Mozart a fraud?

[Christie]

Well, amongst other things the reasoning was the fooling of Josquin des Prez about the life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart. These dominating the academic and performance realm of music to this day. To the exclusion of fair and reasonable criticism and causing the suppression of the life and careers of many, many other composers till this day. I think the word is 'control' and the Mozart myth virtually controls what is taught and believed in this important area of history and culture.

Thats terrible!  Lives and careers surprised like that.  Doesn;t matter how bad a composer you are, your work deserves to be heard, and to be preserved for potserity.

[robnewman]

AMENSIA CURE

Archives of Professor Karl Henning - Volume 21 Page 881 -(posted on this forum) - 22nd May 2009


1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.

2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'

Source - Professor Karl Henning.

3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.

(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today


   

[karlhenning]

Anyone who can read (which does not include you, Rob) can see that you are selectively cutting phrases from sources to suit an agenda.  That is not research.

But thank you for the easy demonstration of your inaccuracy, unreliability and dishonesty!

LOL

[robnewman]

If you wish to learn something about Mozart and how composers worked in his era you should NOT expect anything good from this thread.

Mr Newman is no musicologist, but just a man with a resentment agenda who wants to knock Mozart down a few notches. He's just allowed that maybe Mozart wrote six works rather than six hundred, and they aren't very good either in his view. You can see how where his animosity towards Mozart comes from in his post before this one. Mozart somehow has to pay for things he doesn't like about today's banks, media and all other things from 200 years after Mozart.

Your dismay at the general tone is understandable. However this is 100% due to Newman's refusal to ever substantiate his claims here. The reason why this thread is so long as that he's ever been delaying delivery of the evidence or even the minutest facts. Instead he's been baiting people here, as he's done before on other boards, where he's been banned for this.

If you want to inform yourself about Mozart the first thing to do is just listen to his music. And yes, it is his music; the character is unmistakable (in total contrast to all those amiable third tier composers NEwmna likes so much  -  they are totally interexchangable). Misattributions there have been (such as symphony nr 37) and they have been weeded out long in the past. By musicologists offering proof, rather than saying "I don't like this."

Second thing is read a book or two. Gurn will be happy to name you a title or two. (I'm not near my music books right now). Please, don't waste any time on this thread.

Herman,

Let's take up your suggestion of reading books. Start with the 2008 book on 'Figaro' which I have freely offered and donated to some of the members here. It contains over 220 pages of evidence that this music is not by Mozart.

But let me suppose that your amnesia creeps up on you and this fact means nothing.

I have studied (and you have not) this subject for many years. I know what I am speaking about. At least as well as you do, and probably better. Since I have, many times, answered critics in detail and am still doing so.

Mozart studies (so-called) is a heap of contradictions. You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist. Full stop. Nor can anyone else. Please, Sir, after 200 years of this one-way traffic, allow those who have studied this subject for many years to make their point. And have the humility and the integrity to encourage it. So that students will stop this nonsense and we can return to a world where facts matter, where theories and dogmas are challenged, and where actual evidence, instead of corporate mythology, is taught.

Thank You. And, if you don't like this subject, go to another thread. Or take up golf, cookery, or visit your local library to read something else. Fair enough ?

Yours sincerely

R. Newman

[robnewman]

Anyone who can read (which does not include you, Rob) can see that you are selectively cutting phrases from sources to suit an agenda.  That is not research.

But thank you for the easy demonstration of your inaccuracy, unreliability and dishonesty!

LOL

Total nonsense ! You have not got the integrity to admit what you wrote yourself. You said repeatedly that Leopold Mozart taught composition to his son. And this is NOT true. Why not delete what you wrote on 22nd May ? So that people here cannot read it for themselves. Goodness ! What sort of person cannot accept their own errors ?

End of Story Karl.

[DavidW]

This is a public forum, I strongly urge those that are considering posting their email address to refrain.  If you PM Newman with your address, he'll have it, but it's not open for the world to see.  Those that have posted their email addresses, you might want to consider editing or deleting those posts.  Any spambots that crawl through the site will have your address, and you don't want that!

[karlhenning]

"One of "those italians" is Mr. Giorgio Taboga. I believe you can find something on the Internet by using Google (perhaps there is something in english too). But I suggest you not to waste your time.

Mr. Taboga held a conference in my hometown (Bergamo) about four years ago where he tried to explain why symphonies K 297 and K 551 cannot have been written by Mozart (during the discussion he included the Piano Quartet K 478 and a lot of other music by Mozart and Haydn as well).

