The puzzle of Beethoven's Kochs!

[Musicology]

Thanks Yanni.

I will try to comment on this tomorrow.

Regards

My timeline may be an opportunity to address the sensitive subject of pre 1752 music history and provenance and also a reason to research the Cocceji-Cassini link more thoroughly, if truth is what "we" are after.

The family's political role in European -and not only-History has already been addressed by me elsewhere, so let's focus just on my timeline:

"I have still not seen evidence of your description of Cocchi as a significant factor in the life and career of J.S. Bach", you write:

With Samuel Cocceji being what he was in Prussia (eversince 1730's) and his specific role in "Silesia" as from 1742 (and much earlier-their relations to the polish royal family is a story yet to be written btw) this is really a surprising answer in view of JSBach's own life story and absolute dependence, like everybody else's, on Prussia's allmighty chiefchancellor.

I don't believe Gioachino Cocchi ever studied in Leipzig btw: His "entrance" as "Carl Ludwig Cocceji" was with the approval of Frederick II (whose chamberlain, military adjutant and diplomatic representative later was Carl-Ernst von Cocceji) and he was already a formed composer at the time he associated with La Barberina (1743-4), shortly before London.

Well, no matter, at least I was able to solve the puzzle of Mozart's "Bagge" (and remove him, "Bricaire de La Dixmerie" and a few others from my my "Cocchi aliases" list).

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Regards.

[yanni]

It is a big subsubject indeed. It exhausted me yesterday and so I left it incomplete, ommiting the other "Bagge" ie JCBach and his relations to his other (and truer) Bach brothers:

If Carl Ernst Cocceji was transformed into a "Bagge" with the blessing of his ruler Frederick (to serve his purposes in France and elsewhere) so did most propably "JCBach" who appears in London 1762 as a replacement of "Cocchi/Gluck".

Therefore

Re "JC Bach":

-Gilmore Music Library’s Opochinsky Collection does not include any of his letters but includes letterrs of his "brother" CPEBach and of FJHaydn.
-You have never come across any correspondence of his with his brothers or father.
-He is said to have replaced Gioachino Cocchi in London, 1762, with Cocchi "allegedly" staying there nevertheless "for the better part of the next ten years" which is absolutely false.

IE

There never was a real "JCBach" but one cannot definitely identify him as another alias of Giochino Cocchi just yet.
They certainly collaborated serving the Hannoverian-Prussian alliance until it later broke down but the matter of his identity is still open

I will try to close it because of "JCBach's" other, possibly more important, aliases.

Re "Baron Bagge" again, here is an assortment of what we said earlier on him:

....so does "Baron de Bagge-Bach", ie Charles-Ernest Ennal http://www.torrentdownloads.net/torrent/18725 who, according to http://kosiv.info/ed/grove/Entries/S01761.htm, was born in Fockenhof, Kurland (hah-hah!!), 14 Feb 1722 and died Paris, 24 March 1791)
The fact that Bagge's only existing original portrait (as well as the engraving of manuals of his concerts dedicated to the King of Prussia-see Mercure de France, May 1st, 1784), is by Charles Nicholas Cochin*** (Ben Franklin's and Raynal's portraitist-and L'Encyclopedie's illustrator), then commanding painting and sculpture in France, speaks for itself but, if still in doubt...

....look for a german speaking "Brother Bagge", expert in string instruments, appearing in Salem, New York, July the 4th, 1780 ie while "Chastellux" was enjoying himslef in New York!
See http://www.amis.org/publications/new.../34.2-2005.pdf.

