The puzzle of the socalled "Bach variations".

[Musicology]

Yanni,

We have to use what we have. The 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians' (with a few other sources) are the standard reference works of their kind in the English speaking musical world. They are at least the starting point of what is taught and believed. From them we can make a start. But nobody is more critical of them than myself on Handel, Haydn, Mozart etc. So I must disagree with you. We start with them and from them we can go elsewhere.

Denis Pajot was not only talking of 'Handel' works such as Messiah. None of whose oratorios were actually arranged by Mozart. He was also talking about various Bach arrangements which are wrongly attributed to Mozart. Both of these things are plain fact. Mozart did not make these 'Handel' arrangements. Nor did he make the arrangements of Bach. Though all of them are usually (and falsely) attributed to Mozart. Pajot is one of dozens of people who know these arrangements may not be by Mozart. There are numerous other people who say the same. And there are good reasons to say so.

On the subject of Starzer, there is no doubt at all that he was involved in the falsification of Mozart's career. That he was an important part of the 'music industry' of the late 18th century. And yes, his career ties in with all the rest.

I have many references to his career besides that of the 'Grove' dictionary - here is one from the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopaedia -

Starzer, Joseph (Johann Michael) (baptized Vienna, 5 Jan. 1728; d. Vienna, 22 Apr. 1787). A prolific composer of ballet scores, Starzer lived and worked in Vienna, aside from eight years at the Russian court (1759–67), collaborating with leading choreographers such as Franz Hilverding, Jean-Georges Noverre and Angiolini. In 1772 he became leader of the charitable organization for musicians in Vienna, the Tonkunstler-Soziezat, that he helped to set up a year earlier. He participated frequently in the society’s activities as violinist, composer and conductor and, acting on Baron van Swieten’s suggestion in 1779, arranged Handel’s 'Judas Maccabaeus' for the society’s concerts.

Like Mozart, Starzer participated in Baron van Swieten’s regular Sunday concerts, often singing tenor. Their paths crossed elsewhere too. In March 1781 Starzer invited Mozart to play in a Tonkunstler concert and had to persuade Archbishop Colloredo (who still employed Mozart) to allow him to do so. Starzer’s death in 1787 paved the way for Mozart’s court appointment as composer in the Kammermusik (6 Dec. 1787).

(p.491) etc.

//

So there is clear evidence Handel arrangements of 'Mozart' made in Vienna were those of Starzer and not any by Mozart. 'Judas Maccabeus' is only one example. (Starzer was not the only one involved in this). And, as usual, these were attributed to 'Mozart'.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1004420

Why was all this intrigue in the production of 18th century music ? The answer is simple. There was something real. And what was real was music of what is called the late baroque. Which, for decades involved men discussing the subject freely across the religious and social barriers of Europe. But that was not welcomed. For many reasons. It exposed certain weaknesses amongst the works of the time. So the elites tightened up by producing a string of their own manufactured heroes. Throwing away achievements and ignoring others. Manufacturing in its place the input of many of their own fraternity members. Wholesale. And to achieve it they even wrote their own official version of musical history. That's what we now call the music industry.

But Bach was not Handel. The thing is, Yanni, you have to hear it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LoW_...eature=related

I will post some more details of Starzer later.

[yanni]

Don't bother, I am not interested for another bucketfull of empty words.

Stick to your pile and good luck!

[Musicology]

Thanks Yanni,

Starzer is certainly an elusive character.

Josef Starzer - 4 Dances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiv01Kp7TI4

Also -

http://books.google.com/books?id=6Ye...TARZER&f=false

Autobiography of Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf.

http://books.google.com/books?id=c3w...tarzer&f=false

Wikipedia

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Starzer

There is no doubt that Starzer's career was closely associated with the circle of Mozart. As was that of Dittersdorf and so many others.

Don't bother, I am not interested for another bucketfull of empty words.

Stick to your pile and good luck!

[yanni]

Music was highly valuable then( as a tool for controlling the masses or royalty) and hence under much stricter control than it is today. With Haydn present in Vienna, the suggestion that Starzer adapted Handel's Messiah instead of him (who is known today to have been inspired by Handel during his first stay in London-oratoria) is but a proof of ignorance.

Let alone Haydn's true identity, diplomatic influence and propable blood relation to Handel/Bach (JSKoch)!

Furthermore, between 1784 and 1815, everybody had something to hide (biographies, letters, diaries etc) and after that everybody had his own national reasons to use such lies as deemed "apropriate" for their interest.

Its not just Grove who is full of "it"!

[MarkBastable]

I hope you two are getting paid for this double-act. It's hugely entertaining,.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Josef Haydn did not visit London until Starzer was already dead. (Starzer died in 1787 and Haydn only visited London twice (1791-2 and again between 1794-5). As for Handel/Bach/JSKoch/Cocchi and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, I think this is sheer fiction.

