The puzzle of Beethoven's Kochs!

[Musicology]

Hi there Yannni,

At the time of Felix Mendelssohn's birth (in 1809) his father Abraham already possessed a collection of Bach manuscripts, acquired at auction in Hamburg 4 years before (1805), 43 of these subsequently (in 1811) sent to the Berlin Singakademie for safe-keeping. That's long, long before Mendelssohn ever went to school.

In 1823 (or possibly 1824), Felix's maternal grandmother, Bella Salomon, presented Felix Mendelssohn with a gift that was to alter the course of his life: a copyist's manuscript score of J.S. Bach's St. Matthew Passion.

So I really must point these facts out to you. Nearly 20 years earlier than you suppose the Mendelssohn family already had various Bach manuscripts.

You write -

*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".

Well, if Cocchi ('plus many other aliases') was 'very much in charge of the attack but not the sole mastermind' why not name some others of this network so that we can make some progress on this matter ? And what exactly is the 'attack' you are refering to ?? What was its purpose ? And who were the main people besides Cocchi ? Who were they working for ? And will you agree, therefore, that Cocchi was part of a network ?

It's when we ask for specifics you seem to be unable to provide answers.

Anyway, you can see what I've said is correct. Mendelssohn's fascination with Bach dates back to other members of his own family before the time of his own birth.

Regards

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!

[yanni]

All I said was ..."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. "

He actually introduced musicaly JSB to the public in 1823 and continued doing so for the rest of his life but that's beside the point and the subject, Robert and I am still waiting your "evidence" to counter my JS"Bach" discovery.

You either dispute it, with facts, or accept it , otherwise our conversation makes no sense.

Regards.

[Musicology]

Well, no Janni.

In fact J.N. Forkel had planned a detailed Bach biography from the early 1770's (50 years before Mendelssohn got involved) and carefully collected first-hand information on Bach for decades after that, publicly lecturing on the subject at the university of Gottingen and teaching it for years. His biography appeared in 1802, before Mendelssohn was even born. The works of Bach were available to some in Vienna. But they were dogmatically refused for public performance. By Mendelssohn's time the Bach revival had already begun when various projected collected editions of Bach's works were already under way. Felix Mendelssohn introduced Bach's music to the supposed 'public' who, until then, had chosen to be ignorant as had generations before them.

I do not understand what your 'Bach discovery' is ?

Our conversation makes sense if you agree the above is true. Mendelssohn did NOT introduce Bach's music. And there were generations of Bach musicians before J.S. Bach. To suggest he never existed, and to suggest he was 'influenced' by Cocchi begs the question of evidence and the nature of the 'influence'.

Do you have any ? And who were Cocchi's colleagues in this so-called 'attack' ? You do not tell us. That's not a conversation but an avoidance of questions.

The critics of Bach included (during his lifetime) people who clearly wished his music to go nowhere. It's there, Yanni, where you will find Cocchi. A real attack, carried out over decades of his career. Including all the devices of the counter-reformation. The usual scenarios.


Regards

All I said was ..."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. "

He actually introduced musicaly JSB to the public in 1823 and continued doing so for the rest of his life but that's beside the point and the subject, Robert and I am still waiting your "evidence" to counter my JS"Bach" discovery.

You either dispute it, with facts, or accept it , otherwise our conversation makes no sense.

Regards.

[yanni]

My "discovery" centers on nonsensical rubbish on "Bach" in general-deriving from Britanica and Grove mainly (original source "W.F.Bach-Wieland" however)- and on the Koch identities of JS"Bach", Wilhelm Friedmann "Bach" and "Wieland", previously presented and explained in this thread (to everyone but you apparently.)

