The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You have done some remarkable research on a series of issues that are close to the reality of Mozart. The very fact you have examined the careers of people like Cocchi and Galiani is proof of that. These are names which hardly appear in Mozart material and I know how difficult it is to examine any such material in any detail. But the same is true of the patrons, publishers and propagandists of Mozart's life, career and status as a whole. Here in England there are a number of music journalists and writers who encourage deeper study of such things. One is Norman Lebrecht. In his, 'When the Music Stops' he writes -

'The history of music is usually studied from its creative aspect - how masterpieces of western culture came in to being, how composers advanced the state of the art, how major works were received. The underside is rarely discussed - who paid for the music, who profited, who organised it, and why. The history of the music business is a half-glimpsed enigma, unknown to modern managers and undiscussed in polite society. The term itself is impolite, invoking images of fat, ash-flecked agents in loud suits. The truth is necessarily more complex. Some of the most successful operators practiced an almost saintly devotion to artists and their art. Others were outright villains, in it for what they could get. Both types took the greatest care to cover their traces. The music business imposes a stringent vow of silence that is designed to protect the myth of the immaculate artist'.

('Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music - When the Music Stops' - Norman Lebrecht - 1996)

You say Mozart was never surrounded by anyone in his lifetime. I beg to differ. He was virtually never alone throughout his entire lifetime. And, as an example, in the last years of his life, his home was like a railway station, visited by men who suddenly appeared to dominate his life. The composer Sussmayr is one example. Abbe Maximilian Stadler (who went on to become Constanze's 'adviser' and the editor of various musical works) another. Both of whom play a prominent 'minding' role in those last few years'. The court case with Prince Lichnowsky near the end of his life is another case. There was, in fact, no time in Mozart's life when he was alone. He was very closely managed. The sheer number of names in the documents is amazing. Reading like a reference book of 18th century elitism. I do not know a single reference in all of Mozart's correspondence where he refers to nature. Not one. Not a single reference. And this from a person who spent a huge part of his short life travelling across Europe. And this, up until 1781, under the protection of his father. In Vienna he was surrounded by 'friends' who appear from almost nowhere. He lives as a 'celebrity' and yet he is not a celebrity at all. The contradictions and paradoxes are obvious. I think it is very clear that Mozart was surrounded by managers and minders virtually all the way through his life. He is, beyond doubt, the best documented composer of western musical history. And the sheer number of names, characters refered to and met, talked to, etc. is almost ludicrously long. With what does this correspondence compare ? Except, perhaps, the writings of a Casanova. A Casanova who, we learn, helped with the libretto to 'Don Giovanni' for Prague. etc.

No, I can't agree he was a free man. This is the life and career of an exploited individual. A candidate chosen virtually before his birth to play a role. Which he willingly did. Managed till 1787 by his father.

It is my view that these meetings, these tours, these relationships cannot reasonably be explained without the existence of a huge network across western Europe of the time. Into which Mozart was inducted. Aristocrats and fraternity members, the most improbable acclaim and achievement. His itineraries alone so improbable, the welcomes received so contrived, and the logistics of 18th century travel in this way so ridiculous that nobody would have made them or attempted to make them without considerable planning in advance. The name-dropping correspondence testifies to this. Names which, on closer study, tell a very different story about Herr Mozart's mythical talents. And yet, of course, the testimonies exist. The glowing references. The hyperbole. Written, in virtually every case, by his fraternal friends.

I have real respect for your work. We may, in the end, be saying the same thing. From different perspectives.

Your "soup" (list of works by or on various Galianis) only proves your predetermination to reach "inescapable conclusions" .....and avoid historic facts not to your liking.

For Ferdinando Galiani's (and "his brother" Bernando's) attempts in establishing their "local" genealogy, see:

http://denatalesifola.altervista.org/index2.php#_ftn119

For the Kingdom of "Two Sicilies", their King Ferdinando IV, their primeminister Tanucci (Galianis' close "associate") and their foreign policy, see Wikipedia.

Mozart was never "surrounded" by anybody in his lifetime: Galiani and Grimm "both" rejected him as a suitable future opera composer, contrary to his father Leopold's hopes. How exactly he later came to "Gluck's'" archive is unknown, yet the logic behind it, to maintain Comte De Saint Germain's real life identity secret, points to the answer and so does my "Two works by Poe decoded".

[yanni]

Never said Mozart was a free man: He was hard pressed, from early childhood, like most "child miracles" still are and, as far as his life as an adult is concerned, the "surrounding" you are referring to must be attributed both to his introduction to Freemasonry, as well as to his inheriting of "Gluck's" archive and, most propably, his "reform opera composer" ring as well (with "Gluck" desperately seeking to get rid not just of his "Gluck" identity but also of his real one,Cocchi, linking him to Concino Concini and putting in danger the "secret" of the french royal bloodline. Propably he was blackmailed and had to "trade").

Mozart's "death" is linked to Austria's loss of Marie Antoinette and was propably arranged with assistance from french diplomatic agencies. His appointment in (bottom of the barrel for diplomats) Tripoli, as "Nissen", is a measure of their esteem at the time to his person.

Cheers.

