The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Of some relevance to Bagge (known as Bach) - and also illustrating the hidden aspects of the 'great' composers of Vienna -

Bagge's name to French ears sounded like ‘Bach’ in translation. Carl Ernst Baron de Bagge was born at Fockenhof in Courland, 1722. His father, founder of the Courland branch of the family, had entered in 1698 the ducal household as a page, served as a lieutenant of dragoons, and eventually as Comptroller of the widowed Duchess Sophie of Courland who, by a third marriage, became Duchess of Saxe-Meinegen.


And, by one of those ''coincidences'' -

Carl Amenda (1771-1836). Born Courland in Latvia. Attended Municipal Latin School and the Gymasium in Mitau (Jelgava) around 20 miles SW of Riga. Instructed in music by his father he was later student of the ducal Kapellmeister Franz Adam Veichtner (himself a former student of Jesuit educated Franz Benda in Mitau). Benda was much admired by Mozart. In 1792, the year after Mozart's death, Amenda moved to Jena to study theology travelling with Gottfried Heinrich Mylich, a musician he had known since childhood. After Amenda completed his studies in the spring of 1795 the two set out through France and Switzerland earning by performing. Arriving in Laussane they stayed there for 2 years. Amenda’s travels then took him to Frankfurt, Constance, Ulm, Regensburg and finally to Vienna in 1798. He somehow became tutor to Princess Lobkowitz (Beethoven’s patron) and also to the surviving family of Mozart. He became a very close friend to Ludwig van Beethoven.



//

[Babbalanja]

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.

This is yet another set of claims that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this immense conspiracy.

Wasn't Mozart's career being stage-managed long before this point? I thought his handlers were supplying him with first-rate compositions by Vanhal and Myslivecek, et. al., so why would the musical establishment of the time scorn his work? Is the implication that the real Mozart was actually composing works for Parisian audiences, despite his utter lack of competence in composition? Why would the Jesuit-Freemasons behind the Mozart myth allow their wonder boy to fail so miserably, if their vested interest was to make the world think he was a genius?

And since his famous Paris symphony (#31) was one of the pieces he premiered during his supposedly disastrous stay in France, does this mean this work was actually composed by real Mozart? Or did his ghost-composers write it, and it was still regarded as proof that Mozart was a musical charlatan?

Are there any musicologists who have described Mozart's Paris stay like this, or is it all just in your imagination?

Regards,

Istvan

[ennison]

I just imagined I heard a tune by some Jesuitically controlled musician so I imagine it wasn't a good toon.

[Musicology]

Istvan,

The manufacture of Mozart was not an isolated case. It was considered to be culturally vital by the patrons and elites of the time that Vienna, capital of the Holy Roman Empire, would develop and celebrate its own indigenous musical 'geniuses'. Its own musical icons. Controlling the culture was as vital then as it is today. The emerging music industry needed to invent these characters. Vienna 'city of music'. As for the reality, it could be 'altered' to suit them. But the reality, of course, was Italy, Bohemia and other places literally dominated musical achievements. Even in Austria and Germany. The Kapellmeisters of Germany and Austria were, for decades, almost entirely Italian. Bohemian musicians and their achievements were applauded and soon forgottten. Opera was dominated by Italy. A musician who wished to get a good musical education was shipped off to Italy. Those are the plain facts. Italy literally dominated the musical scene. From Italy came opera, the symphony, the string quartet and many, many soloists and performers. It was embarrasing. And, as for careers such as those of J.S. Bach etc., these were inconvenient subjects and their achievements were suppressed, unperformed, ignored altogether. The Viennese of around 1790 were amazed to finally learn of them. The music of Bach was never once performed publicly in Vienna decades after his death. It took J.N. Forkel, father of musicology, to recognise and finally publicise these achievements of the late baroque. This is the same Forkel who mocked the Viennese for their musical ignorance. Suppressed too from posterity and appreciation were the achievements of the Bohemians. The manufactured careers of Josef Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had become culturally vital. Besides, Austria had suffered setback after setback, militarily, for decades. Some good news was vital. And it came in the form of the works of these managed 'composers'. So-called. Of which Mozart was the most outrageous example. Manufactured with the assistance of patrons, propagandists and a network of other composers spanning the entire European continent and beyond. A project of cultural deception.

Yes, Mozart's career was planned. Long, long before his birth in 1756. His career was of course that of the 'enlightenment' which was to dominate musicology throughout the 19th century. Aided by the fraternities and by vested interests of the time. Transcending national borders. The first globalist composer. And the academic study of music, of 'music history' now controlled by the successors of the same patrons. So that 'Mozart studies' would literally dominate our musical landscape. The truth hidden.