Portsmouth was the site of the first African American military unit, the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, to fight for the U.S. in the Battle of Rhode Island August 29, 1778.
In the course of the American Revolution, Manning was serving as president of Brown in 1780 when French troops under the command of the Comte de Rochambeau, who led troops sent by King Louis XVI of France, landed in Newport, Rhode Island to aid American troops under the command of General George Washington in the American Revolutionary War. These allied troops were based in Rhode Island for a year before they embarked on a 600-mile (970 km) march in 1781 from Rhode Island to Virginia, where they fought and defeated British forces sent by King George III of the United Kingdom on the Yorktown, Virginia peninsula in the Siege of Yorktown and the Battle of the Chesapeake. During the year of preparation in Rhode Island and under the tenure of James Manning, the Brown campus was turned into an encampment site for soldiers, and the College Edifice at Brown (later renamed University Hall) was converted into a military hospital. (Wikipedia)

Truth seeking readers may, however, place "chevalier or marquis de Chastellux"'s (same man as "Brother Bagge", both aliases of Gioachino Cocchi, ie "Le comte de Saint Germain") contribution to the American War for Independence (during the am "march to Yorktown" in particular) in above timeline, such as ....

June 1781: Chastellux tricks the brits into believing the attack would be against New York (http://www.hudsonrivervalley.net/AME...OOK/PDF/R4.pdf

Also, to further cure your jesuit fixation, check out a book published in Paris 1777-8 or so by the title "Consultation pour le Baron et la Baronne de Bagge" that led to the author's- a lawyer-imprisonement after reactions by the Paris clergy, ie shortly before "Raynal's" book on Philosophy was burned.

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

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

Mozart was very inexperienced in 1778 and "Bagge" very busy!
Leopold knew Gluck, Cocchi and Grimm were the same person but was not allowed access to "Bache" and propably "Gavinier" and "Gossec" at the time(1764).

"Bagge's" likeness to "Carl Ludwig Cocceji" is remarkable however:

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypld...s=1&snum=0&e=w
http://www.peusshares.com/aukdo/AukD...379&id1=639267

...thus telling us that his dying in Paris a suspiciously "convenient" date already, 24 March 1791, almost simultaneously with Mirabeau jr, is not true for all "three"* of them.

IE Carl Ernst Cocceji was certainly a "lookalike" brother of -his allegedly younger-Carl Ludwig Cocceji (they look like twins in fact but with some age difference, their two portraits 20years apart and Bagge already old in the earlier), thus making their "puzzle" more difficult to solve.

And the problem is they both look also much like FZHaydn** as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Haydn).

Regards.

* Mirabeau's junior portrait and biography details definitely excludes him as an alias (not as an insider-collaborator however). His father's (Victor Riquetti de Mirabeau) portrait http://www.culture.gouv.fr/lumiere/d...uvres/Aved.gif, time of passing and and works however do not!!

**By "a" Thomas Hardy, possibly the same as "Kiss me Hardy", ie Th.Hardy, later Vice admiral, Nelson's flagofficer in Trafalgar......because of Nelson's own mysterious visit to Eisenstadt, September 6, 1800 (Lord Nelson begins a four-day visit to Eisenstadt. Among his party is Sir William Hamilton and his wife, Lady Hamilton, who is a particular admirer of Haydn (68). During the stay, Lady Hamilton will sing Haydn’s cantata Arianna a Naxos and The Battle of the Nile accompanied by the composer at the piano.)

PS Coincidentaly I am listening on the radio one of "those" classical music hours on trompet, Leopold and Wofgang Mozart (one using it, the other not) , Giuseppe Tartini (concerto), Telemann (first concerto), Giuseppe Torelli(concerto for trompet) and Rossini (La Danza) with many "historic" references as decor. Possibly by your silverlined friend (Nikos?).

Thanks Yanni.

I will try to comment on this tomorrow.

Regards

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Here are my thoughts on the subject of Bach, his sons, various members of the Cocchi family and a number of puzzles related to music before the time of Johann Sebastian’s death in 1750.

If you look closely at European music of the ‘late baroque’ (let’s say, from 1710 to 1750) you find a short period of time when the rivalry (and propaganda) of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation appears to have been put to one side. This is very important to note. And it’s not often spoken about. A few examples -

1. Note the number of works by Vivaldi that were transcribed and arranged by J.S. Bach. The admiration of Bach for composers such as Zelenka, etc. And numerous others in Italy. Remarkable, for sure. (A list of these is very revealing. It shows Bach was hugely well informed of music and musical developments in Italy. Far more than most other musicians of his time).

