discussing the reluctance of certain entrepreneurs to publish Mozart's works, since these virtuoso compositions weren't big sellers. But the theorist wants to make you think that it means Mozart was a talentless fraud who couldn't compose anything without the aid of shadowy cabals and the composers they employed as Mozart's ghost writers.

However, does this factoid even support the point he is making? The assumption seems to be that the works Hummel rejected were works the noncomposer Mozart wrote himself. But didn't Mozart, according to the very theory being put forward, have a stable of ghost-composers doing all his work? If truly talented composers were writing works for Mozart, why would anything he submitted for publication be considered substandard? Why would the plotters behind the Mozart myth allow Mozart himself to try to publish works and jeopardize their scheme?

And if the factoid were truly damning, why would Abert (being in the "fairy tale" game, after all) have mentioned it at all? Are we supposed to believe that the writer who lavished such admiration on Mozart's life and work (on page 239, Abert says "Mozart's genius...towered far above all his predecessors") is admitting in this anecdote that Mozart couldn't compose?

This is what's called "cherry picking." The theorist delegitimizes mainstream Mozart scholarship, but takes isolated factoids out of the context of this scholarship and pretends they support his claim.

Is it true, as Robert claims, that "other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view"? Of course not. Researchers may well deplore the amount of exaggeration and distortion in popular Mozart biography. They may acknowledge the influence of other composers on Mozart. They may admit that some of his early works were attributed to Mozart by mistake. However, none will support the claim made in the OP that Mozart didn't write any of his work.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

Yanni,

Research consists of a little more than simply quoting other people who refer to other people. Useful though that may be. Mozart's musical work has NOT been 'traced to Rousseau' by anyone. Since any such work was not Mozart in the first place. But if you can show some music attributed to Mozart which has been proved to be by Rousseau, please do so here and don't leave us in suspense, will you ? LOL

You say this has already been done by ' scholarly “studies” by ''Mrs Karakelle and Mr Bin'', both tracing Mozart’s work to Rousseau. Great ! Share some of their findings with us here, please ! After all, you make the claim and we want to see some evidence.

'Scholarly studies' are said to say Mozart learned music as a child. That he studied harmony, orchestration and composition as a child. But the questions remain completely unaswered weeks later. Where did he study harmony, orchestration, and composition as a child ? From whom ? When ? Any 'scholarly sources' ? Request Number 24.

And so we go round in circles. Still waiting for some 'scholarly answers' on these too. LOL !

Now, Janni, you make these claims about Rousseau. Any factual support ? Any at all ?

Check yourself the works of Mr Bin and Mrs Karakelle (on "links" between Mozart and Rousseau) at the URL's quoted above and then proceed to....

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=39455

.....and continue in this here thread of yours to learn that......

"Rousseau"="Gluck"="Grimm"="Myslivecek"="Durazzo"= "Comte de Saint Germain"="Chastellux"=Gioachino Cocchi , also signing his work (Bajajette, 1746) as Gioachino "Rossini".

BTW You never told us your italian opera friends views on (their hiding of) Cocchi, never justified your last rage against "Rousseau" and never answered my post #181 above.

Enjoy!

[Petrarch's Love]

Hi there Petrach's Love,

Here is an elegant aria from a virtually unknown opera 'Armida' by Italian opera composer Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802). It's written in a style very similar to that which we usually associate with Mozart. (They were both contemporaries and in fact they were closely associated. The facts of their association not generally known). This particular opera was one of about 30 by him and was written slightly earlier than 'Mozarts' Le Nozze di Figaro. (You may notice the opening few moments of this short piece closely resemble the famous opening of the 2nd Movement to 'Mozart's' Piano Concerto No. 21 (2nd Movement).

Giuseppe Sarti (1729-1802)
Aria
'Lungi Dal Caro Bene'
Opera - 'Armida' (premiered at St Petersburg, Russia, 1786)
Soloist - Renata Tebaldi

http://www.mediafire.com/?zqul5to4gtk

Yes, alternate views are always welcome ! Good to know you are a great listener. These days closely listening to music is a sign of real musicality. More so, perhaps, than ever before.