You refer to the 'Paris' Symphony (No. 31, KV297) which is said to be 'a symphony composed by Mozart in 1778'. But this too is false. It was published first in his name, in Paris, after he returned to Mannheim. For sure. In fact (and you can see the evidence in music archives such as that of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg and also the copy today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) that both copies of this work show this symphony is not by Mozart. It was actually supplied TO Mozart. As was the 'Haffner' (35) and others. The copy today at Modena exists in an earlier form. Scored differently than the version we are familiar with. Again, at Regensburg its slow movement is different. This work, stylistically, is not musically typical of what we call Mozart. (As has often been said). It was supplied TO Mozart in Mannheim before he left for Paris. The paper type shows this clearly. And when Mozart was asked to supply an alternative slow movement to this same work in Paris by the manager of the Concert Spirituel, Le Gros, before its premiere, he was found to be out of his depth. The same Paris where, years earlier, the first 7 'Mozart' piano concertos were actually pastiches of works by other Paris-based composers. That 1778 tour was a total disaster. Those who have studied the musical score of this 'Paris' symphony at Modena and Regensburg (e.g. Prof. Anna Trombetta, Luca Bianchini and others) have shown this work, this symphony, existed years before 1778. It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too. Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'. And, as for 'Mozart's' earlier symphonies none of them is actually by Mozart.

The following image comes from the score of that same 'Paris' symphony today held at Regensburg. It rarely gets any mention in 'Mozart studies'. You see the name of 'Mozart' has clearly been later added to this score, obscuring what was originally written there. At Modena, as said, this same work exists in a version scored for a different orchestra. It too is older than 1778. Multiply this by a thousand and you have some idea of how massive this musical deception was.

http://www.italianopera.org/luchesi/...ijupiterE.html

Regards

///

QUOTE=Babbalanja;832327]This is yet another set of claims that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this immense conspiracy.

Wasn't Mozart's career being stage-managed long before this point? I thought his handlers were supplying him with first-rate compositions by Vanhal and Myslivecek, et. al., so why would the musical establishment of the time scorn his work? Is the implication that the real Mozart was actually composing works for Parisian audiences, despite his utter lack of competence in composition? Why would the Jesuit-Freemasons behind the Mozart myth allow their wonder boy to fail so miserably, if their vested interest was to make the world think he was a genius?

And since his famous Paris symphony (#31) was one of the pieces he premiered during his supposedly disastrous stay in France, does this mean this work was actually composed by real Mozart? Or did his ghost-composers write it, and it was still regarded as proof that Mozart was a musical charlatan?

Are there any musicologists who have described Mozart's Paris stay like this, or is it all just in your imagination?

Regards,

Istvan[/QUOTE]

Hi there Enninson,

Nobody is saying this music by 'Mozart' is anything other than excellent. It's excellent because it involved the talents of excellent musicians. Who collaborated in its creation. Jesuit educated and non-Jesuit educated. The 'machine' used it all. The result was the wonder-child, Mozart. Now dominating the musical and cultural landscape. As for the actual reality, this was easily edited out of the textbooks. Rewritten. The takeover, in fact, of what is taught on music history. And the suppression, wholesale, of what does not fit in to the industry picture.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 62
Opening

Amazing !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWwZN...om=PL&index=23

I just imagined I heard a tune by some Jesuitically controlled musician so I imagine it wasn't a good toon.

J.S. Bach
Cantata 65
Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6P29...eature=related

[Babbalanja]

It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too. Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'.

Yes, that's exactly what we'd expect from a powerful super-secret cabal involved in a complicated plot to have actual musical geniuses like Luchesi ghost-compose works to inflate the insidious Mozart Myth: they simply forgot to mention to Luchesi that he should put "Mozart" at the top of the page, so they had to erase Luchesi's name and put Mozart's there instead.


There's an immense fraud here, but it's not the career of Mozart.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Well, no.

If you wish to study this subject (and I recommend that you do) you will discover that Luchesi and many others were supplying music to various German courts. In this case Luchesi (being employed by the Bonn Hofkapelle) did not use his name in doing so. He started doing so shortly after his arrival at Bonn in 1771. You would discover too that he supplied music to places such as Esterhazy, Salzburg and other places - symphonies which, in later years, were attributed wholesale to Josef Haydn (as had Sammartini done for years years earlier). And, later still, these were even supplied to Mozart. You would discover too the job of Kapellmeister was promised to Mozart in 1782/3 at Bonn by Max Franz, but that Luchesi already occupied that post at the time when Max Franz finally became elector. You would also discover (as we see in the two volumes written on Composers of the time by Benjamin De La Bordes in Paris - published during 1783) that Luchesi is refered to in that same publication as being in great demand for his symphonies by the rulers of German courts at the time. So says De La Bordes himself. All of these works of his strangely missing today with virtually everything else by the same Luchesi. Some coincidence, yes ? Neither Mozart nor Haydn are refered to at all in that same 2 volume work by de la Bordes as being composers of symphonies. An unusual omission, yes ? You would discover that in his entire lifetime 'Mozart' had published in his name only 5 symphonies of the over 50 now attributed to him. And that none of these 5 are actually by Mozart. The 5 including this so-called 'Paris' Symphony. Which had as said already been supplied to courts such as Regensburg (amongst others) years before. Thus explaining later need to change its written attribution to 'Mozart' by the archivist there at Regensburg. You DO see the change in attribution there, don't you ? Does the picture indicate this, or not ? Luchesi was only one of these composers. By no means the only one. It involved dozens of composers. KV444 was a 'Mozart' symphony up until the early 20th century. Now forgotten. It's not by Mozart also. And so it continues.