[Musicology]

If we examine the musical autographs of 'Mozart's' music (which, after all, has its own story to tell) we begin to find things as strange as those we are now discussing in biography.

It's not just the fact that the first few dozen symphonies lack any evidence of being attributable to Mozart. Massive a fact though that is. It's not even that the first 7 concertos are actually arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and others. Or that entire operas were falsely attributed to him. And that his Vienna reputation as a famous virtuoso and performer is an invention. All of these are able to shown without much difficulty. The problem is to know where, if at all, this record of fakery, exaggeration and wholesale musical fraud ended, if at all. Since the musical 'autographs' each have their own story. The discrepancies are massive. They extend in to the works of 'his' last decade. In fact, they are almost predictable. Detailed study of the actual music score of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' used for the premiere, in Vienna, in May 1786, for example. Now, surely, surely, this 'has' to be by Mozart, yes ? But, amazingly, there is not a single published study of that score. And never has been. The first ever made (by Bianchini/Trombetta a few years ago and made with the help of a very expensive microfiche bought from the Austrian National Library) shows the most crude errors, almost impossible parts, the whole work being virtually unperformable. But this score (just to illustrate) is not rubbish. It is a special kind of document. It exists in 2 parts for some strange reason at that library. And, when we examine it very closely from a musical point of view we find it to be an arrangement of music which already existed. This we are able to know because there are various other early scores of the time that lead us to this conclusion. The text (attributed to Lorenzo da Ponte) is in Italian. But it is an Italian which, in this Vienna score, does not fit well in to the music. It is a clumsy translation. So that what we are seeing here is a musical adaption of a work which already existed. In German. Which da Ponte has made for Vienna performance. Corresponding with proof (found in Frankfurt) that this opera existed before 'Mozart' composed it. That what we are seeing here from 'Kapellmeister Mozart' is really an arrangement made of already existing music that was premiered in his name in Vienna and so poor in text and arrangement that it was hissed off the stage after a few performances. The truth of this buried under the fact that it was rapidly revised and re-edited in Prague soon afterwards. And released again. But this is not the end of the story. This theatre score from Vienna can be compared with the so-called 'Mozart autograph' which is on sale online. Now, this 'autograph' of the same opera contains the text in both Italian and in German. And, significantly, that version of the German text cannot be earlier than 1790. At Donaueschingen in Germany is a score of the first two acts of the same 'Figaro' of early date. But it too has a German text, not Italian.

The more these things are examined the more obvious it becomes that Mozart was receiving extraordinary music which, for some reason, was being credited to him. Concertos, masses, operas, symphonies etc. although in most cases this was never published in his name until well after the time of his death. The scale of this is massive. But the patient research in music archives by men such as Taboga, Bianchini, and women such as Trombetta etc. has shown the same thing. That Mozart was trapped into this amazing situation seems beyond reasonable doubt. His poverty (the subject of those amazing begging letters) explained by the fact that this status of his required his income to be shared with others who were helping his career. And that, even at the time of 'his greatest fame' (e.g. 1786) he is still writing begging letters. One exists to the Vienna music publisher Hoffmeister, for example, which was answered with the note 'Sent him 2 Ducats'. Now this is the real situation of the Vienna Mozart. We also have a document in Mozart's handwriting in which he divides his annual income into 4 equal parts. Why ? And so on. So that the illusion of him being a hugely successful and famous personality is simply untrue.

To unravel all of this, and to go back to how it could possibly have been achieved requires us to look away from the cult of personality and of individualism into the elite nature of musical patronage as it really existed in those times. To consider that Mozart, from the start, was a candidate for glory in one sense but exploitation in the other. And this from a very early age. Proving this beyond reasonable doubt is time consuming and flies against convention, of course. But that's the job in hand.

And all of this extends as far as the last works, the Requiem, etc etc. and the posthumous publication in Mozart's name of a mass of extraordinary music, whose story, whose manufacture in 'his' name has hardly been told.

You suggest Mozart had enemies. I think the constraints within which Mozart lived told in the end. That he took liberties with his patrons. And that he was considered to be uncouth, loud mouthed, boastful, even arrogant to a degree which worked against the project intended by his patrons. So that Mozart reached a point (around 1789) where he began to speak of enemies. Then there was the court case against him, which surfaced again only a few months before his death. That strange court case. With Prince Lichnowsky.

That Mozart's mature operas involved the input of various composers and musicians is, to me, true beyond fair and reasonable doubt.

But that this career of his, this reputation, should tower over music as it does, and should be seen as unchallengeable, this, to me, is absurd. The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

An amazing story, for sure. But hidden, often invented. And only able to be seen with difficulty. Flying in the face of tradition, convention and 'accepted wisdom'.

Regards

Never said Mozart was a free man: He was hard pressed, from early childhood, like most "child miracles" still are and, as far as his life as an adult is concerned, the "surrounding" you are referring to must be attributed both to his introduction to Freemasonry, as well as to his inheriting of "Gluck's" archive and, most propably, his "reform opera composer" ring as well (with "Gluck" desperately seeking to get rid not just of his "Gluck" identity but also of his real one,Cocchi, linking him to Concino Concini and putting in danger the "secret" of the french royal bloodline. Propably he was blackmailed and had to "trade").

