The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Anything which makes your universe less complicated is great with me !

The true origins of 'Mozart's' violin concertos are definitely a major puzzle. But I know of various cases where music written at a much later date by others has been falsely attributed to ''young Mozart in Salzburg''. One embarrasing example is 4 movements from the wind Serenade KV361 these existing in a version for quintet which has always been assigned to Mozart's childhood by the Mozart industry and still being sold as 'a string quintet by the boy Mozart'. (Known as String Quintet KV46). This manuscript in 4 movements is so filled with errors and so amateur in its content (even with an added early date of January 25, 1768) in Mozart's name that it was assigned to 'Mozart's childhood' and published as his.

In fact the music of KV 46 dates from the 1780's and is actually 4 movements of KV 361 (itself not by Mozart). This was so embarrasing and so ridiculous that KV46 was dropped from the list of 'his' works only in the 20th century. The quintet version of 4 movements from KV361 known as KV46 was made in Vienna by the real Mozart of the 1780's. So poor was it in its musical and writing content (being an attempted Vienna arrangement made by the real Mozart for quintet of a work by others) that it had to be reinvented as 'a childhood work' (complete with a falsely added false 1768 date). In fact, on that date Mozart was not in Salzburg.

On 'Planet Mozart' everything is possible !

J.S. Bach
Chorale from Cantata 22
Piano
Angela Hewitt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etB-P6a6wBs

J.S. Bach
Various Little Keyboard Works

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

...and, btw, you'll nodoubt be pleased to learn,Robert, that I have today removed François-Joseph Gossé (he later changed it to "Gossec" to distinguish from "Causse"-"Cochin") from my list of tentative aliases to now place him firmly and surely among the definite aliases of Cocchi (=Cochin-Caussin in France) -"comte de Saint Germain".

The riddles of the very peculiar (and much debated then and perhaps today) story of Gossec's "cooperation with "Gluck".....

see http://philidor.cmbv.fr/jlbweb/jlbWe...92.pdf&ext=pdf

...and of course with Mozart (and the provenance of his -very curious for his age-five violin symphonies), have just been solved.

Needless to say "Gossec's" data perfectly fit my mastertimeline.

You were saying?

Enjoy!

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

[yanni]

Anything which makes your universe less complicated is great with me !

Simplicity is great for simpletons who try to understand and survive in a complicated real world. As simpletons make up over 90% of all consummers, including book buyers, profit-seeking-authors tend to simplify things for them,often presenting the wrong facts, leading them to wrong conclusions, despair and financial loss ultimately!

Many such authors are original simpletons themselves, for no honest intelligent person would purposely misinform and harm another for profit.

You don't belong to this category Robert and enough said on this last attempt of yours to, yet another, tactical distraction (allowing you-so you think-not to address most of my posts):

Do tell me, if you please, how many times are Baron "Bagge"-also spelled "Bache" or "Bach"-and "Gossec" mentioned in idol Mozart's correspondence (in a list preferably that includes place, date, subject)?

...and....

Did Mozart ever meet "Bagge" or was he instead bagged by-and forced to leave Paris in 1778 because of-him?

.....so that, at long last, you become more specific and we may finally compare notes on -your subject afterall-Mozart's manufacture!

By all means surpise me, dispute and challenge my findings for a change, otherwise even the most simple of your simpleton tentative buyers will sense the little something in your wind!

Cheers!

BTW: Do not ommit to read through http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...bs1=standard&i (Le personnel musical de l'Opéra de Paris sous le règne de Louis XVI) where you'll find two references to mason-musician "Baron Bagge". Page 205 pretty much covers my view of things, in general, and "our subject" in particular, ie "G's" (=Bagge's) relations to Ben Franklin and -the "jesuit" creation of(LOL)-the USofA!