2. In short, there were individuals within the musical world of that time who interacted with each other although, officially, such interactions were still frowned on. Vivaldi’s relationship with Vienna is another case. (The city where he died).

3. Examine the life and career of Bach’s colleagues such as Telemann. Now, Telemann’s chamber music was very fashionable in Paris, and was published there, for many years. The quality of works by Telemann, Fasch and other composers of the German late baroque was admired very widely. German quality of orchestration and harmony was widely admired. And, for a time, this interaction between composers threatened or worked against the dogmas of the Counter-Reformation. But it was finally stopped.

4. If we examine the entire records of Italy during this period we find (amazingly) no reference at all to J.S. Bach or his music. A silence so real some explanation for it must exist. Again, in Vienna, capital of the Holy Roman Empire, nobody knew or performed or published music by Bach until close to 50 years after his death. It was J.N. Forkel who laughed at this clear example of suppression when he published the first biography and when he revealed the works to the ignorant Viennese of his musical legacy they had missed.

5. We know for sure by the 1760’s and 1770’s there was still resistance to Bach becoming more widely known. I mean, you can’t have a Lutheran Kapellmeister being praised across the Europe of the Holy Roman Empire. We know Bach’s ‘48 Preludes and Fugues’ were soon being admired privately in Italy. (Theorists such as Padre Martini in Italy owned a copy of them at the time of Mozart’s visits to Italy, etc).

6. The known facts of Bach’s life clearly show the hostility that existed towards him and his music. Numerous examples. Such as -

a. The imprisonment of Bach during the time he wrote the 48 Preludes and Fugues.
b. The organ challenge to Bach by the visiting (Jesuit educated) Marchand of Paris. (Cancelled at the last moment by Marchand). Imagine the propaganda victory that would have occurred if Marchand had defeated his rival in Germany !
c. Growing criticism and obstructions to Bach’s career from musicians and the authorities of Leipig University.
d. A series of published attacks appearing on Bach in various journals and newspaper articles during the last decade of Bach's life.
e. The background to publication of Bach’s ‘Art of Fugue’ - this intended as Bach’s answer to the critical musical fashions of his time.

This opposition against him and his career was no doubt organised. And it’s within it (this counter-Reformation opposition, now basically occultist in nature) where I think you would find the role of the Cocchi you have refered to.

7. If you examine the other disputes/debates of this time (e.g. in physics) you see Leipzig University was itself a centre of the new cult of Newtonian physics. This built upon ideas that had actually been stolen earlier from the German Leibnitz. So the anti-Bach movement (which was occultist) were now promoting Newton (with the help of the Venetians) as the new ‘hero’ of science. Blatantly stealing the discoveries of Leibnitz and claiming them as belonging to Newton. (Himself an occultist).

8. Numerous examples of obstructions against Bach’s musical career are undoubtedly coming from Leipzig University. So, once again, I believe we can find Cocchi’s role in that opposition there and elsewhere at the time.

9. The conversion of various of Bach's sons to Roman Catholicism was seen as a great victory at the time. But the silence that existed generally on Bach's music tended to neutralised the effect. (In the case of CPE Bach it seems he was allied more with the occultists of the British Empire (through the strong British presence in Hamburg of the British East India Company). And, by this time, the occultists of the Venetians had already long ago infiltrated the British cultural and political system. So that, for example, it was from Britain Freemasonry was exported from 1717 etc.

10. There are therefore 3 and not two angles to those times. Each of which show evidence of interacting.

a. The Reformation and its effects (e.g. in the music of Bach and others)
b. The Musical Counter Reformation
c. The Emergence of the Venetian/British Empire occultist control of the music industry.

If Cocchi or others in German speaking lands had impact on Bach's career it was through the opposition that existed at that time. A Venetian and now British Empire occultism which, within a century, started to control the music industry of the early 19th century.

Regards

Robert

[yanni]

Between 1750-1815 the world turned upside down twice, ending up this time with a much weaker "Rome" but no "Holy Roman Empire" to protect it.