Mozart's "death" is linked to Austria's loss of Marie Antoinette and was propably arranged with assistance from french diplomatic agencies. His appointment in (bottom of the barrel for diplomats) Tripoli, as "Nissen", is a measure of their esteem at the time to his person.

Cheers.

[yanni]

Robert,

You write:

The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

.....after 1791? ?

How so?

As we saw earlier on, Mozart's manufacturing commenced by Nissen's "Mozart" biography, 1826-1829, ie long after Napoleon's fall.

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period?

Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

I am your angel of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPMU...eature=related

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Why have you written as you just did ? If a person doesn't understand something and seeks to know of it they don't call it a 'falsehood' ? You wrote -

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period? Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

But it was simply Yanni being controversial again, yes ?

In answer to your question -

Contary to popular opinion Mozart was NOT a well known composer, performer and teacher. Not even in the Viennese capital. At the time of his death in 1791 his funeral went almost un-noticed by the Viennese, for example. Published in his name during Mozart's entire lifetime were less than 145 works, over 100 of which are attributed to the time of his childhood and youth but not to the period of his last 9 years in Vienna. More than 700 other works (the vast majority of 'his' works) were first published decades after 1791. Furthermore, notices of Mozart's death received a few lines in newspapers there, some days later, but nobody (not a single person) has said they were present at the funeral service. We invent the idea that it was a public event. The opposite is true. And, of course, myths have arisen around the cortege, the procession to the cemetery, etc etc. The fabulous story makers were keen to tell us of a Requiem being commissioned and a dramatic picture is given of its rehearsal in his final days from his death bed. Not a single member of Mozart's family or next of kin were present at his funeral. And, as for a memorial service that was arranged in Vienna (this separate from the funeral) this was hastily arranged by the theatre group who had staged 'The Magic Flute'. Once again, no member of Mozart's circle was present there.

The funeral procession is fiction. So too the dramatic commission to compose a Requiem. The story of the Requiem being rehearsed by Mozart from his death bed. The 'grey messenger' commissioning him. Etc. etc.

Well, there is a limit for all this fiction. The rise of his iconic status occurred AFTER 1791. Of course it did. For all the reasons just stated. And many more.

You see, a career can be 'stage managed' as a child. I mean, a child can play a few pieces and be dressed with a wig and a sword and one can describe him sympathetically as a 'young genius'. One can learn a few 'plinkety-plonk' works and be on the road on tour for years, if one wishes to exploit a child in this way. Which is what really happened. Thousands of miles around the dusty roads of Europe by coach, no less ! (With a reputation protected of course by those patrons, publishers, 'friends' etc. who were party to the emerging myth. Aided and abetted by the various fraternities etc). Such things are really not too difficult. Are they ? Every court had its musicians. There were no televisions, were there ? So, why should anyone be especially interested.

Consider this too. If we believe Mozart to have been a wonder-child, a musical 'genius', how would a person in an obscure town know of it in advance of his arrival ? There is no record of this being published in local newspapers prior to his arrival in those places. Now, ask any touring musician what response his tour will have if it is not advertised in advance when he is travelling. With few exceptions these 'tours' were not advertised. In fact, they were 'stage managed' with the collaboration of those who were party to them. This is not difficult to consider.

But we have this fairy story of the gates opening, of enthusiastic crowds of startled dignitaries, of music lovers filled with applause, etc etc. Imagine the scenario -

'You must excuse me, I've been travelling for 8 hours and around 7 years on tours around Europe. I've had virtually no time to compose anything, much less to become a brilliant keyboard player, and yet I will astound you with my skills'.

This is plain silly, yes ?

In London Mozart was inaccessible to the general public. His legendary status was published in papers. By Leopold Mozart. The charge to see him was far too high for ordinary people to take advantage of. When he played in a public concert (a benefit concert) near Chelsea the Rotunda (a great building where he came with his father) was filled with people who saw visiting musicians all the time. People did not usually sit there. They walked around its floor, talking. Those who sat usually ordered something to eat, and drank. The idea that this vast space (known as the Rotunda) was where Mozart on one of the early pianos astounded England is ludicrous. Tried listening to an 18th century piano in the open air amongst hundreds of people walking around and talking ?

But it doesn't matter. The legend is taught and we consume it.

In 1768 (by the age of 12) this nonsense was finally exposed, in Vienna, with the opera commission business of 'La Finta Semplice'. But the project continued.

After Mozart's death in late 1791 it took a further 8 years before 'his' works became available for publication ! So that's part of your answer. Indeed, the first publication of a Mozart opera (a whole score able to be performed, that is) occurred nearer to 1800. The same is true of many, many works. It is in this sense that his iconic status was massively and posthumously manufactured. The evidence of this is irrefutable. There is no point in Mozart's life, even during the days of his final years, where he tries to sell 'his' masterpieces for publication. A strange fact, yes ? I mean, if a man is desperately poor and wants to improve his situation, would he not try to sell his stuff ? But that never happened too. Imagine a baker who makes bread starving to death while he produces a warehouse of bread ! Or a writer who writes many books but makes little attempt to publish them when he is facing ruin ?

