The puzzle of the socalled "Bach variations".

[yanni]

But you are not able/willing to produce evidence of any contact between the Mozarts and Abel (who, unlike Cocchi, never was in Leopold's list) who allegedly (as per previous) was the Mozarts link to London High Society, huh?

And you furthermore doubt the well documented fact of JSBach's royal roman catholic 1737 Dresen appointment?

Remember Elmer Fudd?

[Musicology]

Yanni, I think you need to take more care in what you are writing. It causes confusion when you do not.

In post 261 (of only a few hours ago) you asked (and I quote) -

PS Are you referring to the same J S Bach who was appointed 'Composer to the Royal Court Capelle' (roman catholic), Dresden, 1837?

1837 ? ? ?

The J.S. Bach I am referring to died in 1750.

///

In reply to your question of whether the Mozarts met Karl Friedrich Abel in London we have -

1. Documentary evidence of the Abel symphony Op. 7 No. 6. which W.A. Mozart copied in London. And which has often (and falsely) been published as Mozart's own.

2. Documentary evidence of Leopold Mozart's travel diary for London 1764 - which as you can see here for yourself contains reference on Line 5 to the Mozarts meeting both K.F. Abel and JC Bach at King's Square Court, Soho, in London during that same year of 1764. Doesn't it ?

http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+...ld+mozart+abel

If you require even more documentary evidence K.F. Abel and JC Bach met the Mozarts in London during their visit ask me. But I think we already see the answer. Your view they never met is clearly wrong. At least, unless/until you have evidence showing they could not have met we must assume they did so. Isn't that common sense ?

A great number of things in the Mozart source documents are false. But they are proved to be false only if we can provide evidence which show them to be so.


///

[yanni]

Your point 1 does not exclude Abel having copied the work himself.

Your point 2: Your zeno.org's "evidence" refers only to contacts Leopold intends to make while in London, not those already made.

Furthermore:

Relatively recently, along with a new form of presentation that excludes a search possibility, zeno.org has removed any reference to Cocchi or "maestro Cochi" from their website. He was included there while we were discussing "Beethoven's Kochs".

A clear case of wiener sausage manufacture trade secret!

[Musicology]

No, it is a list of people met and the actual time when they met the Mozarts. Furthermore, they could not have planned to meet them without contact. Beyond all fair and reasonable doubt the Mozarts met Abel and JC Bach - exactly as Leopold Mozart writes in his travel diary, exactly as we see in this symphony of Abel, copied by W.A. Mozart. The address where they met is right there in the diary. That is conclusive evidence of a specific meeting. And your counter evidence is what, precisely ? Zero, as usual.

S.M. Helm: ''Carl Friedrich Abel, Symphonist'' (London, 1953)

Your point 1 does not exclude Abel having copied the work himself.

Your point 2: Your zeno.org's "evidence" refers only to contacts Leopold intends to make while in London, not those already made.

Furthermore:

Relatively recently, along with a new form of presentation that excludes a search possibility, zeno.org has removed any reference to Cocchi or "maestro Cochi" from their website. He was included there while we were discussing "Beethoven's Kochs".

A clear case of wiener sausage manufacture trade secret!

[yanni]

You are right on #1 but it's a fake: Nobody keeps such a reisenotiz/diary spanning over some 9 months on one page.

Any other evidence,not by the culprits themselves?

...and there is the small matter of #2!

[Musicology]

It is not really a diary. It is obviously a record of people seen and major events, made chronologically after those events. In this case (although you don't like it) it tells us exactly where and when the Mozarts met JC Bach and Abel in London. Contrary to your own view. That one page where their meeting is recorded also provides no less than 5 specific dates and also specific addresses and people. Many others do the same. It is plainly a record made after those events. One of various records made by Leopold Mozart. And if you bother to read the whole document (which you might do if you are really trying to see if it is genuine) you see (and so can anyone) it is a record made of movements and of contacts they had. Arranged chronologically.

You cannot say it's a 'fake' without evidence to say so. What evidence ? It clearly states Leopold and W.A. Mozart met JC Bach and Abel in London, during their stay in London. It tells us exactly where they met. Doesn't it ? And unless you can show otherwise (by showing, for example, Abel was in Norway, or Italy, or somewhere else) we must fairly consider they actually met as this document says.

So, we have this documentary evidence. What do you have to show it's a fake ? Maybe your ideas are based on fakes too ? Therefore we must say if a document exists it ought to be accepted as genuine, unless we have good evidence it is a fake. How else shall we proceed ? This is essential Yanni.

You are right on #1 but it's a fake: Nobody keeps such a reisenotiz/diary spanning over some 9 months on one page.