Obviously JS Bach's music was supressed AFTER this period in Roman Catholic lands only (to be rediscovered later on by lutherans) whereas ALL dogmas were second stage 1750-1815, as compared to neoclassic enlightment.

Another broadside of yours gone astray, Robert, but thanks all the same.

[Musicology]

Thanks Yanni but I believe the broad outlines are those already given. Control of the 'Enlightenment' was from the start designed to protect 'Rome' under the illusion of a 'secularised society' and it does so today musically through the corporate music industry and through those publishers and editors who have clearly turned musical history upside down.

Regards

Between 1750-1815 the world turned upside down twice, ending up this time with a much weaker "Rome" but no "Holy Roman Empire" to protect it.

Obviously JS Bach's music was supressed AFTER this period in Roman Catholic lands only (to be rediscovered later on by lutherans) whereas ALL dogmas were second stage 1750-1815, as compared to neoclassic enlightment.

Another broadside of yours gone astray, Robert, but thanks all the same.

[yanni]

Here is a short history of religious developments in Brandenburg "covering" with a blank the 1752-1815 period, Robert:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangel...itz#Geschichte

As for music:

A "clean agenda" musicologist would jump to the opportunity to discuss "Kiss me Hardy" of 1792 (http://www.cph.rcm.ac.uk/Virtual%20E...ydn/Haydn1.htm) and the trio's controversial return to London from Naples, eight years later, taking the longest route possible, via Eisenstadt and Praque, just to see their friend Haydn, a very controversial character himself, and listen (and participate as well) to his Missa in Angustiis or "Nelson Mass".

"Dare" scratch the ground you stand on, there is a whole treasure under your feet!

In the meantime, here is a roman catholic's hymn written for a Roman emperor in despair, a victorious british admiral and all anguished musicologists with no exception!

(In "Mozart's" one and only D major, moreover! )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpu7C...eature=related

Did Emma sing this piece to, I wonder?

And here is another portrait of an earlier "Haydn":

http://c18.net/18/a.php?nom=r_presentation

Thanks Yanni but I believe the broad outlines are those already given. Control of the 'Enlightenment' was from the start designed to protect 'Rome' under the illusion of a 'secularised society' and it does so today musically through the corporate music industry and through those publishers and editors who have clearly turned musical history upside down.

Regards

[yanni]

(a puzzle in a puzzle, sort of)

Johann Sebastian's early years and musical heritage are still a mystery but the fact is, some bits and pieces of evidence managed to escape the eye and peek of musicology's hawks and, as it now turns out, Johann Sebastian "Bach" was at least as "influenced" by Kochs as Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe were:

His first name was that of his other godfather, Johann Georg Koch, a forester in Eisenach....

Nothing is known for certain about Sebastian early years until 1693...

Bach was indefatigable in copying manuscripts to replace Ahles less adventurous repertory, aided by Johann Martin Schubart, the earliest of his many distinguished pupils, and Johann Sebastian Koch, his choir prefect

1734 wurde Johann Philipp Ostertag, vorher Konrektor am Gymnasium, zum Stadtpfarrer ernannt. Er wurde unterstützt von dem zum Stadtdiakon berufenen in Idstein geborenen Theologen Johann Sebastian Koch, der außerdem am Gymnasium noch einige Stunden Unterricht in der französischen Sprache erteilte.

Ostertag's mentor in "mystagogie" and only reputable biographer however, Wieland, 1802, claims Ostertag was born 1734: de.wikisource.org/.../ADB:Ostertag,_Johann_Philipp

...and as we remember writing not long ago....

...Franziska Koch, a famous singer of her time who drowned her sorrow to sing then (in tune but on and off only) with Wieland and Benda "Romeo and Juliette" and "Alceste", the first german opera seria. Gluck is also frequently mentioned in this book but there is no apparent relation to Mme Koch or Wielands "Alceste" whatsoever....

...and Wieland was in...Zürich in the summer of 1752. After a few months, however, Bodmer felt himself as little in sympathy with Wieland as, two years earlier, he had felt himself with Klopstock, and the friends parted; but Wieland remained in Switzerland until 1760, spending the last year, at Bern where he obtained a position as private tutor. Here he became intimate with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's friend Julie de Bondeli.