No, it's not just 'Grove' which is full of fiction. That is why we must dig very deeply to know how this control of art and culture could ever have arisen, and how. Haydn could hardly hold a pen in his hand when he was in London (both times) and if you examine the facts you will see this is true.

Music was highly valuable then( as a tool for

controlling the masses or royalty) and hence under much stricter control than it is today. With Haydn present in Vienna, the suggestion that Starzer adapted Handel's Messiah instead of him (who is known today to have been inspired by Handel during his first stay in London-oratoria) is but a proof of ignorance.

Let alone Haydn's true identity, diplomatic influence and propable blood relation to Handel/Bach (JSKoch)!

Furthermore, between 1784 and 1815, everybody had something to hide (biographies, letters, diaries etc) and after that everybody had his own national reasons to use such lies as deemed "apropriate" for their interest.

Its not just Grove who is full of "it"!

[yanni]

The theory that Starzer was behind Handel's Messiah adaptation by Mozart is all yours and all wrong. What "you think" is irrelevant.

Bach genealogists/researchers may be pleased to know that a Theophylact Bache is on record in Philadelphia-New York (where Handel's Messiah was first performed 1770-Burns Coffee shop) among the "rebels". He married Ben Franklin's only daughter Sarah, herself highly praised by french general and composer Chastellux, visiting Philadelphia.

[Musicology]

Handel genealogists/researchers may be pleased to know it was not 'Philadelphia/NewYork' 'Burn's Coffee Shop' where Handel's 'Messiah' was first performed in America in 1770. Nor do coffee shops or taverns perform sacred oratorios. (Unless they are 'Handel' oratorios, of course !

The actual venue for a (partial) performance of 'Messiah' that year (1770) appears to have been New York City's Trinity Church.

('Burn's Coffee House' in New York became (before 1780) known as 'Cape's Tavern'. And in 1783 'Cape's Tavern' in New York held a party for the French Minister. There are, today, in most major cities of the world men and women with the name Bache/Bach and other variants of the same. Indeed, here is the known distribution of families named Bach in the USA in 1920 - from which you will see there were several hundred).

http://www.ancestry.com/facts/bach-family-history.ashx

[yanni]

You are wrong, as usual!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I am always wrong. And you are always right. The difference between us is that I produce evidence but you, always being right, need to produce none. Infallibility has its privileges and its purgatories, yes ?

Regards

You are wrong, as usual!

Yes Yanni. I will tell this to the editors of 3 music publications who have all said Starzer produced the Vienna version of 'Messiah', one of them alive during Mozart's lifetime. But that too will be irrelevant, of course ! And a further publication which even says Mozart did NOT do an arrangement of Handel's 'Messiah'. This too will no doubt be irrelevant.

The theory that Starzer was behind Handel's Messiah adaptation by Mozart is all yours and all wrong. What "you think" is irrelevant.

[yanni]

http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/new...-the-new-world

Yanni,

I am always wrong. And you are always right. The difference between us is that I produce evidence but you, always being right, need to produce none. Infallibility has its privileges and its purgatories, yes ?

Regards

When you do decide to grace us with passages, name and dates of sources, do let us know in advance !

Yes Yanni. I will tell this to the editors of 3 music publications who have all said Starzer produced the Vienna version of 'Messiah', one of them alive during Mozart's lifetime. But that too will be irrelevant, of course ! And a further publication which even says Mozart did NOT do an arrangement of Handel's 'Messiah'. This too will no doubt be irrelevant.

[Musicology]

Yes Yanni, and if you decide to post us proofs of Mozart making an arrangement of the 'Messiah' please let us know of them. In Halifax, England, is an 18th century arrangement of another 'Handel' work 'Judas Maccabeus' which has on its title page the name of 'Mozart'. But it is definitely not an arrangement of Mozart. It's yet another example of the same familiar story. Does this in any way convince you we are dealing with false musical attribution. Still another example, that is ?

Which brings me to other 'arrangements' attributed to Mozart - amongst them some by Bach.

In the Köchel Catalogue of Mozart's works listed under K404a are six 3-part Fugues arranged for String Trio. By J.S. Bach (and one by W.F.Bach) Fugues -

Nr.1 Anon.Adagio Fugue= WTC I, Nr.8 D# minor (transposed to d-minor).

Nr.2 Anon.Adagio Fugue= WTC II, Nr.12 in F#major (transposed to F)

Nr.3 Anon.Adagio Fugue =WTC II Nr.14 in F# minor (transposed to g minor).