But the same thing happened in the case of the 'Haffner' Symphony. (35). Which began its musical history not as a symphony but as a serenade that had been supplied by Luchesi to Salzburg. Which was later expanded at Salzburg in 'Mozart's' name for the Haffner festivities before being further changed to a symphony for its return to Vienna, where, a year later, it was released, newly arranged and published in the 'genius' Mozart's name. (In fact this work was not even ready for performance at Haffner's festivities despite the legend). As Mozart' himself says in his letters (when talking of the 'return' of the score of this same Haffner Symphony to him in Vienna) -

'I never recognised a note of it'.

So Mozart here seems to be suffering from musical amnesia !!! LOL

A score of the same 'Haffner' Symphony which exists (again) at Modena, in Italy though in a far earlier version (with different scoring) as we see from its form and from its watermarks. This too goes unmentioned decade after decade in Mozart publications. It's laughable. Why ! Letters to the editor of the Koechel catalogue on these works go unanswered. But what's new ?

Really ! You should examine the evidence for each and every work. It really will make you laugh.

If documentary evidence really matters to you I recommend you try reading it ! The alternative is the same old fairy story.

To simply say 'it's not Mozart's career which is a fraud' begs the question of how you know this and on what factual basis you say so or than the same old industry publications. You might examine this issue from both sides, fairly. But, if you do, I dare say you will arrive at the same verdict as any other honest person.

Regards

Yes, that's exactly what we'd expect from a powerful super-secret cabal involved in a complicated plot to have actual musical geniuses like Luchesi ghost-compose works to inflate the insidious Mozart Myth: they simply forgot to mention to Luchesi that he should put "Mozart" at the top of the page, so they had to erase Luchesi's name and put Mozart's there instead.


There's an immense fraud here, but it's not the career of Mozart.

Regards,

Istvan

[yanni]

You have improved your story (your answer to Babba) Robert, I must admit, still amazed by your ommision of the old Jesuit culprits now changed to "The Holy Roman Empire"!

I still find it however much too "simple" for my liking and wish to improve it adding comments and questions in your text (All answered in fact by me in previous posts herein).
Here goes:

It was considered to be culturally vital by the patrons and elites of the time (what year exactly?) that Vienna, capital of the Holy Roman Empire, would develop and celebrate its own indigenous musical 'geniuses'. Its own musical icons. (Only Vienna? The same holds true for most other European courts but starting when exactly?) Controlling the culture was as vital then as it is today. The emerging music industry needed to invent these characters. (name them!) Vienna 'city of music'. (Again, only Vienna?) As for the reality, it could be 'altered' to suit them (Whose “Reality”? History has always been lying to glorify winners only). But the reality, of course, was Italy, Bohemia and other places literally dominated musical achievements. Even in Austria and Germany.The Kapellmeisters of Germany and Austria were, for decades, almost entirely Italian. Bohemian musicians and their achievements were applauded and soon forgottten.(You forgot to mention "german" Grimm’s Little prophet-violinist from Bohemia and how he relates to the whole scheme in view of his relations to Mozart-among many other "grim mysteries" . Explain!! ) Opera was dominated by Italy(But Northern Italy, ie Florence, was "Austria" as from early 18th. Did florentine Music not flourish under austrian rule and,if so, where did it ?). A musician who wished to get a good musical education was shipped off to Italy (Myslivecek, however, himself a bohemian yet trained in Naples, tried to ship Wolfgang to same Naples, NOT Praque, in 1777 but Leopold Mozart insisted junior better join "ridiculous" Bagge’s amateurs. Explain). Those are the plain facts (eehhhhmmmm). Italy literally dominated the musical scene (not anymore in 1778, explain why!). From Italy came opera(came where, when??), the symphony, the string quartet and many, many soloists and performers. It was embarrasing.(To whom? and: As from?) And, as for careers such as those of J.S. Bach etc., these were inconvenient subjects and their achievements were suppressed, unperformed, ignored altogether. The Viennese of around 1790(finally a date!congrats!!) were amazed to finally learn of them. The music of Bach was never once performed publicly in Vienna decades after his death. It took J.N. Forkel, father of musicology(You forget earlier French musicologists, such as Rousseau for instance, and Koch another “german”, as well as "Grimm", all of the reform party), to recognise and finally publicise these achievements of the late baroque. This is the same Forkel (How did he come about if german music was in the making still?) who mocked the Viennese for their musical ignorance. Suppressed too from posterity and appreciation were the achievements of the Bohemians.(Fortunately, a “Kotzena” is now reviving bohemian music achievements)The manufactured careers of Josef Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had become culturally vital(As from???) Besides, Austria had suffered setback after setback, militarily, for decades. Some good news was vital.(After, perhaps, 1783-4?) And it came in the form of the works of these managed 'composers'. So-called. Of which Mozart was the most outrageous example. Manufactured with the assistance of patrons, propagandists and a network of other composers spanning the entire European continent and beyond. A project of cultural deception. (Mozart was rejected- as simple piano player-from the cultural center of Europe at the time, in 1778, and was then only dreaming composing an opera. How do you explain this sudden surge in his “creativity” thereafter? How do you relate it to political agreements and, practically universal, peace treaties thereafter until the French revolution(1782-1791)? How was Vienna influenced musicaly by these events? Where is your detailed timeline for this period to explain the provenance and transfer of all this music material to Mozart’s hands???)