Any other evidence,not by the culprits themselves?

...and there is the small matter of #2!

[yanni]

Zeno.org mentions a maestro cochi at Cornelys but ,as no date is given and with Leopold deciding against Cornelys, the matter remains wide open:

Leopold never met Cocchi (who was elsewhere eversince -date unknown:if he is the same as JCBach,then shortly after 23rd February 1764-his departure from London, to return to Paris as "Grimm" and "Hennin" in December 1764) thus decided against appearing at Mme Cornely's as from October 1764 and seems to have had noone from his earlier contacts (Abel, Bach,Nicolai, Cochi) to promote him either, thus deciding against attending the Abel-Bach concerts (if they ever did take place 1765) and facing a financial dissapointment or clash, February the 21st 1765 and later, to the end of their visit to London.

In the autumn of 1764 a concert series on Wednesday evening was also under consideration; one of the directors was to be Gioacchino Cocchi, who had already run a series for her earlier in the year. 'Maestro Cocchi' and 'Madame Cornelys - Soho Square' are listed in the 'Reisenotizen', lines 64 and 65, and these entries can therefore be dated to about October 1764.(13) Grimm's letter to Ernst Ludwig of Saxe-Gotha dated 13 December 1764 referred specifically to a proposed project with Mrs Cornelys. He reported the Mozarts' early success at court and Leopold's ensuing illness and then stated that in order to recover the losses sustained by the recent period of inactivity Leopold had a plan to give 'a subscription concert at each assembly at Mrs Cornelys's in Soho Square'.(14) Neal Zaslaw has argued that Grimm may here have been referring 'to the impending Bach-Abel series rather than the apparently defunct series run by Cocchi or to an undocumented series run by Leopold himself'.(15) In mid October, however, the plan seems to have been for a series with all three musicians. On 19 October Mrs Harris wrote to her son: 'If his Lordship has an inclination for a good concert, he may have one and twenty, at Mrs Cornely's, for five guineas, seven of Bach's, seven of Cocchi's and seven of Abel's. We approve the place so much, that both your father and I have subscribed.'(16) The excellent reputation of Carlisle House at this period was mentioned by Lord Barrington in a letter to the Earl of Buckinghamshire dated 17 December 1764: 'Mrs Cornelys has made Carlisle House the most elegant place of public entertainment that ever was in this, or perhaps any country'.(17) With this level of aristocratic approval, Carlisle House would have seemed an excellent prospect for the Mozarts on their return to London.
It is certainly possible that for the reasons given by Zaslaw the Mozarts did appear in one or more of these concerts, but it is also worth taking into account the possibility that they did not. In a mysterious passage in his letter of 19 March, Leopold expressed disappointment at the sum of 130 guineas taken at his concert on 21 February and hinted that he was aware of the reason why the public was not there in larger numbers. He referred cryptically to a 'proposition' which, after several sleepless nights, he had felt obliged to decline, giving as his reason concern for the moral welfare of the children: 'I will not bring up my children in such a dangerous place (where the majority of the inhabitants have no religion and where one only has evil examples before one)'.(18) This has often (and reasonably) been interpreted as an expression of Leopold's general distaste at the prospect of bringing up his children in Protestant England, but, given the context, it is also possible that the 'proposition' may have been some kind of deal for a series of appearances at Carlisle House and that, lucrative though the outcome might well have been, the reputation of Mrs Cornelys herself - she had already acknowledged an illegitimate child by Casanova - was more than the solicitous Leopold could stomach. The Bach-Abel series at Carlisle House - Cocchi having already given his concerts or else having dropped out of the plan altogether - began on 23 January, with further concerts on 30 January, 6, 13, 21 (apparently instead of the previous day, which was Ash Wednesday) and 27 February, and 6, 13, 20 and 27 March. The clash on 21 February might well have had the effect of depressing the audience at the Mozarts' concert, even though the start was timed for 6 p.m., 'which will not hinder the Nobility and Gentry from meeting in other assemblies the same evening'.(19)
(May 01, 1995 | Woodfield, Ian)

(Also see The Mozart family: four lives in a social context by Ruth Halliwell)

Will return on the subject later on today.

[Musicology]

You flit from subject to subject never once admitting you have been mistaken on them. The Mozarts certainly met Abel and JC Bach. So you now begin a third subject. G. Cocchi. Yet another person who is specifically mentioned by name in the Mozart family literature ! This is getting silly.

You say Leopold Mozart 'never met Cocchi'. But, once again, the documents suggest very differently. Don't they ? As for Cornelys, she had arranged for Cocchi to be in charge of a series of concerts at Carlisle House, Soho Square in that same year of 1764, followed the year later by none other than the same JC Bach and Abel !! The very men you believe the Mozarts never met !! This is getting ridiculous. So the Mozarts are in London many months. All 3 men whom you say the Mozarts never met are mentioned by name. In the Mozart literature. And Yanni says the opposite.