[Musicology]

Hi there Yanni,

Simplicity is closer to truth than error. After all, lies are complex things. Truth is not. The tangled webs of deceivers are everywhere. And, in fact, nature's solutions are almost always elegantly simple. I certainly don't believe 'simpletons make up over 90% of consumers'. I believe most people possess common sense. The ability to know things instinctively. But this faculty of ours is dumbed down by those who allow no criticism of tradition and dogma. And intitution is rarely encouraged these days. Instinct is a good thing. It should be encouraged. It should even be developed.

You ask about Mozart references to Baron Bagge. In fact, Bagge was widely known as 'Bach' (though he never called himself Bach) and that's how he is refered to in the Mozart correspondence. I will check myself on the references to him. But, as you say yourself, the Freemasons protected their own secrets. The reference already posted here comes from a modern Freemasonic publication. Openly admitting close association of Mozart's circle with the musical scene in Paris. And Bagge had a great role, for sure.

The reason for Mozart's hasty departure from Paris in 1778 included the fact that his entire visit there had been musically disastrous. It was little short of a fiasco, in fact. He was sent away from Paris by Grimm because it was becoming commonly known in Paris that he, Mozart, was a musical charlatan. And that sort of reputation woul have been disastrous for the manufacturers of Mozart. Which, by this time, was a big affair. So he was hurriedly sent away to Mannheim by the first available coach. Under the instructions of Grimm. This after a whole series of embarrasing events which had exposed him as a fraud and which threatened to permanently expose the very real musical limitations of Mozart. The same Baron Grimm, however, arranged for him (Mozart) to get involved in the later opera Idomeneo for Munich (another fiasco). In Mannheim, on Mozart's return from this tour o Paris the local news was Mozart had 'died'. (Meaning, in fact, his career was again a public relations disaster which needed to be reinvented - the same as Vienna 1768).

As for your view that the USA was 'invented by the Jesuit Order', no, I've never said this. In fact, the USA came in to existence, Constitutionally, against protests from Rome and the papacy, who hated the US Constitution from the start. Right ? Who actively encouraged and even supported the Confederate states to rebel against the government in Washington. Causing civil war. The sense in which the USA was 'invented by the Jesuit Order' was, of course, not direct, but always indirect. This was achieved by undermining the US Constitution. How ? By means of the 'English Common Law', a law system which was imposed at state level right across the USA. By commercial lawyers. Increasingly conflicting with the Constitution itself. And, as already said, the British Empire was really a transplanted Venetian oligarchy. The same Venetians who had supported Loyola and the Jesuits from the start. Who also made Britain a mercantile empire. So the corruption was spread to the USA via the lawyers of the British Empire by means of the legal system at state level. There's nothing wrong with the Constitution itself.

The great USA had/has a brilliant constitution. Perhaps the best ever made. But it tended to be undermined by this state imposed system of Admiralty Law, by 'English Common Law', in fact, that began to control state governments in the USA after independence from Britain and which is really a hybrid form of real Common Law which gradually undermined the USA. Real Common Law had operated in England before 1066. Before the Norman (papally approved) invasion of England occurred in that year. After which time England itself was undermined by the new 'English Common Law'. So, as said before, this so-called 'English Common Law' is diametrically opposed to the Common Law. It is the legal system of the feudal oligarchy and the other is the great legal system which was derived from the Golden Rule. These two things are really as different as chalk and cheese. That's how the USA was undermined. By the influence of lawyers using imperial law from Britain that came there from the British Empire. A hybrid legal system which travelled with the British Empire, in fact.

The corruption of Common Law was an ongoing product of the counter-reformation and it has certainly destroyed the sovereignty of entire nations. Planted in to the USA by its enemies. So that today the enemies of the USA are corporate lawyers, corporate law, Admiralty Law operating in the name of the 'law' and a failure to know the difference between Common Law and so-called 'English Common Law'.

Do yourself a great favour. Listen to the following for a few minutes. Now you see the difference between Common Law and 'English Common Law' (so-called). The difference, in fact, between a free people and a feudal oligarchy. This man knows what he is talking about. THAT is how the Jesuit influence grew. Through the Imperial Empire of England, which was, itself, a nation undermined by the counter-reformation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grjmnkj7LT4

Anything which makes your universe less complicated is great with me !