IE

There never was a Johann Sebastian "Bach"...

and

...three cheers for the noble science of forestry-musicology!



-The Master Musiciens. Bach. Oxford University Press. Edited by Stanley Sadie.
-Bach, a biography by ES Terry
- http://www.pfarrverein-ekhn.de/web/p...eschichte.html

[Musicology]

Yanni,

So you believe there was no person named Johann Sebastian Bach ? Strange, since, in October 1707 J.S. Bach married his cousin, Maria Barbara Bach. The children of this marriage included Carl Philip Emanuel Bach.

Bach's wife Maria died in 1720. In 1721, he married Anna Magdalena Wilcke (the daughter of the town trumpeter); they had 13children together (including Johann Christian Bach). Altogether, Bach had 20 children with his two wives, but 10 of these died in infancy. Four went on to become well-known composers and musicians.

As for the Koch name - found very widely across Europe.

1. Johannes Henricus Koch
(1640-1702)
Born Erfurt, Germany

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

2. Johann George Koch (1702-1762)
Swiss Painter

3. Johann Leonhard Koch (b. 1702 - ?)
Painter

http://www.artnet.com/artist/716900/...eorg-koch.html

//

[yanni]

(alternative title "The cards manufacturer of Musicology's Tower").

Wilhelm Friedemann Bach is not to be confused with Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach*, his nephew, also a composer. Friedemann himself may have been one of the models for Diderot's philosophical dialogue Rameau's Nephew (Le Neveu de Rameau).

...and,until now, silly me believed Rousseau was Rameau's nephew

This last good german, Whilhelm Friedmann "Bach" (to distinguish him from the other "bad jesuit, francoitalian Baches"*)-provided J.S.Bach's family data to good german Forkel who published his first biography in 1802, simultaneoulsy with good german Wieland's previous publication (Wieland, Deutscher Merkur, Januar 1802)!

Wieland btw, who wrote something or other on Gluck's "Alceste", was Julie Bondeli's first lover, seconded immediately after by "Rousseau" (who was as suisse as Gaspard Fritz and Pierre Michel Hennin but in any case often in Switzerland during Wieland's stay -1750'to 60's and long before)!

And, inbetween aliases, Rouseau wrote his "Julie" or "Lettres de deux amans habitans d'une petite ville au pied des Alpes ("Letters from two lovers living in a small town at the foot of the Alps")." sometime before 1761 and had it published in Holland somewhere!

...and, according to Forkel's associate musicologist "Koch", Georg Forster (forester?), Ben Franklin's Forster (Eripuit coelo fulmen, mox sceptra tyrannis) was a German! (p112, Enlightenment Orpheus: the power of music in other worlds by Vanessa Agnew).

That's the way things are, Robert, for better or worse, and don't bother repeating your usual "poem" for an answer!

* Baron Bache or Bagge or even Bogge! "bache" means butcher in german whereas "bach" means stream!

many Kochs partying with Rousseau-Koch-Wieland in the middle carrying the balloon of Forkel's Lexicon ueber alles!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

What exactly is the point you are trying to make ?

1. That J.S. Bach never existed

2. After this theory of yours I admit that I'm becoming more confused again by the point of your post.

[yanni]

My point was to prove that:

Johann Sebastian "Bach" was at least as "influenced" by Kochs as Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe were.

Relevant research then produced sufficient evidence leading to the conclusion that...

There never was a Johann Sebastian "Bach"...*

...followed by an obvious-and long justified already**- supplement, titled....

The cards manufacturer of Musicology's Tower

...supported nevertheless with even more evidence to identify once more the manufacturer, justify the title and bring down your (and every other musicologist's) tower of cards, including your last trump card, "JSBach"!

I normally don't enjoy spoiling other peoples dreams (or hidden agendas), mind you, but one should generally avoid false prophets, creators of illusions and sand castles...

..... and....

You are always wellcome to produce specific evidence to the contrary.... but no more theories, if you please!