Anyway, I think you see the picture. The realities and the stories are very, very different. The publication of those works took a lot of editing, control, manufacture and promotion. Almost all of this after Mozart's death. So that the Mozart few had ever heard of could become, in the hands of the emerging music industry, a towering icon of music history, virtually unchallenged by anyone, even the editors of biographies and reference books. We want to believe in this legend. So we do. And although everything else in life is filled with exaggerations etc we do not readily accept reality in the cultural area. Which is precisely the power and influence of it within our society. The legendary Mozart. And our stupendous ignorance of his times and of the music of those who were his contemporaries. As for the composition of 'his' music, that too, buried away and hardly appreciated.

So, where did this stuff come from ? How was it done ? And what proofs are there and can there be if such things were hidden ? We need to examine all these issues. We need, in fact, to look closely at the lives and careers of his own contemporaries, his publishers, his patrons, and others. We need to look again at the sources and where they come from. And at the careers of men we have hardly heard of. Only then does the story begin to unravel. In short, we must challenge the disembodied 'genius' idea and get back to reality - the kind which we use for the study of any other composer.

Regards

Robert,

You write:

The manufacture of Mozart spanned the continent and involved patrons, princes, publishers and propagandists. Whose aims were realised by their virtual control of musicology over the years and decades after 1791.

.....after 1791? ?

How so?

As we saw earlier on, Mozart's manufacturing commenced by Nissen's "Mozart" biography, 1826-1829, ie long after Napoleon's fall.

Can you produce any evidence of any at all manufacturing taking place between 1791-1826, a highly transitional period?

Why did you chose to end your "grand finale" with such a gross falsitude?

I am your angel of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPMU...eature=related

[yanni]

Robert,

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

You have managed to prove your other point however: Mozart's manufacture still continues today!

LOL!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You will be even more amazed to learn there are great gaps in your education. You write -

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

LOL ! Here are a few basic facts. I hope they help you not make such statements in the future -

1. The earliest Mozart biography is not that of Nissen/Constanze Mozart as you seem to suppose but dates from far, far earlier. It's that of FX Niemetscheck and dates from 1797 and 1798. Published in Prague. The same Prague where Jesuit priest Abbe Noe arranged for its author to adopt one of the Mozart children. With the permission of Constanze Mozart, of course. (One of those 'coincidences') you understand ? So, so much for your date of 1825/6.

2. In addition to this early biography of 1797/8 by Niemetscheck (which, I must assume you've never heard of nor read or you would not have written as you did in your last post) we have the 'Nekrology' published in 1793 by Friedrich Schlichtegroll (1765-1822) who was himself dead 4 years before Nissen's 'biography' appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schlichtegroll


3. On page 15 of this long thread you can even find my reference to this work by Niemetscheck. Perhaps you were having a busy day ?

4. In addition to these works was publication in Vienna of a series of anecdotes on Mozart in various newspapers, especially in the late 1790's (around a decade after his death) with the assistance of one Constanze Mozart. This through the editor Rochlitz. I wrote a short article on Rochlitz for the Italian Opera website on the subject of the 'Mozart' quintet, KV452, which you might care to look at - (since it involved the usual deception).

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:Y...&hl=en&ct=clnk

Just for the record, you understand ?

Hopefully this will help to clarify the picture.

Regards

Robert

Robert,

I am amazed how, from the piles upon piles of Mozart data you have presumably collected over the years, you still insist on drawing unfounded conclusions, remarkably unable to produce, as asked, evidence that Mozart's manufacture in music(not in playing dead to avoid capture and persecution by Austria's Jesuits and security services) commenced any earlier than his 1826-1829 biography, written by himself under the name of his alias, an elderly and scared "Nissen", with "some outside assistance"!

You have managed to prove your other point however: Mozart's manufacture still continues today!

LOL!

[yanni]

Nissen's is considered today as the first serious attempt to a Mozart biography, "serious" in as much as letters were purchased and/or collected and claims to "musical greatness" were propably (never read it) phrased by the compilers (Nissen and Constanze) and, following Nissen's death, Feuerstein then came along to help Constanze complete the mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_Mozart

Was this "author-compiler" Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his 1791 death*? (You neither answered nor commented this one).

All this has been already discussed Robert and you still have not answered my previous question, to provide any evidence that the myth of "Mozart the great reform opera composer" began before 1826.
(1826-1828 being a very crucial year in my research on "family matters" in Zante and Paris)

What you list above are all alibi providers for Mozart, at the time very much alive and kicking Tripoli's dust 1801-1807 at least. (To then do his best, not much I dare say, to provide cover for "Gluck" and his music as ordered, the question is "WHEN" was he ordered?)

Unfortunately for you they fall in the category I prudently exempted in my previous: "Manufactured"...."in music, not in playing dead", I wrote!

Too much to ask? Pehaps!

BTW: Do try providing dates when possible: WHEN did Constanze give away her child for adoption to the Jesuits? It's definitely another alibi provider but the time is important if conclusions are to be drawn!


* a relative of Dresden physician Dr Johann Feuerstein diagnosed consumption as the cause of Mozart's death perhaps?