All the evidence he was able to bring us was related to a copy of the Jupiter Symphony kept in Verona (If I remember well...):
This copy is written on a type of music paper produced by a firm which closed about 10 years before 1789 (the year of the Jupiter symphony). According to Mr. Taboga, this is undoubtedly an evidence of the fact that the Jupiter symphony was written well before 1789.

So far as I can deduce, that is proof that the paper was produced by 1779; not that any music written upon it was composed that early.

I have MS. paper in my apartment which I bought 20 years ago.  Music which I write upon it today, was not therefore composed in 1989.

[robnewman]

So far as I can deduce, that is proof that the paper was produced by 1779; not that any music written upon it was composed that early.

I have MS. paper in my apartment which I bought 20 years ago.  Music which I write upon it today, was not therefore composed in 1989.

Cato forgot to mention that at the Music Library of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg, Germany, is a copy of the symphony KV 297 with the name of Mozart written over that of its true composer, Andrea Luchesi !! And who discovered this ? It was the same Giorgio Taboga, brilliant researcher in Italy. The same Taboga who examined 10 'Mozart' symphonies in the library of Estense, Modena, which are today attributed to Mozart but which are not even listed as Mozart in 1784 at the library they came from. Namely, Bonn.

Oops ! Don't tell the children, will you ?

[DavidW]

You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist.

I actually read a book that suggested in one passage that Mozart failed an important music exam, and it was decided by the judges to fudge the grade and pass him anyway because he was Mozart!!  

[Franco]

In fact, Leopold Mozart did teach his son music.  In going back and looking at the letter previously referred to by Mr. Newman to Padre Martini, what Leopold Mozart says is that his primary music work is no longer as a teacher of his son, who by this time was 20 years old.

Leopold Mozart was a well known teacher of violin, his treatise (Mr. Newman claims is plagarized)

Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (English: A Treatise on the Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing) is a textbook for instruction in the violin, published by Leopold Mozart in 1756. The work was influential in its day, and continues to serve as a scholarly source concerning 18th century performance practice.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versuch_einer_gr%C3%BCndlichen_Violinschule

[karlhenning]

Total nonsense ! You have not got the integrity to admit what you wrote yourself. You said repeatedly that Leopold Mozart taught composition to his son. And this is NOT true.

This is not about my integrity (which is intact) but about your "methods" (which have no integrity).

Quick and convenient demo of how Newman selectively quotes, in order to "prove" something.

Of course, that is right.  And he was Vice-Kapellmeister in Salzburg;  and he composed many works.  And he was qualified to teach harmony and composition (Newman is funny, for one minute he will point to musical misatributions to Wolfgang, as "proof" that all "so-called 'Mozart' studies" are suspect . . . and some of that music thus misatributed is by Leopold, but Newman will ignore the fact that being a composer is sufficient qualification to teach one's own child composition).

(Today)

What you have not got the integrity to admit, Rob, is that in this paragraph the subject is not whether Leopold taught his son (a subject we are shelving for the nonce), but whether he was capable of it.

As usual, you go off on your foaming-mouthed rants, and what is actually in the documents under advisement be damned.

Let us consider another post of mine, which you have been fond to misread and misrepresent:

Rob, Rob!  In your eagerness to rail against me, you have exposed a fundamental inability to concentrate on what is said.  Alas! This does not inspire confidence in your capacity as a Sifter of Facts and Seeker After Truth!

Yes, let's get the facts right, including the post which you just quoted:

Now, let us set entirely aside for the moment any possibility that Leopold's letter might have been a matter of emphasizing the boy's native talent (a fact which is inconvenient to somebody on this thread, I think).

Your rant gets all lathered up over something I did not state.  Read 'er again, Rob.  My statement is that Leopold was qualified to teach composition.  I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy.

Read much, Rob?  Get much out of what you read?  Or are you too busy inserting that which you wish it to mean? LOLOLOL

(Also today.)

End of story.

Except . . . I shall repeat:

a) On the actual evidence of this thread, no one here has the least confidence in what you say about evidence, or about what a document actually says.

b) I am a composer, and I rather suspect that you are not.  You have not written anything to inspire even the least confidence that you understand what is needed to learn composition, what is needed to compose, or what is needed to teach composition.

[karlhenning]

You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist. Full stop.

Most mentally balanced people would say simply that this is indicative of the life and career being historical fact, and not "myth."

End of story, Rob.