Regards

Ah. I didn't know that aria by Sarti. It's a really lovely piece, and I agree that the opening could well be reminiscent of the opening to movement 2 of Mozart's Piano Concerto 21 (or vice versa), which is a work I adore. I suspect, however, that you may be throwing that out in hopes it will reinforce your theory? If that is where you were headed, then I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced. It definitely sounds like there was an exchange of influence there, but the basic musical voice of the composer of the aria and the composer of the concerto is different. It doesn't sound like the same man, but it does sound like one man influenced the other. In any case, I think it's just as lovely a piece in terms of enjoyment as many by Mozart (or, if you really would rather, "Mozart"). I'll have to look at some of the other things Sarti composed.

Cheers.

[Musicology]

The Abert biography of Mozart describes Hummel as 'unmusical'. In fact he was a major publisher in Amsterdam. He was very musical. For decades. He published hundreds of symphonies, concertos, chamber works, musical books and instruments. So that's plain wrong. Isn't it ? Hummel rejected several works by Mozart. And that's just simple. A catalogue of the 'unmusical' Hummel from the 1760's was presented here. So much for the accuracy of Abert, right ? Time to admit reality.

In this small point you have to admit Abert is talking nonsense. Furthermore, Hummel himself speaks of this incident publicly years after Mozart's death in a German newspaper.

The Mozart industry and their supporters describe these as 'factoids'. Let these 'factoids' speak for themselves. Let ordinary people decide on the evidence presented to them. Not much to ask, is it ? They are one simple illustration from thousands found on the capacity of ignorant people to believe the Mozart fairy story and to teach it regardless of the actual evidence.

Multiply this by tens of thousands and you get some idea of what is to come with 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.

You'll get a lot out of doing it that way. The "theory" you mention here is a mere parody of responsible research, depending on mining factoids from legitimate researchers and making fantastic claims about secret societies which by their very nature can never be verified. In Robert's own words from the OP to this thread, these are his claims:

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, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view.

You may notice that the "theory" is put forth by delegitimizing mainstream Mozart scholarship (which he calls "corporate mythology" and "a fairy tale") as well as indicating what the theorist claims are anomalies in the conventional Mozart narrative. This is the exact opposite of how honest research is conducted: one can't dismiss the work of a Mozart scholar in one breath and then use his work to support a point in the next. Furthermore, weaknesses in the conventional narrative can't be considered support for any one alternative narrative. But by making people concentrate on these perceived anomalies, the theorist may distract observers from the fact that he isn't actually presenting evidence to support a coherent alternate scenario.

A recent item this theorist has presented demonstrates the futility of this methodology quite well. He presented a quote from Abert's adoring biography W.A. Mozart. Out of this 1500-page biography, Robert discussed these two sentences at great length:

"An enterprising publisher in Berlin, Johann Julius Hummel, claimed that, although unmusical, he could cast a critical eye over the works that were submitted to him and see whether they were worth publishing. He did not have a good word to say about Mozart and even boasted that he had returned several of his works as unpublishable"

Now in the context of the work, it appears that Abert was discussing the reluctance of certain entrepreneurs to publish Mozart's works, since these virtuoso compositions weren't big sellers. But the theorist wants to make you think that it means Mozart was a talentless fraud who couldn't compose anything without the aid of shadowy cabals and the composers they employed as Mozart's ghost writers.

However, does this factoid even support the point he is making? The assumption seems to be that the works Hummel rejected were works the noncomposer Mozart wrote himself. But didn't Mozart, according to the very theory being put forward, have a stable of ghost-composers doing all his work? If truly talented composers were writing works for Mozart, why would anything he submitted for publication be considered substandard? Why would the plotters behind the Mozart myth allow Mozart himself to try to publish works and jeopardize their scheme?

And if the factoid were truly damning, why would Abert (being in the "fairy tale" game, after all) have mentioned it at all? Are we supposed to believe that the writer who lavished such admiration on Mozart's life and work (on page 239, Abert says "Mozart's genius...towered far above all his predecessors") is admitting in this anecdote that Mozart couldn't compose?

This is what's called "cherry picking." The theorist delegitimizes mainstream Mozart scholarship, but takes isolated factoids out of the context of this scholarship and pretends they support his claim.

Is it true, as Robert claims, that "other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view"? Of course not. Researchers may well deplore the amount of exaggeration and distortion in popular Mozart biography. They may acknowledge the influence of other composers on Mozart. They may admit that some of his early works were attributed to Mozart by mistake. However, none will support the claim made in the OP that Mozart didn't write any of his work.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

...his thoughts....