Yes, Mozart's career was planned. Long, long before his birth in 1756. (prove it!) His career was of course that of the 'enlightenment' which was to dominate musicology throughout the 19th century (exceptional jump from the 18th to the 19th : Mozart was a faithfull roman catholic until at least 1778 and, other than piano playing, lacked any education or manners and had nothing to do with enlightment other than his promotion by Grimm till then, which was however for somereason, terminated. A lot must be explained here. Try!!) . Aided by the fraternities and by vested interests of the time. Transcending national borders. The first globalist composer. (You contradict yourself since, as you say earlier on, he was meant to promote Austria’s national music) And the academic study of music, of 'music history' now controlled by the successors of the same patrons. (name the patrons, before and after and define date of transfer of authority.) So that 'Mozart studies' would literally dominate our musical landscape. The truth hidden. (again, define year: "Global Mozart" was “manufactured” as from 1814 onwards, ie when Britain, supporting Austria throughout 1791-1814, ruled).

You refer to the 'Paris' Symphony (No. 31, KV297) which is said to be 'a symphony composed by Mozart in 1778'. But this too is false. It was published first in his name, in Paris, after he returned to Mannheim.(How did it come to his hands?) For sure. In fact (and you can see the evidence in music archives such as that of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg and also the copy today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy) that both copies of this work show this symphony is not by Mozart. It was actually supplied TO Mozart. As was the 'Haffner' (35) and others. The copy today at Modena exists in an earlier form. Scored differently than the version we are familiar with. Again, at Regensburg its slow movement is different. This work, stylistically, is not musically typical of what we call Mozart. (As has often been said). It was supplied TO Mozart in Mannheim before he left for Paris. (By whom, who did Mozart meet there who could have helped him???) The paper type shows this clearly. And when Mozart was asked to supply an alternative slow movement to this same work in Paris by the manager of the Concert Spirituel, Le Gros, before its premiere, he was found to be out of his depth.(Ah, say a word or two here on Baron de Bache, the ridiculous amateur musician who managed the “Concert Spirituel”, find his relations to LeGros,Piccinini, Gluck, Grimm and Rousseau at least!) The same Paris where, years earlier, the first 7 'Mozart' piano concertos were actually pastiches of works by other Paris-based composers (name them and corresponding works). That 1778 tour was a total disaster.(Why did Grimm fail to support Mozart at the time? Explain!!!) Those who have studied the musical score of this 'Paris' symphony at Modena and Regensburg (e.g. Prof. Anna Trombetta, Luca Bianchini and others-have they aired their Cocchis in the meantime?)) have shown this work, this symphony, existed years before 1778. It's actually a work by Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. Who supplied Mozart with others too (Prove it was Luchesi himself who supplied Mozart with his music and explain why would Bonn Kappelmeister Luchesi give poor junior Mozart his music!!). Indeed, at Regensburg the name of 'Mozart' is clearly written over the top of its true composer. As you can see here. The same fakery was done in ALL mature symphonies of 'Mozart'. And, as for 'Mozart's' earlier symphonies none of them is actually by Mozart.

The following image comes from the score of that same 'Paris' symphony today held at Regensburg. It rarely gets any mention in 'Mozart studies'. You see the name of 'Mozart' has clearly been later added to this score, obscuring what was originally written there. At Modena, as said, this same work exists in a version scored for a different orchestra. It too is older than 1778. Multiply this by a thousand and you have some idea of how massive this musical deception was.(IE Mozart was provided with a huge “master archive” including, as you correctly say previously, the works of many masters. Who was it’s previous owner and, again, when, how, why did it come to Mozart’s hands?

And, of course, Junior as "reform opera composer" -totally inadequate as such-is left out of your story alltogether, hah-hah!