BTW I just discovered "our" paths crossed in Queen Victoria's time.

Regards.



*but there is on record (put there however by "Wieland" ie "Rousseau" ie "Koch" etc etc ) a french speaking "abbe" Johann Sebastian "Koch" somehow involved in "early Bach's" musical tuition and "copying". "He", the phantom of the opera, was a liar for sure, but he insisted on leaving his mark behind. Then Mendelsohn took over and "Joseph Sebastian Bach" was creatively "improved" along with the rest of the greatest lie in human history!

**See http://www.online-literature.com/for...=46636&page=20 (post 280 and later on baron "Bagge"-Bach) and...
..... http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=877705 (post 2 and later)

Yanni,

What exactly is the point you are trying to make ?

1. That J.S. Bach never existed

2. After this theory of yours I admit that I'm becoming more confused again by the point of your post.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Argument along these lines brings no credit to you or I. If, as you say, 'there never was a Johann Sebastian Bach' the complete nonsense in that statement is nowhere more clearly contradicted than by your own statement that 'Johann Sebastian "Bach" was at least as "influenced" by Kochs as Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe were''.

J.S. Bach, (a man you say never actually existed and who lived between 1685 and 1750) was 'greatly influenced by Kochs' ! Though he, Bach, never actually existed ! Such is the universe you wish to create. And you want others to believe this.

Fortunately, the chaos and confusion of your ideas is not beyond solution. It was and is explained by the fact that you are susceptible to a movement. A movement whose aim always ir was and still is to impose on the history of culture (and of music) a dogmatic phantom who (in your view) was responsible for the careers and achievements of virtually everyone in Europe. The details of which are, and will forever be dubious and of no verifiable kind. Since I can equally 'prove' Mr Smith (aka Schmidt) is the greatest composer, artist, sculptor, writer, philosopher, inventor, and philosopher who ever lived. Or Mr Brown. Or Mr Black. Since those names are common too.

This is the equivalent of imposing on the history of music what has so clearly been imposed by academics on the history of science. A dogma of giant size whose real origins are of course that occultist, fraternal invention of reputations and achievements which we see today in our textbooks.

To say the Cocchi clan (and it was a 'clan') were associated with lives and career of composers, writers and other creative people of the music industry is already accepted by me. And why would it not be ? But to say they (these Cocchi's) were 'influential' without telling us in what way, and to further say J.S Bach never existed, and to say Cocchi was not one but hundreds of people and was again only one person with a thousand aliases, who wrote this music or those publications are statements so vague, so unfounded they become almost meaningless.

I again repeat we are discussing in the case of the Cocchis a cultural network that certainly existed across Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries of which these, the Cocchi's were undoubtedly a part. And so you have your solution, though you may run around it in circles forever without actually appreciating it.

To which cultural network did these Cocchi's belong ? It is surely this question which should engage your talents. Since you will, if you accept this fact, eventually arrive at the simple, plain conclusion that they (these Cocchi's) belonged to and were servants of the vested interests of elites, occultist elites, who created (amongst other things) the music industry, and who invented the reputations of those today who are icons of that industry. There were thus, in reality, many Cocchis. And if this basic fact now dawns on you Yanni we have made some progress in your voyage of discovery. Not much, but enough to hope that the common thread which runs through all of their careers will, in the end, lead you to tell us the nature of the network of which they were all a part.

Regards

My point was to prove that:

Johann Sebastian "Bach" was at least as "influenced" by Kochs as Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe were.

Relevant research then produced sufficient evidence leading to the conclusion that...

There never was a Johann Sebastian "Bach"...*

...followed by an obvious-and long justified already**- supplement, titled....

The cards manufacturer of Musicology's Tower

...supported nevertheless with even more evidence to identify once more the manufacturer, justify the title and bring down your (and every other musicologist's) tower of cards, including your last trump card, "JSBach"!

I normally don't enjoy spoiling other peoples dreams (or hidden agendas), mind you, but one should generally avoid false prophets, creators of illusions and sand castles...

..... and....

You are always wellcome to produce specific evidence to the contrary.... but no more theories, if you please!