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I will shortly be too busy to post here much. But, since you do not acknowledge your own errors let me repeat that what is 'considered today as the first serious attempt' at a Mozart biography was one put together by Niemetsheck. A man whom (you may not know) collaborated closely with Constanze Mozart. And who was sent (according to Constanze Mozart herself) many letters and documents. This speaks for itself, does it not ? Indeed, Constanze Mozart destroyed the 1st edition of this book in 1797, buying up the entire first printing and destroying the plates. Another ('sanitised') version made the year following.

And, what was Niemetsheck's profession ? He was a teacher at a college and was employed as a Censor for the Empire. And the profession of Constanze Mozart's second husband Georg Nissen included being a Censor also. Just a coincidence, of course. Weren't the Jesuit Order employed as censors of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries ?

Niemetscheck's full name is only coincidentally of Jesuit fame. 'F.X. Niemetschek'. So too the fact the adoption of the Mozart child was arranged by Jesuit Abbe Noe of Prague. And it's sheer coincidence the 'student' of Mozart's last years in Vienna was one F.X. Sussmayr. As was the name of one of the Mozart children himself. This too is sheer coincidence, of course !

As for your other questions I will post on these later today.

Regards

Nissen's is considered today as the first serious attempt to a Mozart biography, "serious" in as much as letters were purchased and/or collected and claims to "musical greatness" were propably (never read it) phrased by the compilers (Nissen and Constanze) and, following Nissen's death, Feuerstein then came along to help Constanze complete the mess.

Was this "author-compiler" Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death*? (You neither answered nor commented this one).

All this has been already discussed Robert and you still have not answered my previous question, to provide any evidence that the myth of "Mozart the great reform opera composer" began before 1826.

What you list above are all alibi providers for Mozart, very much alive at the time and kicking Tripoli's dust 1801-1807 at least.

Unfortunately for you they fall in the category I prudently exempted in my previous: Manufactured in music, not in playing dead, I wrote!

BTW: Do try providing dates when possible: WHEN did Constanze give away her child for adoption to the Jesuits? It's definitely another alibi provider but the time is important if conclusions are to be drawn!


* a relative of Dresden physician Dr Johann Feuerstein diagnosed consumption as the cause of Mozart's death perhaps?

[Musicology]

Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death ? I neither answered nor commented on this because it's one of dozens of questions which I have been unable to confirm. The official 'cause of Mozart's death' is of course nonsense. Mozart did not die from 'miliary fever'. This 'official' version has no evidence in its support. Nor will you be surprised there was no such 'epidemic' in Vienna at the time (1791) contrary to popular belief.

As for 'Mozart, great reform opera composer', I do not know what you mean. Have you heard operatic music of that time by composers such as Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Salieri, Paisiello, Wranitsky, Cimarosa, Y Soler or various others - which has been massively suppressed ?

Two children of the Mozart family were adopted in Prague at the time his widow visited there on a tour in 1794. (This is the same year Napoleonic troops occupied areas of Germany including Bonn). These children remained in Niemetscheck's care (i.e. in the area) until, I believe, around late 1797, after which time their story changes again. An interesting (though not entirely accurate) account of Constanze and her movements of this period 1791-1805 is found in Agnes Selby, 'After the Requiem' and various others by others. There is, for sure, considerable confusion and contradiction about her movements and locations during the decade after Mozart's death in late 1791. A period which involved various tours of Germany for 'promotional' reasons. One of the sons went to Italy, leaving for there around the same time as Italian Viennese major Mozart publisher Artaria (1798) since he had just retired from Vienna around this same time and (as it happens) he worked there and lived near the Artaria area near Lake Como in Italy and also in Milan. (Josef Haydn ('Papa' Haydn) wrote to the head of the newly founded Milan music Conservatory to get the Mozart son a place there as a music scholar). But of Haydn (well, the less said the better).

Regards


//

[yanni]

Niemetscheck's disputed "first Mozart biography" of 1797-8, is the first to grant him the title "Kappelmeister", a title allegedly used by Mozart himself even if he never became a Kappelmeister (ie music master or church choir director) in his life, Salieri replacing Gluck as Kappelmeister in Vienna with Mozart barely reaching Kammercompositeur in 1787.

Bohemia's music history starts with "Gluck-Myslivecek-Roessler" who, by all indications, did not leave behind just "music" but an unknown number of children and wives as well and (I have a strong hunch that) the whole "Bertramka court" was founded (purchased allegedly by Dusek in 1784) to include some of them at least, possibly Leopold Kozeluch and Niemtscheck himself, and to provide a safehouse for "persecuted reform composers", their offsprings and their collaborators, such as Mozart.

(1784 is the year that "G" decided to go underground as "composer" and as "Saint Germain" war minister and as "Augustin Henry Cochin". )

Niemetscheck thus supports Mozart's own lifelong ambitions at the time, which however did not include "great reform opera composer" per se, as the etymology of "Kappelmeister" excludes "reform"*....
...so I would be very interested to know how, if at all, Niemtscheck stakes Mozart's claim to "Don Giovanni" in 1798.