Cheers!

[Babbalanja]

As Mozart' himself says in his letters (when talking of the 'return' of the score of this same Haffner Symphony to him in Vienna) -

'I never recognised a note of it'.

So Mozart here seems to be suffering from musical amnesia !!! LOL

More irresponsible quote mining from the annals of legitimate Mozart scholarship.

So out of Mozart's entire correspondence (which discusses at length his composing and the performances of his works), the only thing you accept at face value is one sarcastic remark he tossed off about a work that he says he "didn't remember composing"? If he didn't actually compose the work, why would he even mention that he didn't remember composing it? Do you seriously take this as a confession that he was a musical no-talent whose work was all written by others and supplied to him by the evil Freemason-Jesuit conspiracy? If it were indeed a confession, why would the conspiracy-employed custodians of the Mozart Myth have allowed it to appear in the fake correspondence that they themselves fabricated to propagate his myth?

This just goes to show the amount of context you're willing to ignore in this huge game of pretend. This is a bizarre parody of how responsible historical research is conducted. This is so far from objective musicological research that it boggles the mind.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Babbalanja,

OK, let's do this in detail if you like. How about this -

You post here and show us why the 'Paris' Symphony (KV297) is by W.A. Mozart. And I will post here in detail to show why it is not. Sound fair ?

Then readers can judge the case fairly for themselves. Does this sound fair and reasonable to you ? Isn't that how adults discuss things fairly ? Having both sides of the issue on which to form their judgement. Yes, it is. But not in 'Mozart studies', of course. LOL !

Oh, and before we forget, you WILL tell us why you believe as you do, won't you ? Of course you won't. You won't because you've never once studied the subject. Have you ? You believe it because you've read it somewhere. And that's all you have to offer. You will defend tradition with 'faith' in what you have always believed. Right ? As for 'Mozart's entire correspondence' it doesn't all refer to the 'Paris' symphony does it ? But you are of course exaggerating again, aren't you ? Playing to the gallery as if you know your subject. I've quoted what is relevant and appropriate.

I could write pages on this one work. So could others. And they already have. But let's see what you can give us in support of this work, the 'Paris' Symphony being attributed to Mozart. I've already given you some facts, including (as you and everyone can see) a musical score which is clearly altered in its attribution to Mozart. Held today at the Library of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg, Germany. And I have told you also of another score of this symphony which is today in the Estense Library of Modena, Italy. I have told you that neither Haydn nor Mozart were noted as writers of symphonies in the Paris of 1783. None of these things you knew about before today. I can also provide contact details of those who have examined these scores in detail. And I can provide you with literally pages of evidence.

'Responsible research' is not what you are interested in. You are interested in tired dogmas. Which you yourself have never once examined. Have you ? As we will shortly see.

Thus the circular arguments go round and round. Stop and consider who is giving information and who is not. But do better than this - tell us by return why this work is by W.A. Mozart. And I will do as promised.

That would be a true/genuine discussion. And I'm ready for it.

And with this request you will disappear from this thread faster than a corporate spin doctor, right ?

Mozart, the man who writes entire masses from memory at a single hearing, has somehow forgotten every note of an entire symphony he himself supposedly composed only a few months before ! LOL. Welcome to the corporate world of Mozart. A world in which his fans know zero of Mozart's own musical contemporaries. And where every possible benefit of the doubt is given to the myth.

People like you really are born every day. Right ?

Let me end by reminding readers that you chose the 'Paris' Symphony and not me. If you want to present your case here please do so. I will respond in detail. But if you get cold feet just choose another 'Mozart' work. Any one. The result will be the same.

Now, how is THAT possible ? It's possible because I know in advance that your defence of Mozart will never appear here.

Show us differently.

Regards

More irresponsible quote mining from the annals of legitimate Mozart scholarship.

So out of Mozart's entire correspondence (which discusses at length his composing and the performances of his works), the only thing you accept at face value is one sarcastic remark he tossed off about a work that he says he "didn't remember composing"? If he didn't actually compose the work, why would he even mention that he didn't remember composing it? Do you seriously take this as a confession that he was a musical no-talent whose work was all written by others and supplied to him by the evil Freemason-Jesuit conspiracy? If it were indeed a confession, why would the conspiracy-employed custodians of the Mozart Myth have allowed it to appear in the fake correspondence that they themselves fabricated to propagate his myth?

This just goes to show the amount of context you're willing to ignore in this huge game of pretend. This is a bizarre parody of how responsible historical research is conducted. This is so far from objective musicological research that it boggles the mind.

Regards,

Istvan

Yanni,

The manufacture of the myth of 'Vienna, city of music' took time. It started with Hasse. It really started to gather pace with Josef Haydn. And ended with Beethoven. The control of publishing in Vienna and across the Holy Roman Empire had been around ever since the business of censorship started. With the Jesuit Order, in fact. Who controlled all publishing. As you well know. A job eventually taken over by the Illuminati. During the 1780's. A few years after the Jesuits went underground. So say the facts.