Simplicity is great for simpletons who try to understand and survive in a complicated real world. As simpletons make up over 90% of all consummers, including book buyers, profit-seeking-authors tend to simplify things for them,often presenting the wrong facts, leading them to wrong conclusions, despair and financial loss ultimately!

Many such authors are original simpletons themselves, for no honest intelligent person would purposely misinform and harm another for profit.

You don't belong to this category Robert and enough said on this last attempt of yours to, yet another, tactical distraction :

Do tell me, if you please, how many times are Baron "Bagge"-also spelled "Bache" or "Bach"-and "Gossec" mentioned in idol Mozart's correspondence (in a list preferably that includes place, date, subject) so that -and for the first time-you become more specific and we may finally compare notes on -your subject afterall-Mozart's manufacture!

Did Mozart ever meet "Bagge" or was he instead bagged by-and forced to leave Paris in 1778 because of-him?

By all means surpise me, dispute and challenge my findings for a change, otherwise even the most simple of your simpleton tentative buyers will sense the little something in your wind!

Cheers!

BTW: Do not ommit to read through http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...bs1=standard&i (Le personnel musical de l'Opéra de Paris sous le règne de Louis XVI) where you'll find two references to mason-musician "Baron Bagge". Page 205 pretty much covers my view of things, in general, and "our subject" in particular, ie "G's" (=Bagge's) relations to Ben Franklin and -the "jesuit" creation of(LOL)-the USofA!

[ennison]

"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. "

Good grief!

[yanni]

I kindly asked you in my previous to be more specific and provide evidence ("Bache" reference in Mozart's correspondence in the form of a list etc) supporting your above "theories".

I also asked you if Mozart junior met Bache-Bagge in Paris, 1778, clearly implying that "Grimm" bagged him off to Manheim in a hurry so that junior would not notice that "Grimm" and "Bagge" (and Myslivecek) were one and the same with his 1763-4 memory of "Gluck" -Cocchi.

The fact is Mozart, following his father's advise to contact Bagge and obtain his "blessing" and support, never met him in 1778 (his host Grimm telling him Bagge was absent in London) .

When Mozart became wiser, he met Bagge once only, in Vienna, 1784, to confirm the cover of "ridiculous amateur musician"-patron of the arts and melomaniac.

Mozart was very inexperienced in 1778 and "Bagge" very busy!

Your data please!

[Musicology]

Hi there Ennison,

Yes, that's right.

You might be able to show us differently of course. Either way, welcome to the thread !

We all grew up believing different things. But, as we get older we are able, if we study, to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. The legend of Mozart is no exception.

I can also confirm Father Christmas does not deliver presents for Coca Cola and that children do not write operas.

"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. "

Good grief!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

If you are unable to check Mozart's references to Bagge for yourself please ask someone to do so for you. I am not operating any research service other than the plain fact that Baron Bagge is mentioned in the Mozart family correspondence.

Here is one reference, in a Mozart letter of 9th July 1778 -

If I were to see Baron Bach, I must have very
good eyes, for he is not here but in London. Is it
possible that I did not tell you this ? You shall find
that, in future, I ■will answer all your letters minutely.
It is said that Baron Bach will soon return here ; I
should be glad of that for many reasons, especially be-
cause at his house there will be always opportunity to
try things over in good earnest.

If, for some reason, your Google search doesn't work let me know.

It is certainly not my job to show 'Grimm' and 'Bagge' (and Myslivececk) were one and the same person ! Because that idea is not mine. It's entirely yours. And never has been my idea.

As for Bagge being in London at the time of Mozart's visit to Paris in 1778 I have never argued differently.

I kindly asked you in my previous to be more specific and provide evidence ("Bache" reference in Mozart's correspondence in the form of a list etc) supporting your above "theories".

I also asked you if Mozart junior met Bache-Bagge in Paris, 1778, clearly implying that "Grimm" bagged him off to Manheim in a hurry so that junior would not notice that "Grimm" and "Bagge" (and Myslivecek) were one and the same.