Our cooperation has beyond doubt proven that Mozart's "creation" is directly and exclusively linked to "G" and his need to "disassociate" himself from his music, his "reform" music in particular ("His" 1787 Don Giovanni, who seems to fly around ,as hot potato of the revolutionary era, long after 1784, with Gluck leaving it "unfinished" en permanence following his own 1787 "death"!)

My "Gluck" however dies 1819 as Nikolai and the task to safeguard his secret (coinciding with blood purity of the french royla line) then passes on to his french relatives who reestablish themselves in France,in positions of authority,and "somehow" inherit more than just "Gluck's music"-their problem to solve , AFTER 1826. They had then the motive and the means to do so.

It's from this point onwards that Mozart's true fabrication beginns and still continues today bypassing Leroux's own revelations of the early 20th century.

To aggravate your "Jesuit" fixation:

Upon their return to anglophile France,the notion of a "mildly reformed" Roman Catholicism returns with them (look for: Augustin Dennis Cochin, historian and Baron Dennis Cochin, diplomat, covering the "eastern matter" and sponsoring Leroux and my own grandfather most propably as well).

Post Napoleon "Rome" was reinstated, the Pope's reach somehow "constrained".

But "G" had left "all that" behind already by 1801 ....

(Cocchi's own "Tuscany castle" (renovated in 1784) in Terrarosa, was confiscated Nel 1787, (Palazzo Cocchi) con la morte senza eredi di Manfredi, il feudo tornς alla corona granducale. http://www.lunigianastorica.it/terrarossa.asp...
and
...his family's tombs and monuments were destroyed in Florence to house those of countess D'Albany, 1806-1808, ("la d’Albany fece rimuovere le antiche tombe dei Cocchi e dei Nardini con l’intervento della nuova granduchessa Elisa Baciocchi. I lavori per l’installazione iniziarono nel 1809; nel novembre era già collocato il basamento; nel giugno 1810 furono spedite le casse coi marmi. ))

...to continue his life, to 1819, in Russia.

As collector of his biographic data , you see, I was fortunate to discover something rare in our days: If not a "purity" then definitely, a "consistency of character".

Now you know (and I do too) why, how, when and by who was Mozart manufactured!

Cheers.


*
In April 1791, Mozart did apply to become the Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral, and was in fact designated by the City Council to take over this job following the death of the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hofmann. However, this never took place, since Mozart died (December 1791) before Hofmann did (1793).[4]

Feurstein related to Mozart's doctor who certified his death ? I neither answered nor commented on this because it's one of dozens of questions which I have been unable to confirm. The official 'cause of Mozart's death' is of course nonsense. Mozart did not die from 'miliary fever'. This 'official' version has no evidence in its support. Nor will you be surprised there was no such 'epidemic' in Vienna at the time (1791) contrary to popular belief.

As for 'Mozart, great reform opera composer', I do not know what you mean. Have you heard operatic music of that time by composers such as Sarti, Gazzaniga, Righini, Salieri, Paisiello, Wranitsky, Cimarosa, Y Soler or various others - which has been massively suppressed ?

Two children of the Mozart family were adopted in Prague at the time his widow visited there on a tour in 1794. (This is the same year Napoleonic troops occupied areas of Germany including Bonn). These children remained in Niemetscheck's care (i.e. in the area) until, I believe, around late 1797, after which time their story changes again. An interesting (though not entirely accurate) account of Constanze and her movements of this period 1791-1805 is found in Agnes Selby, 'After the Requiem' and various others by others. There is, for sure, considerable confusion and contradiction about her movements and locations during the decade after Mozart's death in late 1791. A period which involved various tours of Germany for 'promotional' reasons. One of the sons went to Italy, leaving for there around the same time as Italian Viennese major Mozart publisher Artaria (1798) since he had just retired from Vienna around this same time and (as it happens) he worked there and lived near the Artaria area near Lake Como in Italy and also in Milan. (Josef Haydn ('Papa' Haydn) wrote to the head of the newly founded Milan music Conservatory to get the Mozart son a place there as a music scholar). But of Haydn (well, the less said the better).

Regards


//

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I will write on this later today.

Regards

Yanni,

When Niemetscheck published his biography in 1797-8 he did so with the full collaboration of Constanze Mozart. The title of 'Kapellmeister' was W.A. Mozart copying the same lie told by Leopold Mozart himself, who had, years before toured Europe for years declaring himself to be a 'Kapellmeister'. Wolfgang did so because the 'promise' of becoming Kapellmeister at Bonn was made to him by the younger brother of the Austrian emperor. Max Franz. On this nonsense he started to call himself one. Who knew, of course, he would never become one. The same Max Fraz who in 1784, finally became Elector at Bonn. But the actual post of Kapellmeister there in Bonn was never open to Mozart. It was nothing but an illusion. The post was already occupied there by Andrea Luchesi. And had been since 1774. So this highly publicised promise was an empty one from the start.