BTW I just discovered "our" paths crossed in Queen Victoria's time.

Regards.



*but there is on record (put there however by "Wieland" ie "Rousseau" ie "Koch" etc etc ) a french speaking "abbe" Johann Sebastian "Koch" somehow involved in "early Bach's" musical tuition and "copying". "He", the phantom of the opera, was a liar for sure, but he insisted on leaving his mark behind. Then Mendelsohn took over and "Joseph Sebastian Bach" was creatively "improved" along with the rest of the greatest lie in human history!

**See http://www.online-literature.com/for...=46636&page=20 (post 280 and later on baron "Bagge"-Bach) and...
..... http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?p=877705 (post 2 and later)

[yanni]

Try offering an explanation on the very specific (mountain of? series of? pile of pile's of? chaotic and abysmal cess-pool?) "inconsistencies" deriving mainly from your Britanica and Grove, Robert, instead of questioning me for insisting on highlighting them while suffering from your "empty" answers all along.

(Wieland, Forkel, Koch and JS"Bach" are registered as true lutherans however, you've got to remember that in case you change your attitude.)

To return the compliment of your verse, you will, I am sure, enjoy reading Wieland's Serafina (translated into English Verse by no less than Alfred Baskerville, 1853) and then care perhaps to identify her for your avid future readers and yourstruly!

http://www.lindahines.net/blog/?p=2375

...and, while talking on vested interests, you bypassed my comment on your esteemed (and dogma-free/objective, isn't that how you describe him in other threads??) Mendelsohn!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Let it be acknowledged that the organisations of the Roman Catholic Church and those which were founded from Lutheran Protestantism came to the point at which time they, from a Christian perspective, became utterly useless and irrelevant. So the history of what we can call Churchianity is and always was a very different thing from that of Christianity. Differing from each other in a thousand ways by their works, the man-made nature of denominational heirarchies, and by their different teachings. So that neither you nor I need to confuse these two things. Let if further be acknowledged that, in terms of church denominations, that of Rome (with its papacy) is the earliest which happily married itself to the state, to the world, in fact, and that all other similar organisations are later daughters of the same. In short, our understanding of Christianity is not defined by the countless and shameful examples we see of Churchianity. Since one is a man-made counterfeit of the other.

As for Felix Mendelssohn - I know for certain various of 'his' early works were supplied to him from other composers. I know too (and have said it often enough) that the British Empire was deeply involved in the cultural and musical control of the western world which we see today in textbooks. As I have repeatedly said. And Mendelssohn is no different. Indeed, you should examine the close working relationship of Mendelssohn with Goethe (Illuminatist), who supplied the same Mendelssohn with various early musical works, as already said.

As for Mendelssohn's role in promoting the virtually unknown works of J.S. Bach this deserves some explanation. And it exists in various ways.

1. The secularisation of the 'Holy Roman Empire' which occurred during the time of Napoleon and beyond it gave rise to a new, assertive movement of national independence. Nowhere more clearly do we see this than in Germany, in Bohemia, and, later, in Italy and other places. This rise of NATIONALISM was a clear feature of the early 19th century - at the very time the music industry was in massive expansion with plans to expand internationally. So the interests of the music industry (which were even at this time INTERNATIONAL) were checked/stalled by the interests of various nations who were newly independent. These two sets of rival interests (nationalism/internationalism) are the main feature, musically and culturally, of the first 4 or 5 decades of the 19th century. Thus, writers such as JN Forkel were keen to emphasise the musical achievements of J.S. Bach as a national marvel (which had been amazingly ignored by the Holy Roman Empire), and so too was Felix Mendelssohn, whose support from the British Empire and its elites was compatible with the myth of a 'Protestant' England. That is why, eventually, the legacy of Bach was promoted by this F. Mendelssohn, even although Mendelssohn himself was very much a product of the same fraternities who had invented the heroes and icons of the music industry.

2. The history of the Mendelssohn family and their role in the international movement which gained momentum with the Illuminatists is very clear in the role of that banking family in the salons of Vienna and elsewhere during the late 18th and early 19th century.