It is well known the London concert series for the years 1764 and 1765 were notoriously unreliable at the Cornelys establishment. The fact is, however, Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart met all three of them - JC Bach, Abel and Cocchi in London, in 1764. The Mozarts were in London many months and all three are specifically refered to in the Mozart literature of the time. This is plain fact. The question of which concerts took place and which did not is quite different.

I really do not know what you are trying to achieve here. Here (once again) is a document by Leopold Mozart showing musicians specifically named by him (with others on other pages) in 1764 London. Including G. Cocchi -

Mr: Neubauer. Claviermacher

in Litch Field Street S. Anns. Soho. near Newport

Market.

Mr: Braillard. Traiteur in Cecil Cour.

Mr: Braillard, Tailleur in Castel Street, near Pons, Coffee House.

Milord Thanet, Grosvenor square.

Mr: Bertrand, Kaufmann von Lyon.

Maestro Cocchi.

Madame Cornelys, in Soho square.

Mr: Eiffert, Hautboist.

Mr: Agos, Violinist.

Mr: Scola, Violoncellist.

Mr: Simon Berard, chez Mr: Delon in Bell'alley in

the City.

M: Hamilton in Kings Mews, itzt Gesandter in Neapel.

M: Pierre Laprimaudaye, der Schwiegersohn von Mr: Teissier.

Mr: Otley, ein Mann, der in Westindien Plantagen

hat und öfters auf ein Jahr dahin gehet.

Lady Effingham, in St: James Place.

Mr: Leone, ein guter Mandolinspieler.

Sigr: Manzuoli. Sigr. Ciprandi.

Sigra. Scotti. Sigr. Podarini.

Sigr: Tenducci. Sigr. Degardino.

http://www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Mozart,+...+mozart+cocchi

//

What, exactly, is the point of this Yanni ?

Sometimes we see more by looking away.

J.S. Bach
Mass in B Minor
Kyrie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd_M7...eature=related

//

[yanni]

Why should the simple fact that I agree to the conclusions of Mr Ian Woodfield, produce such a torrent of empty words?

You'll see "the point" soon enough.

[Musicology]

I am not sure where you are in agreement with Ian Woodfield. He says many things. The fact is that the documentary evidence is not overturned by anything you have said or produced. We should stop treating conversation as a lost art. It is not the unfolding of the last mysteries of Fatima. It's a straight comparison of considered opinions and the reasons for us having them.

Here is something - argue with that !!

Quoniam tu solus sanctus/Cum Sancto Spiritu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpvJAnoVN9Y&feature=fvst

Why should the simple fact that I agree to the conclusions of Mr Ian Woodfield, produce such a torrent of empty words?

You'll see "the point" soon enough.

[yanni]

The only "documentary evidence" available is someone's piece of paper, undated, written long after the Mozarts left London, which furthermore speaks only of "intentions" to meet certain people. It may even be early 1764 even if Woodfield places it to "about October 1764".

Based on other evidence the conclusion is the "well connected" Mozarts did not do well in London other than their early court performances.

No evidence exists documenting the presence of any of the three "contacts" after that and until the Mozarts departed.

[Musicology]

Why use 'documentary evidence' instead of documentary evidence ? It must be because these documents are showing the opposite to what you wish them to say. Why would Leopold Mozart write the name of a particular oboe player on that same record unless it relates to him meeting a particular oboe player, in London, during their visit ? Why not read the document yourself ? Isn't it the least you can do ?

As for saying the Mozarts did not do well in London, well, yes, of course. It was all 'stage managed' from the very beginning. Of course it was. The reason why the London concert timings are so vague is because, as usual, the Mozart story needs to be padded with the names of fraternity members and elitists helping to manufacture the story of his amazing musical 'career'. This is not unusual. It's typical. It is true of virtually every year of Mozart's public career, even during his final decade in Vienna. On paper it looks impressive. In reality it's simply name dropping with little, if any real substance. These people really existed. Mozart was simply the Manchurian candidate of the time. Like others before him. The music attributed to him came through this vast network. So also the hyperbole, the testimonials and the usual eulogies.

K.F. Abel
Symphony Op. 17 No. 1
1st Mvt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGiN8...eature=related

J.C. Bach
Flute Concerto in D Major
1st Mvt

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

The only "documentary evidence" available is someone's piece of paper, undated, written by someone long after the Mozarts left London which, furthermore speaks only of "intentions" to meet certain people. It may even be early 1764 even if Woodfield places it to "about October 1764".