You may go on focusing your sights in Vienna forever while leaving developments in Lutheran Germany intact...

however

.. an excellent source fully confirms my "theories" (including the above aliases) putting moreover your Forkel's own identity in serious doubt:

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Mu..._zur_Gegenwart

..and another (on 1774's Forkel exclusively):

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Musika...che_Bibliothek

(both "selfexplanatory", to me at least)


...and as for Cocchi-Bach-Bagge and his relations to Mendelsohn family: The question is not if Felix promoted or not Cocchi's ancestor, JSKoch, as from 1823 but how, when and from whom, did the Mendelsohns-long associates of various "Kochs-Bachs", one of them (Kochs) in particular serving as treasurer of the royal house of France in the meantime-got hold of a specific part of the family owned autographs (the religious part) to then promote Lutheran religion in Prussia (through Forkel getting his "Bach" info from Wieland/Friedman Koch) at the same time with "lexikon Koch" (who turned roman catholic in the meantime as "Wilhelm Friedman Bach") publishing his Lexicon.

First musicologists "Forkel" and "Koch" were, most propably, the same person.

and, btw, if you are unable to follow thru, raise the matter to someone else!

Good day.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I see you are ignoring my questions once again. What was the nature of the 'attack' ? Who were its chief representatives besides Cocchi ? You simply refuse to tell us.

And do you do now agree Bach's music was well known but not to the Holy Roman Empire before 1802, when J.N. Forkel published the first Bach biography - years before Mendelssohn was born ? Since no works of Bach were performed in Vienna for decades after Bach's death. That's just a plain fact.

I focus my sights on Vienna because of course the idols of the Viennese based musical industry (which rapidly expanded beyond national borders from around the time of the Congress of Vienna onwards) used Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven from the start, and at a time when nationalism was the main feature of society. The 'holy trinity' of the 'Vienna trio of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven'. The same Vienna who suffered from musical amnesia in forgetting the careers of virtually all Vienna based composers of the late 18th century ! Including Vanhal, Gazzaniga, Salieri, Sarti, Wranitsky, and literally dozens of other composers. Many of whom had staged successful operas in the Austrian capital itself only decades before. These were the same composers who, just a few decades before, were being hugely more performed in Vienna than Mozart or Haydn combined ! But who, today, are virtually ignored. This is proof positive of the manufacture of musical history. Fasely called. Achieved within a few decades of the 19th century. The cultural side of globalism, in fact.

The Mendelssohn's bought a series of Bach manuscripts in the early 19th century as already said. They had been on sale in Hamburg and elsewhere.

So Koch is now JN Forkel ? Wow !! Yet another alias.

Unless/until you can tell us about the 'attack' which Cocchi represented and the group to which he belonged, then, Cocchi becomes the most absurdly exaggerated superhero in western cultural history.

Why not tell us Yanni whom Cocchi was working for ? And why not agree a vast network existed across Europe of which the Cocchi clan were a part ? What network ? You never say.

And so we go round and round in circles.

Thanks

My "discovery" centers on nonsensical rubbish on "Bach" in general-deriving from Britanica and Grove mainly (original source "W.F.Bach-Wieland" however)- and on the Koch identities of JS"Bach", Wilhelm Friedmann "Bach" and "Wieland", previously presented and explained in this thread (to everyone but you apparently.)

You may go on focusing your sights in Vienna forever while leaving developments in Lutheran Germany intact...

however

.. an excellent source fully confirms my "theories" (including the above aliases) putting moreover your Forkel's own identity in serious doubt:

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Mu..._zur_Gegenwart

...and as for Cocchi-Bach-Bagge and his relations to Mendelsohn family: The question is not if Felix promoted or not Cocchi's ancestor, JSKoch, as from 1823 but how, when and from whom, did the Mendelsohns-long associates of various "Kochs-Bachs", one in particular serving as treasurer of the royal house of France in the meantime-got hold of a specific part of the family owned autographs (the religious part) to then promote Lutheran religion in Prussia (through Forkel getting his "Bach" info from Wieland/Friedman Koch at the same time with "lexikon Koch" (turned roman catholic in the meantime as "Wilhelm Friedman Bach") publishing his Lexicon.

First musicologists "Forkel" and "Koch" were, most propably, the same person.

and, btw, if you are unable to follow thru, raise the matter to someone else!

Good day.

[yanni]

I'll answer all the questions you want, Robert, but you have to first answer mine, raised repeatedly some posts ago.