3. Far from being dogmatic, the fact is a startled Vienna ('city of music') was as ignorant of J.S. Bach and his music 40 and 50 years after the time of his death it's matched today only by the ignorance of the music industry itself. It was this fact which made J.N. Forkel laugh.

Music, as a cultural force, (as were many aspects of western culture) had to be controlled by the rulers of a newly secularised western Europe. And what better way, musically, than the rise of a 'Vienna trio' of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven ? Who emerged as 'Viennese composers' with the full assistance and propaganda of the now secularised Vienna and its music industry. 'Vienna, city of music', which, with the usual amnesia, now ignoring its own, actual, musical history. Wholesale. Removing from textbooks composers who were hugely popular in late 18th century Vienna such as Vanhal, Wranitsky, Salieri, Gazzaniga, Sarti and dozens of others, and this within a few decades of the 19th century - their lives and achievements now drowned out by the 'Vienna' trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Who were now international icons. Thanks to the Vienna elites and the emerging music industry. Who, as 'international' composers were now in huge demand in Paris, London, and elsewhere, even at the expense of musical history itself. Yet another example of the highly selective memories of the emerging musical industry !

Opera in Vienna had been dominated in the late 18th century for decades by names which were now quickly and conveniently forgotten. Proof positive of what Forkel had predicted. That the music industry would invent and inflate its own 'heroes'. This they did. And even rewrote the history of music to ensure that these, the icons of musical culture, would literally dominate our musical landscape as they have done for the past 200 years. By 1814 early concerts of the London Philharmonic were dominated by works of 'W.A. Mozart'. The propaganda of Haydn already done there. And soon, Beethoven's works were in as much demand in Paris and London as in Vienna and Berlin. The music industry indeed !! Viva Vienna !!

None of these things are difficult to understand. Music was used as a form of propaganda. And if that music or that composer was not allied with the fraternities now controlling music he could be, and often was forgotten.

So that Mendelssohn's promotion of Bach was almost incidental. Within a few more decades the revival of Bach was itself soon replaced by the superheroes of 'Vienna - city of music'. And musicology itself, now hijacked by the writers of the 'history of music'. Carefully editing out the actual lives, actual achievements, and actual history of music itself. As we see today.


Regards

Try offering an explanation on the very specific (mountain of? series of? pile of pile's of? chaotic and abysmal cess-pool?) "inconsistencies" deriving mainly from your Britanica and Grove, Robert, instead of questioning me for insisting on highlighting them while suffering from your "empty" answers all along.

(Wieland, Forkel, Koch and JS"Bach" are registered as true lutherans however, you've got to remember that in case you change your attitude.)

To return the compliment of your verse, you will, I am sure, enjoy reading Wieland's Serafina (translated into English Verse by no less than Alfred Baskerville, 1853) and then care perhaps to identify her for your avid future readers and yourstruly!

http://www.lindahines.net/blog/?p=2375

...and, while talking on vested interests, you bypassed my comment on your esteemed (and dogma-free/objective, isn't that how you describe him in other threads??) Mendelsohn!

[yanni]

Your poetic generalities, other than overlooking a few decades here and there*, do nothing in the way of explaining your remarkable promotion of Mendelsohn in other threads and also ommit my offered verse of Wieland's (and Mendelsohn's and Baskerville's) "Serafina"** as well as my call to identify her.

Mendelsohn is credited (or charged) with first publishing (1823?) your version of "a" Johann Sebastian Bach which you do a poor job in supporting through evidence however.

At least you are consistent in defending your threatened "other" agenda.

That's good!

Regards!

*Vienna and Rome were at the receiving end of a wide and well coordinated "globalist" attack, 1750-1815 (the period you always bypass), that ended at the expense of both (after "going thru" events in USA and France). My "hero" and ancestor, Cocchi or "Comte de Saint Germain" or "phantom of the opera" plus many other aliases including "Wieland" and "Friedmann Bach", was very much in charge of the attack but definitely not the sole "mastermind".

**Serafina Giuseppina Balsamo, "Count Cagliostro's" wife!