The fact is Mozart, following his father's advise to contact Bagge and obtain his "blessing" and support, never met him in 1778 (his host Grimm telling him Bagge was absent in London) .

When Mozart became wiser, he met Bagge once only, in Vienna, 1784, to confirm the cover of "ridiculous amateur musician"-patron of the arts and melomaniac.

Mozart was very inexperienced in 1778 and "Bagge" very busy!

Your data please!

[stlukesguild]

For some reason each time I see this thread this image of Gene Wilder screaming in Young Frankenstein just seems to come to mind:

It's alive!!!


It's alive....!!!


It's ALIVE...!!!!!!!

[yanni]

If you are unable to check Mozart's references to Bagge for yourself please ask someone to do so for you. I am not operating any research service other than the plain fact that Baron Bagge is mentioned in the Mozart family correspondence. Here is one reference, in a Mozart letter of 9th July 1778 -

I-and all concerned-see you doing your best, labouring to avoid the issue of Mozart's manufacturer, Robert.

I am not asking you to do my research (evidently completed-see my already revised 1777-1779 timeline under Leroux's opera phantom thread at http://www.online-literature.com/for...569#post829569 ) but insist on asking you to provide evidence to support your lame "theories" and you refuse.

Check Leopold's list of Paris tentative contacts at http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+Leopold/Reiseaufzeichnungen+1763-1771/4.+Kurze+Erl%C3%A4uterungen+des+Herausgebers/Zur+gro%C3%9Fen+Reise+1763-1766" : Leopold never in his life met or corresponded with "Bagge". Furthermore for your further information, "Gavinier" the exceptional french violin player in his list, was another alias of "G" (See "Melchior Grimm (revisited)" and "Story of My Life By George Sand, Thelma Jurgrau", reconfirming that "Dupin" was Cocchi/comte de Saint Germain through violinist "Gavinier" of 1794), now thrice confirmed.

Leopold knew Gluck, Cocchi and Grimm were the same person but was not allowed access to "Bache" and propably "Gavinier" and "Gossec" at the time(1764).

Relevant site too: http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=385

Finally: Years ago, Dr. Pei-Gwen South, in "Exploding The Myth Of Mozart" stated, loud and clear, that "Mozart was manufactured" (avoiding the manufacturer as well), so what's your point, where is your own contribution in this thread (other than falsely naming the jesuits as "manufacturers" of not just Mozart but all 18th century reforms that resulted in USA independence)??

Cheers!

[yanni]

Instead of using sound "effects", be more specific if you please, StLuke:

I assume your interests include not just Mozart but the History of the USA as well, so here is a little puzzle for you to solve:

According to http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/...c/viu01144.xml there is....

a letter from Baron de Bache [William Lee] to Arthur Lee, October 8, 1780, reporting on Henry Lauren's* capture by the British and on British projections for reinforcements for General Clinton's army,

In view of previous posts in this thread (and as my mastertimeline confirms) this "William Lee"-"Baron de Bache" must be the same man as the previous fiddle-expert german "Bro" of same year in Newport, ie my hero.

Wikipedia's article on him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(diplomat) however is rather "short" on relative info, failing even to address the issue of the Lee bros correspondence at....

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu3192...86161_djvu.txt

..... confirming, imo, that “Baron de Bache” is using yet another alias.

Cheers!

*http://www.famousamericans.net/henrylaurens/

For some reason each time I see this thread this image of Gene Wilder screaming in Young Frankenstein just seems to come to mind:

It's alive!!!


It's alive....!!!


It's ALIVE...!!!!!!!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I think everyone can see my subject is Mozart. But yours appears to be a convoluted story which does not have Mozart as its focus. It consists of multiple aliases on characters which have some relationship to Mozart. But this habit of yours to drift in to the more convoluted parts of your research on this thread has the tendency to confuse all of us.