You may start with accepting as true or producing evidence to the contrary for:

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)

(If you don't see the question marks, it's because I had the kindness not to put them where they really belong!)

[Musicology]

Yanni, there is a conspicuous absence of question marks in your questions. But this is exceeded by a conspicuous absence of answers to my questions.

Regards

[yanni]

just a spoonfull, Robert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5IW9wK_HNg

[Musicology]

Thank you Yanni,

And here is a handful !!!

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

[yanni]

Keep up the good work, Robert and best of luck with your Manufacture of Mozart.

You might as well have picked Reicha instead, another wonderkid of the "block"!

As to your question: "Who was Cocchi working for?" I suggest you read http://www.holylandfree.org/Governo%...MASSONERIA.pdf which covers early 18th developments of "freemasonry" and includes also the "first italian mason", Dr. Antonio Cocchi.

Was Gioachino Cocchi his son or perhaps a distant moravian Koch nephew?

Whatever his family links to Antonio Cocchi were, he, Gioachino "Koch", served the Illuminati and their coinciding ultimate purposes of freemasonry(as described in re reference ie global supremacy and control by a particular race) all his life.

That's the conclusion from research carried out during our musical discussions.

Regards.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I think you will profit in your quest for the significance of the Cocchi clan by examining the role of Knights of Malta.

The following names in particular who headed that organisation -

Emmanuel Pinta de Fonseca (Castille, Leon, Portugal) till 1741
Franciscus Ximenes de Texada (Aragon) till 1773
Emmanuel Marie de Rohan-Polduc (France) till 1775
Ferdinand von Hompesch (Germany) till 1797

And the major role of those Knights of Malta (and the Hospitallers) within the careers of Haydn and Mozart.

So that Cocchi/France makes sense. But only within that context. A movement which prepared Europe for a secular society still under the control of the same Rome as before.

And here, on this freemasonic page the 'Protestant' queen of England as head of the Order. An order whose head is the papacy.

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


Regards

No assumption at all, my dear count, just historical research (in the above mentioned "hard to crack scholarly pile", remember?).

Because Haydn was the same as Gluck and Durazzo, I already said that (and the fact that Francis Gentleman was dead in 1792 -but alive in 1784, ie was Gluck's associate-reconfirms it) didn't I?

Please support your disagreement with facts -even musicological studies/interpretations if that's all you have- this time!

Because music similarities between Koch, Gluck etc and Haydn'Beethoven'Mozart abound, some already quoted above!

Unless your disagreement focuses on the particular Orpheo pastichio perfomance only, "by several composers including Reeves", nevertheless still under "composer Gluck" as per title.

[yanni]

My conclusion stands "as is" in post 145 above, the Cochin-Caussin/France, Cocceji-Koch/Prussia, Cocchi/England revelations reconfirming to the letter conclusions by http://www.holylandfree.org/Governo%...MASSONERIA.pdf.

If you wish to dispute me please produce evidence to the contrary. (I'll be more than happy if you do btw)!

Malta's geographical significance and political importance declined in parallel with Venice and was as such irrelevant (18th cent) when compared to France, Prussia, England and Austria.

Regards.

[Musicology]

Yes, but we are not, of course, talking about Malta, the island. We are talking about something very different. The Knights of Malta and the Hospitallers have very little to do with Malta, except for the fact that the Knights of Malta were founded there. The same Knights of Malta whose history is freely accessible and which was of huge importance during the days of the British Empire.

Nobody is 'disputing' you. The facts are plain. Both 'Protestant' Britain and 'Protestant' Holland are today ruled by queens who are members of the Knights of Malta, an organisation whose head is the papacy. The fact too is that the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company were founded with Venetian assistance. The fact that the fraternities which were associated with Haydn and Mozart were closely connected to the elites of England even during the Cocchi time. The fact that the Hospitallers were closely associated with the careers of Haydn and Mozart. The fact that G. Cocchi and other Cocchis were associated with these fraternities.

We are not discussing here individual nations but whole empires. Of globalism, in fact.