As for your other points, these would require long posts and today I am quite busy.

But thanks for your comments on my other post to Babba. Let's see what he can produce on the 'Paris' symphony. This will be fun !

(I would recommend him to avoid embarrasment by choosing another work, but, it's up to him, of course !).

In the flurry of different posts today we might have missed this - so apologies for the duplication. It's one of my personal all-time favourites. Utterly wonderful - music of a better world.


J.S. Bach
Cantata 65
Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6P29...eature=related

[Babbalanja]

Mozart, the man who writes entire masses from memory at a single hearing, has somehow forgotten every note of an entire symphony he himself supposedly composed only a few months before ! LOL. Welcome to the corporate world of Mozart. A world in which his fans know zero of Mozart's own musical contemporaries. And where every possible benefit of the doubt is given to the myth.

I've already pointed out how nonsensical and incoherent your interpretation of this factoid is. And it demonstrates the futility and uselessness of your entire approach to research. You're the one making the claims, and all you have are factoids mined from legitimate Mozart scholarship (and taken out of their proper context) to back up your claims.

You pretend that the entirety of Mozart biography and musical research is "a fairy tale," which allows you to assume that nothing anyone quotes from the major Mozart biographies in support of his authorship of his attributed works is reliable. However, you are allowed to point to isolated footnotes and anecdotes out of these biographies and act like they support your ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Make up your mind. If the entirety of Mozart biography and scholarship is reliable, then we have a way to judge his life and work, including the Paris Symphony. If it's all lies, then you can't quote footnotes out of it to support any of your points.

Similarly, if Mozart's correspondence is reliable, then we should be able to use it to support the assertion that he composed the works currently attributed to him. If his correspondence is a fabrication of the sinister conspiracy, then you have no business pointing to one isolated sentence and using it to support your ridiculous assertions.

Regards,

Istvan

[stlukesguild]

Forget Gene Wilder... it' actually far weirder than we initially thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

[yanni]

It started with Hasse, you say, and you are wrong, as usual:

Gluck’s....debut as an opera composer in Vienna. The date – 14 May 1748. The day before had seen the celebration of the young Empress Maria Theresa’s birthday. A gala performance for which the ”imperial and royal court theatre next to the castle” had been extensively renovated. And no expense had been spared for the gala opera either in the production – stage sets, costumes, props – or in engaging participating artists; a company comprising ”the best voices which could be found” had been sought out, and from Italy, ”on account of her dramatic skills, the most renowned Tesi with a few other virtuosi” were engaged for the orchestra. Four of the six soloists who appeared had previously sung in Italy or London under Gluck’s direction, thus making the group a tried and tested ”Gluck ensemble”.

For the thirty-three year old Gluck, the commission from the imperial city represented an honour and a challenge in equal measure. The choice of libretto for the gala opera was made entirely as a mark of the Empress’s birthday. Metastasio’s dramma per musica La Semiramide riconosciuta had already been set to music as a gala opera expressly for the imperial coronation of Maria Theresa in 1743 in Prague, in reference to the ”Pragmatic Sanction” (the female succession in the Habsburg dynasty). Now, in spring 1748, Metastasio’s dramatic plot about Semiramis, ruling Babylon dressed as the male ”King Ninus”, had an even clearer, indeed highly topical link with the political situation. The peace negotiations taking place at the same time in Aachen were concerned with the recognition of Maria Theresa as Empress by the European powers, particularly by France and Prussia. Those familiar with this explosively problematic situation understood very well the double meaning of the chosen opera title: ”riconosciuta” can mean both ”recognized” and ”acknowledged”.

The history and plot of the opera, which were printed in the libretto, are constructed in a multifaceted and complex way. Separated siblings, old friends, rivals and intriguers meet each other again – at first unrecognized – after a long time, at the court of the Babylonian King Ninus (alias Semiramide), as the Princess Tamiri, who lives at court, is to choose a consort from the suitors hurrying by. The royal palace, the legendary hanging gardens of Semiramis and a picturesque port ambience form the backdrop. An assorted bunch of protagonists from Africa, Asia and the Orient ensure a colourful appearance with their entourage. The action includes duel, abduction and a poisoned chalice until the disentanglement of the plot.