May I repeat (although I've said it many times before) that MANY composers wrote the music today attributed to Mozart. You do understand this, don't you Yanni ? They did so at every stage of Mozart's musical life. I've said repeatedly there was a network of patrons, composers and propagandists across the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. I am keen you should understand this basic point. But let me repeat it so you will no longer be in any doubt. Many (which is far more than one person ) supplied the music today known as 'Mozart'. And many (which is far more than one person) promoted and published 'Mozart's' music during and after his lifetime. Isn't this rather simple to understand ?

You say I've not explained these things in detail. Yanni, we are dealing with close to 700 musical works. Each of which has its own story. Each of which requires time and is not easy on threads. But I've given pages of replies on particular points. I have refused nothing. When you ask a specific question I have replied with specific evidence. If you ask general questions you will get general replies. This seems fair to me.

You can chase the identity of Baron Bach across Europe and in to the USA. Or can 'prove' Gossec has twenty aliases. Or that Grimm was Rousseau, etc etc. If you could provide a chart of aliases this would help us navigate your ideas more easily.

The manufacture of Mozart is a story almost as complicated as your alias theory. But the difference is mine has a simple solution to the complexity while yours tends to mutate with alarming speed.

Here, as an 'olive branch' is some nice music. Hope you like it -

Cantata 42
Opening

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

(We shall, at least, be humbled !).

Regards

If you are unable to check Mozart's references to Bagge for yourself please ask someone to do so for you. I am not operating any research service other than the plain fact that Baron Bagge is mentioned in the Mozart family correspondence. Here is one reference, in a Mozart letter of 9th July 1778 -

I-and all concerned-see you doing your best, labouring to avoid the issue of Mozart's manufacturer, Robert.

I am not asking you to do my research (evidently completed-see my already revised 1777-1779 timeline under Leroux's opera phantom thread at http://www.online-literature.com/for...569#post829569 ) but insist on asking you to provide evidence to support your lame "theories" and you refuse.

Check Leopold's list of Paris tentative contacts at http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+Leopold/Reiseaufzeichnungen+1763-1771/4.+Kurze+Erl%C3%A4uterungen+des+Herausgebers/Zur+gro%C3%9Fen+Reise+1763-1766" : Leopold never in his life met or corresponded with "Bagge". Furthermore for your further information, "Gavinier" the exceptional french violin player in his list, was another alias of "G" (See "Melchior Grimm (revisited)" and "Story of My Life By George Sand, Thelma Jurgrau", reconfirming that "Dupin" was Cocchi/comte de Saint Germain through violinist "Gavinier" of 1794), now thrice confirmed.

Leopold knew Gluck, Cocchi and Grimm were the same person but was not allowed access to "Bache" and propably "Gavinier" and "Gossec" at the time(1764).

Relevant site too: http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=385

Finally: Years ago, Dr. Pei-Gwen South, in "Exploding The Myth Of Mozart" stated, loud and clear, that "Mozart was manufactured" (avoiding the manufacturer as well), so what's your point, where is your own contribution in this thread (other than falsely naming the jesuits as "manufacturers" of not just Mozart but all 18th century reforms that resulted in USA independence)??

Cheers!

[yanni]

Everyone can see you lost your interest on "your subject Mozart", Robert, once the going got tough.

The "many musicians" who "manufactured Mozart" have been in the meantime considerably reduced while your failure to distinguish between Mozart/talented pianist/violinist and Mozart/opera-reform-composer , a huge difference, is revealing of your intentions, olive branch or not.

Mozart was promoted by Grimm since childhood and inherited Gluck's music archive after 1784.

The two were aliases of Gioachino Cocchi, aka Le comte de Saint Germain, whom you avoid from the early beginning of this thread, in line with the rest of "them".

Let the myth continue and the music play your introductory (post #1 herein): "I am seeking to establish the Jesuits manufactured Mozart"!

LOL

My regards to Dr. Pei-Gwen South and your "scholarly" italian opera associates/manufacturers.

Cheers.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I have not lost interest on the subject of this thread. It remains Mozart. In fact, I'm keen we should discuss the subject of Mozart and not be diverted from it.