Based on other evidence the conclusion is the Mozarts did not do well in London apart from their early court performances.

No evidence exists documenting the presence of any of the three "contacts" after that and until the Mozarts departed.

Abel and JC Bach

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

Today had call from a colleague (conductor Agostino Taboga of Italy) who has examined an almost unknown musical score of the opera 'Oberon' by Paul Wranitsky - premiered the year before 'The Magic Flute'.

We have known for some time that numerous excerpts in this opera (which has never been recorded and almost never performed since the 18th century) is remarkably similar to music in numerous parts of 'Mozart's' later opera. But what was unusual is the library which holds this 18th century copy is the Estense Library in Modena, Italy (where music archives of Bonn Chapel came in the early 19th century). Here is clear proof this very musical score was used in Bonn during Mozart's lifetime. The third proof musicians associated with Bonn played a role in the final form of that 'Mozart' opera of the following year. The same was true of virtually all 'Mozart' operas of his mature years.

[yanni]

"documentary evidence" was used to indicate how unreliable sources truly are!

Here are some further "facts":

On February 24th(or the 29th), 1764 JCBach's La Galatea premiered at KT
On January 26th,1765, Gluck's Adriano in Syria " "
On Dec 3rd, 1765 Cocchi's La Clemenza di Tito "

(Michael Burden's "Metastasio on the British Stage 1728-1840")

More facts?

On 29th Febr 1764 The Public Advertiser announced a joint concert by Abel and JCBach (no concert date mentioned)-Buildings for music: the architect, the musician and the listener from the ... by Michael Forsyth.

Mozarts from Paris arrive London 23 April 1764

Grimm's letter to Ernst Ludwig of Saxe-Gotha dated 13 December 1764

Les Concerts Bach-Abel, 10 à 15 concerts par an, sont inaugurés le 23 janvier 1765

A biographical Dictionary of Actors, volume 14, page 394 on Tenducci reads:

"On 26 January 1765 he sang the title role in the first performance of JCBach's "Adriano in Syria".

Considering Gluck was in Vienna at the time (Il Telemaco, ossia L'isola di Circe (30.1.1765 Wien B) )) we may rather safely conclude that

a)"A" JCBach* conducted "Adriano in Syria" January 1765.
b)Leopold Mozart's zeno.org list refering to "Maestro Cochi" and including many performers (including Tenducci) and instrument players refers to this performance (Tenducci left London for Dublin in the summer of 1765 to get married)
c)Leopold Mozart's as well as Michael Burden's sources are "Documentary" indeed and so are the January 1765 "Abel-Bach" concerts.
d)Cocchi was absent Febr 1764 to Dec 1765.
e)A systematic cover up was -and still is- attempted to cover Cocchi's absence from London as per d above, for reasons that will be soon explained thru a timeline.

PS Still more facts? Metastasio's list of letters at http://publish.uwo.ca/~metastas/corr...lettero-v.html does not include any letters to Cocchi or any other of his aliases, except Hasse (still with a question mark in my list)! Even Chastellux is ommited!

*Nov 2, 1756 Johann Christoph Bach (53) dies (son of Johann Christoph Bach 1671-1721)

[Musicology]

Yanni,

We can only know a thing by what it does. We can then predict what it and other things around it will do. The surest way is to examine what we know to be true. To look away from everything else. Because everything is in relation to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpvJAnoVN9Y&feature=fvst

I wish you every success with your research.

Best wishes

Robert

[yanni]

Deep in philosophical considerations as you are, you'll propably won't be interested to tell us a thing or two on Handel's will executor, George Amyand:

On 9 August 1764, he was created a Baronet, of Moccas Court, in the County of Hereford.He died in 1766, his title taken by his son George. Was involved in The Russian Company and the East Indian Company.

(Strange name "Amyand", it propably originates from "amiantho"* ie asbestos:
As early as 1720, chrysotile asbestos was commercially mined in the Urals Region of Russia along the Tagyl River in the Middle Urals. The silky mineral fi bers were woven into cloth to fabricate aprons, gloves, and caps for the high-temperature shops of the eighteenth-century metallurgical plants that were common in the Urals. In 1722, a sample of the asbestos cloth was presented to Peter the Great (Kashansky, 1999).)

*"Ab amiantho" was Baron Stroganov's code name in the brotherhood of Strict Observance.

Yanni,

We can only know a thing by what it does. We can then predict what it and other things around it will do. The surest way is to examine what we know to be true. To look away from everything else. Because everything is in relation to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpvJAnoVN9Y&feature=fvst

I wish you every success with your research.

Best wishes

Robert