By skilful use of solo instruments, incidental music for ’istromenti barbari’, a dance scene and the chorus at the end of the opera, Gluck was able to create a score of rich tonal variety. Interestingly, the main role of Semiramis is an alto part with a relatively low tessitura. The role of Scitalce (soprano) most closely corresponds to the type of the virtuoso castrato part, whilst that of Ircano portrays an energetic character. The tenor role of Mirteo has mainly moderate tempi and is similarly lyrical to that of the much-courted Tamiri. Pietro Metastasio’s remark – ”una musica arcivandalica insopportabile” – may have referred to some instances where the melodic writing deviated from Italian taste and to Gluck’s boldness in his treatment of the orchestra; Gluck limited himself neither to agile coloratura numbers or to pleasant orchestral writing. He omitted the orchestral introduction to some arias and sometimes refrained from using the da capo form. Far ahead of his time, he had the combined effect of all the theatrical arts in view, and left behind him the narrow constraints of Italian virtuoso singing opera. After the success of the opera, even the critical Metastasio must have admitted that ”Semiramide reaches for the stars”.
Gerhard Croll / Thomas Hauschka
(translation: Elizabeth Robinson)


"Gluck rejoined his travelling opera group" after that, as his story currently reads, to return to Vienna lateron, but nevertheless Hasse only settled there in 1768, ie after "Gluck-Durazzo's etc" departure for Paris!

In the meantime (1748-1768) Metastasio's and Allgarotti's(both also Hasse's librettists as well) views on "Gluck's" reform music had dramaticaly improved.

Re "Semiramide", explain that, too:

Die schöne und intelligente Tänzerin hatte nicht wenige Verehrer, was den König so erzürnte, dass er der Barberina 1748 als „perfide und verführerische Kreatur“ seine Gunst entzog. Sie floh nach England, kam aber bald zurück und heiratete 1749 Carl Ludwig von Cocceji.„

7 May 1748 King=s La Semiramide Reconosciuta.Adaptor unknown; Johann Hasse (composer).Opera.Printed for G. Woodfall (1748). [LS IV.i.54. Based upon a libretto of identical title by Pietro Metastasio. Altered by Giovanni Gualberto Bottarelli (librettist) and Gioacchino Cocchi (composer) as of 9 February 1771. Favourite songs printed for J. Walsh (1748).]

14th May 1748,. Gluck: La Semiramide riconosciuta (14.5.1748 Wien B)

H.Walpole’s letter 34 to The Earl Of Strafford from Paris, August 25, 1771 re (Hobart) meeting Cocchi the composer in Paris.

Do not quote from Burney's Cocchi biography -whence his portrait alongside Hasse, engraved 1801-1804 in Cocchi's absence : Burney, a trusted friend of "Rousseau", was covering up "things" for him.
( A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Volume 3, Cabanel to Cory).

Not to trust also "the Harmonicon" of 1823! Both fine examples of british "manufacturing" (while many more similar myth-establishing-creations were also published across the pond, mainly in Paris as well).

And let go of your "jesuit control of all publishing etc": You are wrong....again!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Thank you for your opinion. The date when culture became the victim of corruption is impossible to say. We like to think the history of music is free from corruption. That only politicians, bankers, lawyers and propagandists are guilty of it. In fact it's as ancient as civilization itself.

When I said it 'began with Hasse' I was of course refering the beginnings of a concerted attempt to make German music (and that of German speaking lands) a cause for great celebration. Which, up until that time, had not happened. And since J.S. Bach was easily suppressed, well, what more shall I say ? Just a coincidence, of course !

So, if you think I'm wrong, that's fine.

As for corruption, why not study the mountain of false attributions to the Italian composer Pergolesi which is almost as embarrassing as that of Mozart ? But what do I know about that subject ?

And, as for the Jesuit Order. (Who educated Mozart's father, who engineered the early career of W.A. Mozart from the time of his baptism and even before his birth, who continued to control it even up until 1778 through Abbe Bullinger and others - with whom Mozart was in correspondence during his time in Paris etc.), well, you are again ignoring a mass of documented evidence). The subject clearly does not please you. And you do not like to be reminded of Jesuit dominance of publishing, music, and censorship for centuries, their massive role in the cultural counter-reformation, their real control across most of Europe, their role in the fraternities, and their revival in 1814 after their 'underground' period (1773-1814). In short, the facts of history are not convenient to you. So I will not provoke you by reminding you of them.

Regards

[yanni]

What "german music" when you yourself admitted previously "it all came from Italy"- even without distinguishing between opera and chamber music-and "Gluck" was a "german from Bohemia" who "only composed on italian libretti", like Myslivecek was... OR NOT?

And what "greater celebration" than Maria Theresa's coronation in Prague, 1743 and "recognition" as Empress by the "other european powers" in 1748 at her birthday, as above. "Who modified Hassse's original muysic for this performance?", I wonder.

But you refuse touching "Semiramide riconosciuta" and my re timetable alltogether, and select instead to keep on serving your "jesuit soup"!

My last posts remain unanswered for all to see!

And you better avoid criticism of "fraternities": Without them- and their struggle against Rome and everything "dogmatic" but science and philosophy-we wouldn't be freely exchanging opinions today across the globe.

Cheers!