Cocchi was part of that system. Of course he was. The system which you vaguely attribute to 'French diplomacy' but which, in plain fact, was the start of 'enlightenment' control of the performing arts, of entire nations. etc.

My conclusion stands "as is" in post 145 above, the Cochin-Caussin/France, Cocceji-Koch/Prussia, Cocchi/England revelations reconfirming to the letter conclusions by http://www.holylandfree.org/Governo%...MASSONERIA.pdf.

If you wish to dispute me please produce evidence to the contrary. (I'll be more than happy if you do btw)!

Malta's geographical significance and political importance declined in parallel with Venice and was as such irrelevant (18th cent) when compared to France, Prussia, England and Austria.

Regards.

[Musicology]

Clear proof that Antonio Cocchi (closely connected to the British elites) was a Freemason. So too G. Cocchi (for years in England and closely associated with the career of Mozart during his visit to England).

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

Modern Freemasonry, the speculative English Freemasonry of Anderson and Desaguliers, reached Italy around 1729 when an English Duke, Charles Sackeville Duke of Middlesex, founded a lodge in Florence together with some Englishmen living there, such as Horace Mann, along with the poet Tommaso Crudeli, the first ‘martyr’ of Italian Freemasonry. In that same year, Thomas Howard, eighth Duke of Norfolk and a prominent mason, spent a long time in Italy and visited Venice and Florence. Members of the lodge in Florence also included Antonio Cocchi, personal physician to Teophilus Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, and the Abbot Antonio Niccolini, erudite patron of art and literature, renowned for his library and on friendly terms with the Prince of Wales and Horace Walpole. Then there was Antonio Conti, from Padua, (who had met Desaguliers and Newton in England), as well as the Duke of Montague and the ‘Chevalier’ Ramsay who was showing Venice to Montesquieu, then not a Freemason but surely not indifferent to Freemasonry. Francesco Algarotti and Scipione Maffei were two other prominent citizens of the Republic of Venice who were in contact with London, the Royal Society and the masonic circles of England and France; according to Montesquieu, Maffei was one of the founders of a lodge in Verona.

(Note - Horace Mann whose estate near Canterbury in Kent was visited by father and young son Mozart for several days at the end of their English stay).

[yanni]

You are now skipping two centuries to draw conclusions from the present "equilibrium", suggesting even that "freely accessible history" should be taken for granted.

Malta only became part of the British Empire at the turn of the 18th-19th century(it was Bourbon controlled for the better part of the 18th) and we (I at least) trace the roots of "globalism" in the pre 1750's.

Indeed I have been attributing "it" to french diplomacy and I was wrong:

Cocchi-Koch's major diplomatic achievements was the liberation of "West Indies" and the creation of a greater Germany at the expense of France, Poland and the Holy Empire, he was propably financed by the Salomons and the Mendelsohns and assisted by Britain's first ever "reformist" regent.

An ideal "fiddler on the roof", he succeeded in all his goals and more but....

...it's his music that I don't like.

Regards.

Yes, but we are not, of course, talking about Malta, the island. We are talking about something very different. The Knights of Malta and the Hospitallers have very little to do with Malta, except for the fact that the Knights of Malta were founded there. The same Knights of Malta whose history is freely accessible and which was of huge importance during the days of the British Empire.

Nobody is 'disputing' you. The facts are plain. Both 'Protestant' Britain and 'Protestant' Holland are today ruled by queens who are members of the Knights of Malta, an organisation whose head is the papacy. The fact too is that the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company were founded with Venetian assistance. The fact that the fraternities which were associated with Haydn and Mozart were closely connected to the elites of England even during the Cocchi time. The fact that the Hospitallers were closely associated with the careers of Haydn and Mozart. The fact that G. Cocchi and other Cocchis were associated with these fraternities.

We are not discussing here individual nations but whole empires. Of globalism, in fact.

Cocchi was part of that system. Of course he was. The system which you vaguely attribute to 'French diplomacy' but which, in plain fact, was the start of 'enlightenment' control of the performing arts, of entire nations. etc.