2 years later, with Mozart still unemployed in Vienna, he continued to use the title of 'Kapellmeister' at the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and is described as such on the playbill of its disastrous Vienna premiere. In 1787, with this falsehood becoming more and more obvious to anyone a token post was finally manufactured for him by the same Max Franz - this time on the grounds that he would serve him as 'Chamber Music Composer'. But this, as before, was a meaningless and utterly absurd position. For example, Mozart wrote nothing for that post and there is no record of 'his' work (chamber music or any other kind) ever being performed there. So much for the post of Chamber composer. We have not a single reference of his 'work' there. (That token post was to the musical establishment in Vienna of the same Max Franz). Yet another illusion. Mozart did not work there daily. As said. A salary was however paid to him. Thus, once again, Mozart was proud to call himself a 'Kapellmeister'. And, as before, he was known by supporters as a Kapellmeister. There are in fact numerous references to 'Kapellmeister' Mozart during his lifetime, both before and after 1787. Just to keep the illusion going, you understand ?

Baron Bagge was a freemason and belonged to two of the Parisian lodges with the most active music programmes: the celebrated Loge Olympique and particularly Les Neuf Soeurs, where he was director of concerts and where he organized the musical side of Voltaire's initiation. It is with Bagge, for sure, that so many threads of this riddle converge. Even with respect to augmenting Haydn and Mozart's careers. Roessler (another career dogged by false trails) was himself in Paris from around 1781 for some time.

As for the Bertramka estate it was a notorious centre of prostitution and high life from the aristocracy and merchants of that region. The idea of Mozart composing 'Don Giovanni' there is almost laughable. Whose libretto, in fact, owes as much to Venice as it does to Lorenzo da Ponte.

I cannot agree Mozart's creation is 'directly and exlusively linked to 'Gluck' since there is a ton of evidence showing the input of various composers. Gluck's background rules him as a person out as a major composer. Are we to seriously believe the 'Mozart' piano concertos come from Gluck ? Nor do I see much evidence of Gluck leaving an 'unfinished' Don Giovanni. If you are prepared to see your 'Gluck' as more than one person (as was undoubtedly 'Roessler') we would have less of a headache.

I have no fixation with Jesuits. But they just keep turning up, over, and over again. Have you examined the Jesuit aspects of this same Roessler, for example ? Music of which is attributed to 'him' at the memorial for Mozart in Prague during late 1791. And which works are amazingly 'Mozartean'. Just a coincidence, of course ! How about Paul Wranitsky ? Or JM Kraus ? Or Leopold Mozart, or....... and so it goes on. As for Russia, that of course was a centre of Jesuit activity after 1773 as you surely know. And it continued to be so into the early 19th century.

We are talking here not of slabs of meat, or kilos of potatoes, but of the origins of a whole series of musical masterpieces. And this, to me, means (and I see lots of reasons for believing in it) in the input over years of an entire network, consisting of patrons, composers (plural), publicists, editors, fraternity members (plural), aristocrats (plural) and publishers, biographers etc. Many of whom we have not even mentioned. I am certain of it. As certain as I can be. This subject goes beyond 1791 and it began far earlier than the time of Mozart's birth.

As for Mozart's appointment in 1791 at the cathedral, this is more tokenism. Since it was an unpaid post, he produced nothing musical for it, and it was not for the post of Kapellmeister. It was, as usual, more 'smoke and mirrors'. Like all the rest.

Regards

[yanni]

I see you have not picked up the suggested "glove" ....how, if at all, Niemtscheck stakes Mozart's claim to "Don Giovanni" in 1798.*, selecting instead to answer with generalities to finally throw back potatoes and meat at me for overturning your world theories and releasing you, "over cofee", of your 15 year old problematic .

Never said the music attributed to Mozart today was all composed by "Gluck" himself but have instead always spoken of Gluck's "huge music archive", hinting all along how he (Cocchi, with his own long family background in music) collected it, paid for it, used it as he pleased, as France's "incharge", topman, of all arts alongside- or rather in control of- his cousin, Charles Nicholas Cochin, as well.

As for Gluck's own "unfinished" Don Giovanni, see my previous interpretation of the phantom's words to Christine Daae: "Unfinished" means "not signed" by composer (who, coincidentaly, after 1784, was also very busy "elsewhere" to have his Don Giovanni completed and thus "triumph".)

Save your "food" Robert,by all means, but first your credibility!

My sympathies.

*A verbatim quotation of Niemtschek's views on "Mozart's" Don Giovanni would be the right answer, ONLY!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

First of all what of the existence of still another biography of Mozart published before 1826 ? Stendhal's of (1814). I can even name you a fourth if you like. But I think the point has surely been made.

Of Niemetscheck's biography - made with the input of Constanze Mozart and riddled, as it is, with falsehoods, not least that Niemetscheck (contrary to his own published statements) never met Mozart and never saw him, nor even lived in Prague during the entire lifetime of Mozart. Such are the foundations on which the Mozart story is constructed . Supported by the exaggerations and inventions of Leopold Mozart et al. And those of Constanze Mozart and the usual fantoccini.

“In 1966, Tomislav Volek undertook to examine the question [of Niemetsheck's personal relationship with Mozart came to the conclusion that Niemetscheck probably had never had any personal contact with Mozart - Source - Tomislav Volek, Meznama tvar F.X. Nemecka / Das unbekannte Angesicht von F.X. Niemetschek, in: Hudebni rozhledy 19.Praha 1966, Nr.14, S.427ff

As for Niemetscheck adopting the two Mozart children -

“Following Mozart's death Niemetscheck took Karl Thomas Mozart (1784-1858), the composer's older son, under his wing, housing him in Prague between 1794 and 1797; he also looked after the younger son FX (Franz Xaver) Wolfgang Mozart (1791-1844) for six months in 1795-6, while Constanze Mozart was on a concert tour in Germany.”