[Musicology]

A Gentle Introduction to the Symphonies of W.A. Mozart

(For Babbalanja and Other Faithful Followers of The Salzburg Genius)

Babbalanja will, we hope, share with us why W.A. Mozart is the true composer of the Symphony KV297 ‘Pariser’, which (he says) was composed by Mozart for its premiere in Paris in 1778. And, since that work was definitely performed in Mozart's name Babbalanja seems to be supported by two centuries of textbooks all saying the same thing about its true composer.

In the meantime, while we wait for this part of our Mozartean musical education here is a gentle introduction to the subject of ‘his’ symphonies as a whole. So you can examine this subject fairly, in context. (Which is not common within the ‘Mozart industry’, I promise you). And so, from this musical 'heretic', here goes -

The next time the subject of Mozart’s symphonies is being discussed there are a number of things you should be aware of. Basic things. I’d like to list a few of them here. It will make you deeply unpopular in polite company but others will break out into applause. In fact, Babbalanja might help us in our enquiries. Since he believes the standard Mozart story and has (as we know) 200 years of ‘expert’ opinion on his side. So, here goes -

1. Of the approximately 800 musical works in all forms (sonatas, masses, concertos, etc) which have been attributed to W.A. Mozart over the past 200 years or so how many of these were actually published in his name during his lifetime ? Care to guess ?

2. The musical works listed in the works catalogue of W.A. Mozart (today kept at the British Library in London) are said to have been composed by him during the last 7 years of his life. How many of these Vienna works were published in the Austrian capital during his lifetime ?

3. Can you name a single opera by ‘Mozart’ which was published anywhere during his lifetime ?

4. Is it your opinion Mozart was a famous composer in Vienna during the last decade of his life (1781-1791) ?

5. Of the 27 Piano Concertos attributed to W.A. Mozart how many were published in his name during his own lifetime ?

6. Is it your opinion W.A. Mozart was a celebrated piano virtuoso in Vienna during his last decade of life (1781-1791) ?

7. I have to hand some documentary evidence from a colleague of W.A. Mozart (a person who was with him for years) who says Mozart was totally unknown to music lovers in Vienna during his last years in Vienna ! Would you like to see this documentary evidence ?

8. And now, focusing on ‘Mozart’s’ Symphonies (which vary in number between 41 and 53 depending on which 'expert' source you read) can you say which of ‘his’ symphonies before the age of 22 (I.e. before the year of 1778) are today available for us to see in his own handwriting ? That is, ‘autograph scores’. The first 25 or so, that is.

9. Since we are now focusing on ‘Mozart’s symphonies’ I want to quote you a letter written to Mozart by his father (Leopold) during this year of 1778. At the very time the ‘Paris’ Symphony (KV297) was allegedly being written by W.A. Mozart. Highly relevant to our subject, you will agree. He writes -

‘Whatever does you no credit is best to remain unknown. It is for THIS reason I do not give away any of your symphonies. Because I see in advance that in the future, when criticism grows, you will be pleased these symphonies are not in the hands of anybody’

(Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart, Letter of 24th September 1778 -Salzburg to Paris ).

So here is Mozart’s father saying Mozart’s symphonies up until this date were not worth performing. None had been released. None had been published at this time also. And he ends as follows -

‘One becomes more and more careful’

LOL !!!!

But this documentary evidence will not stop you and your colleagues automatically attributing this ‘Paris’ Symphony to W.A. Mozart !! Yes ? I think common sense suggests something else. But what do I know ?

10. Do you believe the ‘Haffner’ Symphony (No. 35) is by W.A. Mozart ? Why ?

11. Symphony No. 37 (KV444) is definitely NOT by W.A. Mozart. But the opposite was being said by the 'experts' up until 1908. When these same ‘experts’ actually examined the manuscript for the first time. Is that embarrassing, or not ?

And finally -

12. In the year 1784 a musical inventory was made at one of the largest teaching institutions in Germany of the contents of its musical library. (Bonn at this time was rated as the 3rd greatest centre of musical study in Germany). The Bonn Hofkapelle. Among the thousands of musical works that were listed in that inventory (which document still survives) not a single work by Mozart is listed ! Not one sonata. Not one mass. Not one concerto. No opera. No symphony.

13. In a 2 Volume work on Music of Europe and Composers of the time, 1783, (which was published by Benjamin de la Bordes in Paris) no reference is found there to Mozart being a composer of symphonies. But this too is just another coincidence, right ? Maybe we can find a reference to Mozart, writer of symphonies, under our bed, or in some published source. If not, not problem. Believe it anyway !

And finally -

14. Is it possible you, dear lover of ‘Mozart’s Symphonies’, may be mistaken ?

We will shortly see, when we can hopefully discuss the ‘Paris’ Symphony (No. 31) with the input of Babbalanja.

In the meantime - (a musical break from a better world)

J.S.B.
Cantata 65 Aria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6P29wxMw1k


Thank You