Nr.4 JS Bach Adagio (BWV527) Fugue from Art of Fugue Contrapunctus 8

Nr.5 JS Bach Largo and Fugue from Organ Sonata BWV 526

Nr.6 Anon.Adagio Fugue=WF Bach Fugue in f-minor (Falk No.31/8)

Mozart's authorship of these Fugue arrangements and of the 4 anonymous Adagios was only first suggested by Wilhelm Rust first in 1860, nearly 70 years after Mozart's death ! It must be remembered these arrangements are all anonymous, not in Mozart's hand, not once refered to in the 18th century and were made in the 19th Century. Nor does anyone mention Mozart's name in connection with them. Let's credit them to Mozart anyway, right ? I mean, Yanni will accept them as genuine Mozart, right ?

In 1903 Ernst Lewicki described the special character of these pieces and thought it would be a great idea publish the pieces even though Mozart's authorship was as fragile as usual. So the Mozart industry complied. Well in to the 20th century Einstein (1936) followed this monkey business with his special line of reasoning to attribute these pieces to Mozart. To Einstein the only other composer besides Mozart who could have written these pieces was Johann Georg Albrechtsberger. ''As able and estimable Albrechtsberger was, a glance at the prelude (quoted in the article) is sufficient to show that no other master than Mozart could have written it". So editor Einstein placed these arrangements in the next version of the Mozart catalogue as K404a. These pieces were next published by Johann Nepomuk David (1938) as Mozart's work. And so it goes on.

'Mozart's' Bach arrangements were not, in fact, by Mozart (but by others of the van Sweiten circle in Vienna and much later wrongly attributed to Mozart ).

Prior to the time when Mozart allegedly made the arrangement of Handel's 'Messiah' the man in charge of musical arrangements at the Vienna meetings of Baron van Sweiten (and responabible for making arrangements) was NOT W.A. Mozart (although that too is of course irrelevant, right Yanni) ? but composer and arranger Joseph Starzer.

'Sonnleithner reported other views from Vienna. Court Capellmeister Eybler stated the full score in the Royal Kaiser archive was "credited to Starzer". Abt. Stadler and Mosel commented "to their knowledge only Starzer had instrumented Handel's Judas Maccabeus". In addition many musical people (including Aloys Fuch) assured him there had never been any such Mozart arrangement. Weigl told Sonnleithner that Mozart (as well as Joseph Starzer) had participated in these concerts, but Mozart had never at any time arranged Judas Maccabeus. Weigl stated the Tonkünster-Widow Society only performed the piece in Starzer's arrangement which was "rather good and effective". He stated his copy was that of Starzer's. Weigl concluded "I can with complete conviction declare that a Mozart arrangement or instrumentation of Judas Maccabeus never had existed".

Welcome to the circular world of Mozart attributions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxzlXodc7_E

[yanni]

Would you care to comment also on my #167 above to allow me then to answer both of your posts?

A single "gulp" would do (although I would prefer, because of your religious charisma, your brief description, snapshot like, of events in New York at the time leading Tuckey to give priority to Burns Coffee-House rather than Trinity Church.)

PS I only see one "Yanni" in this thread but you seem to be conversing with another one!!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You believe an entire oratorio (scored for orchestra, soloists and choir) was staged in a coffee shop.

Sorry, but common sense says differently. And common sense is right.

Would you care to comment also on my #167 above to allow me then to answer both of your posts?

A single "gulp" would do (although I would prefer, because of your religious charisma, your brief description, snapshot like, of events in New York at the time leading Tuckey to give priority to Burns Coffee-House rather than Trinity Church.)

PS I only see one "Yanni" in this thread but you seem to be conversing with another one!!

[yanni]

As the same Mr Tuckey was managing both events (taking place within a week of each other) whatever was included in "Handel's Messiah" first New York performance at Burns Coffee Hall, was also performed during the second, at Trinity Church.

So says common sense combined with available online evidence, in disagreement alas, with falsities, propaganda, dogmatism, evasion, distortion, shamelessness and...stupidity!

There is much more on the subject, including Theophylacte-Richard Bache's own involvement in the event, but I let it be for now!

Same for your #169, another demonstration of same qualities as above and more:

The discussion was on Mozart's Handel/Bach's Messiah of 1803, NOT Judas Maccabeus.

Unable or unwilling to name your "editors of 3 music publications who have all said Starzer produced the Vienna version of 'Messiah', one of them alive during Mozart's lifetime" you instead introduce a "Halifax Messiah" by Mozart without naming the source to then copy, for the second time, the same text as before by Dennis Pajot on Handel's Juddas Maccabeus and other works by Handel/Bach, NOT including Messiah however!

Why did you fail to provide the source of the Halifax Messiah?

Because it confirms my conclusion that Haydn/Casanova etc was in control of music at the time, Mozart included, as it was first performed at the Palffy Palace, home of Count Johann Baptist Esterházy ie Haydn's playground wherefrom Mozart got it to then "cover" for Haydn in 1803.

Enough with your nonsense!

I'll continue this thread when recovered from this serious fit of deep disgust you have caused me, hoping in the meantime you'll have disappeared!