Which is, for sure, bizzare. Under what circumstances would a perfect stranger in Bohemia adopt two children of the Mozart family (formerly of Vienna) ? When Niemetscheck was not married but a single man (not marrying until 1798). And yet there is indisputable evidence Constanze Mozart worked closely with Niemetscheck in the creation and publication of that biography.

Is it not plain, therefore, Yanni, that every area of Mozart's iconic status was being managed, manufactured ? As we see here in this biography ?

And, as for the overdue implications of this obvious fact - an article by W. Brauneis -

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Braunei....rev.Index.pdf

As for who was doing all of this 'management' we read in Brauneis -

February 1794 - Mozart’s widow brings Carl Thomas (9 years old) to
Prague to live with Niemetschek, apparently at the suggestion of Canon Franz Xaver Noe, a friend of the Mozarts from earlier days. Carl Thomas remains with Niemetschek until 1797.

(The same Jesuit educated priest who was 'a friend of the Mozarts from earlier days').

Thus, every aspect of the mythical career of Mozart was being arranged, including these early biographies. Indeed, these are only a further stage in the construction of his myth. Including these earliest biographies such as that of Niemetscheck, the Nekrology of Schlichtegroll (1793) etc. etc.

But I won't stay on that subject Yanni. It's just another coincidence, right ?

As for Noe -

25 August 1796 - Niemetschek’s mentor, Canon Franz Xaver Noe, dies.

//

So Niemetscheck had a 'mentor' who just happened to be a Jesuit priest who arranged things for Constanze Mozart during the time that biography was being written. This same 'friendly' Noe, this ‘mentor’ of earlier years is never actually mentioned before this date in any Mozart correspondence.

//

Welcome to the world of Mozartean 'stage management'. Of invention, exaggeration and downright untruth. Foisted on the world as biography.

//

Yes, you’ve spoken of 'Gluck's huge music archive'. Why can't you tell us if that archive included 'Mozart' piano concertos ? And, if it did, may we have some details ?

That Cocchi was deeply involved in the manufacture of Mozart's career cannot be seriously doubted. But you surely agree all of this music came from more than one composer. That ‘Gluck’ was not its single composer. Don't you ? It did. Whether 'Gluck' was a pseudonym or not.

It would be great if you could provide us some details of 'Gluck's' unfinished 'Don Giovanni'. But, as usual, this request is not answered. Where can we see this document ?

I promise you Yanni, if you were to examine the career of W.A. Mozart up until the year he allegedly wrote 'Don Giovanni' you would laugh that anyone can believe he wrote it. Because you would see the track record of falsehood and know in advance he did not. But since the true composer/s of this music are a different issue than establishing the fact that he did not let us first agree he (Mozart) did not. Iif we do this, we are able to focus on the role of such charlatans as 'Gluck' and others. Who, to me, are names of convenience, warehouses, in fact, for the accumulation of music from various composers. These works later edited, revised, altered, improved, and often published long, long after the death of Mozart. As we see in the case of every single one of ‘Mozart's’ stage operas. So that if you are prepared to consider ‘Gluck’ as a musical warehouse (as were various others, such as ) then we are close to saying the same thing.

The piano concertos of Mozart have little to do with 'Gluck'. Their story is very different from that of the operas. It too involves various composers. Why, the first 7 of these 27 concertos (as said) are already acknowledged to be mere hack arrangements of works by J.C. Bach and other Paris-based German composers. As for the others, their story most certainly takes us to Salzburg, and to Offenbach and to Paris and other places. With the input of various composers, arrangers, editors etc. Only 3 (possibly 4) of which appeared in print in Mozart’s name during his lifetime.

The scale of this deception is not explained by your Cocchi/'Gluck'/Rousseau/etc theory despite the fact that you are, to your credit. correctly identifying a major component of the network.

As for what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8 I must check like you (?) although I know in advance he falsely attributes that opera to Mozart.

Regards

Fugue
BWV 889

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PhU...D26D4A47388279

[yanni]

I neither can nor need to check "what Niemetscheck wrote of 'Don Giovanni' in 1797/8": A lie is a lie and my only interest was to see how it was served at the time, ie how did Niemetscheck-Constanze carry out "Gluck's" wish to have Mozart appear as the "hot potato's composer.

Leroux's overwhelmingly persuading words, so well fitting to my timeline and long established views, are more than enough for me!

What "Gluck's music archive included" is anybody's guess today, it has been dispersed to the four winds eversince>

I very much doubt furthermore your methodology, trying to find who wrote what music concerto, who copied what partiture, who faked another's handwriting, whose music resembles who's etc while ignoring at the same time events at the center of their world then, music included, Paris, thus not allowing you to understand the "scale of the deception" or even "Gluck" as a "musical ware house" as you wrongly put it (he had the means and the interest to buy only music) and thus dispute me.

cheers!