And, may I correct you ? I've never said Mozart was a 'talented pianist/violinist'. This is still another of your inventions. But you want to attribute it to me. Why ?

Yes, Mozart was promoted by Grimm virtually since the time of his childhood. That is true. And Grimm was not acting alone. He did so with the assistance of many patrons and propagandists across Europe. As for Giaccomo Cocchi (whom Mozart and his father met in London) I am well aware of him being an important link to the visiting Mozarts of the English aristocracy of that time and have posted here several times on that single subject. Leopold's travel diary names Cocchi as a person met there. Cocchi (as we know) was closely associated with the English fraternal elites of that time and was a person Leopold Mozart definitely associated within during the visit to London with his son and daughter. Proving beyond any doubt a fraternal network supporting Mozart's career. The members of this fraternity included various aristocrats in England of that time and also members of the British government of that time, and by the usual Catholic/Jacobin dignitaries. The same picture emerges over and over again throughout the Mozart story. Because England, by this time had become a major centre of Venetian influence for the 'Enlightenment' philosophy, greatly assisted by men such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both sponsored by the mercantile empire of London including the East India Company). These things are easy to understand and I've avoided none of them. In fact, I've repeatedly said the counter-reformation became after 1773 the 'Englightenment'. This was simply a new phase of the counter-reformation which took on a secularised face at the time the Jesuit Order were finally annulled in 1773 (and 11 years earlier when it was kicked out of France).

You believe this giant organisation (the Jesuits) who literally dominated education across western Europe (and who were wonderfully revived in 1814) went in to a refrigerator in 1773. And were only 'defrosted' in 1814. While I know the very opposite is true. The fact is that of Jesuit association with the Venetian ocultists from the beginning of their own history.

The 'Englightenment' philosophy came from Jesuit educated sources via Venetian influence into England. From the time of Henry 8th onwards. Centuries before Mozart was born. This is exactly why Freemasony emerged from England in 1717, having been transplanted here from Venice. It explains why organisations such as the Rosicrucians and the Illuminatists had close links to the elites of the Holy Roman Empire and why Freemasony spread in Germany and Austria from its 'source' in mercantile England. It explains Weishaupt coming from a Jesuit university. Since the British Empire had been created by the occultists of Venice. From which a second mercantile empire was built. In London. And with whose assistance the Bank of England was founded. So, through these fraternities England and its sovereignty was undermined. This was the cost of occultism on England. And it came from the counter-reformation and the movement later known as the 'Englightenment'. Who infiltrated England through funding the greedy merchants of protestant England. As for the Venetians they were, as said before, the earliest sponsors and protectors of the founders of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius Loyola. You might care to read the various letters of Ignatius Loyola to Cardinal Contarini of Venice thanking him for his great support. Since it was Contarini of Venice who had approved the creation of the Jesuit Order in the first place.

All 'irrelevant', right, Yanni ?

Anyway, here goes (olive branch number 2) -

Cantata 50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyiT4...eature=related

Everyone can see you lost your interest on "your subject Mozart", Robert, once the going got tough.

The "many musicians" who "manufactured Mozart" have been in the meantime considerably reduced while your failure to distinguish between Mozart/talented pianist/violinist and Mozart/opera-reform-composer , a huge difference, is revealing of your intentions, olive branch or not.

Mozart was promoted by Grimm since childhood and inherited Gluck's music archive after 1784.

The two were aliases of Gioachino Cocchi, aka Le comte de Saint Germain, whom you avoid from the early beginning of this thread, in line with the rest of "them".

Let the myth continue and the music play your introductory (post #1 herein): "I am seeking to establish the Jesuits manufactured Mozart"!

LOL

My regards to Dr. Pei-Gwen South and your "scholarly" italian opera associates/manufacturers.

Cheers.

[yanni]

Here is to you, Robert, and may your industry flourish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59Zl...eature=related

[Musicology]

Thank You Yanni !

I like Greek music and Greek culture very much.

Regards

Here is to you, Robert, and may your industry flourish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59Zl...eature=related