That's how Wikipedia "reveals" the link of Mozart's music to Rousseau's musical concept:

The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."[8]
These views suggest a musical style quite unlike the style of the Galant, which was dominant at the time. Galant style music was typically melodic with harmonic accompaniment, rather than polyphonic; and the melodic line was often richly ornamented with trills, runs and other virtuosic effects. The style promoted by the Masonic view was much less virtuosic and unornamented. Mozart's style of composition is often referred to as "humanist" and is in accord with this Masonic view of music.[9]

The authors of the article fail to remark that it was "Gluck" who pioneered the "much less virtuosic and unornamented" that Mozart "borrowed somehow" from "Gluck". A common trend among musicologists apparently, to ommit this alias of "Rousseau"!

[Musicology]

Here is a really spectacular 'Mozartean' aria. By Italian 18th century maestro Vicenzo Righini (1756-1812). This piece was written in Vienna during the very time Mozart was living there. Righini, born in the same year as Mozart and a specialist in vocal music and teacher for many years was closely associated with Mozart himself, his family and career. During Mozart's last decade (1781-1791). On closer examination he proves to be still another source of 'Mozart's' operatic music, almost completely unknown today. Righini's achievements hidden away, his career, significance (and his music) deliberately buried by the Mozart industry for almost 200 years. Like so many others.

Vicenzo Righini (1756-1812)
Bravura Aria - Ove son Qual'ure
'Il Natal D'Apollo' (1788/9) - Vienna
Soloist - Diana Damrau (Germany)

http://www.mediafire.com/?mddfjwgnggn

Firstly, Gluck died in 1787. But Rousseau died in 1778. A slight problem, yes ? Rousseau is buried in Paris. Gluck is buried in Vienna. Another problem, yes ? The post you have made speaks of Masonic music. But many composers wrote Masonic music, including contemporaries of Mozart such as Paul Wranitsky in Vienna. In fact, parts of the Little Freemason Cantata have long been recognised to be by Wranitsky, and not by Mozart. So, there are all kinds of problems with your idea that Rousseau was Gluck. And, as for 'Rousseau's music' have you any examples to give us of its 'Mozartean' content ? If not, once again, there are real problems.

Thanks

...his thoughts....

That's how Wikipedia "reveals" the link of Mozart's music to Rousseau's musical concept:

The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."[8]
These views suggest a musical style quite unlike the style of the Galant, which was dominant at the time. Galant style music was typically melodic with harmonic accompaniment, rather than polyphonic; and the melodic line was often richly ornamented with trills, runs and other virtuosic effects. The style promoted by the Masonic view was much less virtuosic and unornamented. Mozart's style of composition is often referred to as "humanist" and is in accord with this Masonic view of music.[9]

The authors of the article fail to remark that it was "Gluck" who pioneered the "much less virtuosic and unornamented" that Mozart "borrowed somehow" from "Gluck". A common trend among musicologists apparently, to ommit this alias of "Rousseau"!

[yanni]

Need I repeat myself, questioning truth's "quality" once more, to teach you?

If Thomas Jefferson decided to "alter" truth to protect my ancestor-hero and his legacy, if, today, at this absolutely "american literature" site, my revelations on his relations to the first three US presidents remain unchallenged, what makes you think that only "your" Mozart was "manufactured" and other truths of the era that created him were not?

Google for "abbe Raynal+Jefferson" and read (again) my last thread on "abbe Raynal-Rousseau" (it appears as #1 of 28300).

...and do try avoiding quick conclusions: If the foundations of this "house" need "strenghtening", after two centuries and a half, a good, learned, honest, architect must first be found.

(The similarities between Mozart's Bastien and Rousseau's Le Devin du Village have already been discussed elsewhere, see http://www.barenreiter.com/html/vosco/bastien.htm)

Cheers!

Firstly, Gluck died in 1787. But Rousseau died in 1778. A slight problem, yes ? Rousseau is buried in Paris. Gluck is buried in Vienna. Another problem, yes ? The post you have made speaks of Masonic music. But many composers wrote Masonic music, including contemporaries of Mozart such as Paul Wranitsky in Vienna. In fact, parts of the Little Freemason Cantata have long been recognised to be by Wranitsky, and not by Mozart. So, there are all kinds of problems with your idea that Rousseau was Gluck. And, as for 'Rousseau's music' have you any examples to give us of its 'Mozartean' content ? If not, once again, there are real problems.

Thanks