[robnewman]

I actually read a book that suggested in one passage that Mozart failed an important music exam, and it was decided by the judges to fudge the grade and pass him anyway because he was Mozart!!  

Yes, this is correct. It happened in Bologna, Italy. The records of the exam still exist. They were recently examined in detail by two Italian musicologists, together with the surviving record of the exam itself. The pass was given to Mozart only after the jury voted by a majority of one (Padre Martini) to allow him membership of the Institute. Such was the political importance of the visit. The details of which I will have in the forthcoming book. Since, as said, Mozart had NOT studied composition at this time with anybody. And it shows. His paper is riddled with mistakes. Which Padre Martini himself corrected. The second version being allowed as the 'exam' paper !! LOL !!

[karlhenning]

In fact, Leopold Mozart did teach his son music.

It is bizarre to state that "the evidence is that Leopold never taught his son composition."

Possibly the person saying such a thing has never studied composition.  Certainly, he did not study any artistic endeavor as a youth.

In all events, the person saying such a thing is entirely out of his depth opining on the question.

[Todd]

Mozart represents, musically, an early form of globalism

This bit here is all one really needs to know about Mr Newman and his "ideas."  To call him a charlatan is to insult charlatans everywhere.  

[robnewman]

Most mentally balanced people would say simply that this is indicative of the life and career being historical fact, and not "myth."

End of story, Rob.

If the life and career is historical fact why are we so heavily reliant on the blatant bias and exaggeration of the Mozart family themselves and their own version of it ?  And on their career propagandists ? This is NOT history. It's clever manipulation on a wholesale scale. But closer study shows a very different story. At each and every stage.

[karlhenning]

This bit here is all one really needs to know about Mr Newman and his "ideas."  To call him a charlatan is to insult charlatans everywhere.  

Oh, how a paltry mind is here o'erthrown!  From the Earl of Oxford's play Hamlet

[karlhenning]

If the life and career is historical fact why are we so heavily reliant on the blatant bias and exaggeration of the Mozart family themselves and their own version of it ?  And on their career propagandists ? This is NOT history.

Why is an eighteenth-century person's documentation dominated first of all by the reports of his family?

You do realize how ridiculous the question is, I trust?

[Herman]

Let's take up your suggestion of reading books. Start with the 2008 book on 'Figaro' which I have freely offered and donated to some of the members here. It contains over 220 pages of evidence that this music is not by Mozart.

That is not a book. It is the product of a couple of non-musicologists angry with musicology. Just like the book you have been talking about for so long, it has not been accepted by any established publisher because it's no good. (Any publisher would love to have a controversial book on one of the most well-known composers in music history, as long as it's half good.)

Mozart studies (so-called) is a heap of contradictions. You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist. Full stop. Nor can anyone else.

Hildesheimer is one such book that deals and to a degree demolishes a couple of myths about Mozart, i.e. the ethereal prodigy. You may have heard of the book. Other books have long ago demolished the myth that Mozart composed all his music in his head while gadding about, and only had to write it down later at topspeed.

However I suspect what you're talking about is the myth that Mozart only wrote six works out of the 622 in the Kochel Verzeichnis. Now that book doesn't exist indeed, and the reason why is it is a myth indeed, invented by a couple of these Italian folks you keep referring to, and none of them are musicologists.

Thank You. And, if you don't like this subject, go to another thread. Or take up golf, cookery, or visit your local library to read something else. Fair enough ?

A couple pages ago you wrote you were not contibuting to this thread anymore. Somehow this hasn't happened yet. The GMG-etiquette however doesn't allow for folks to shoo members out, so I'd suggest you go back to your own words. It would also be nice if you stopped soliciting people's email adresses.

If any reader of this thread would like a free copy of this book (published in 2008) please let me know by PM.

And so ends my contribution to this very revealing thread.

Thank You

Robert Newman
Author of, 'The Manufacture of Mozart' (2009)

PS for innocent readers "The Manufacture of Mozart (2009) is a non-existent book from a man who claims Mozart did not write his own music. Very funny

[robnewman]

It is bizarre to state that "the evidence is that Leopold never taught his son composition."

Possibly the person saying such a thing has never studied composition.  Certainly, he did not study any artistic endeavor as a youth.

In all events, the person saying such a thing is entirely out of his depth opining on the question.

Quote of the Week -

'In all events, the person saying such a thing is entirely out of his depth opining on the question'.

LOL ! The person in question was none other than the employer of Leopold Mozart, the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg. And his statement is contained in a letter written to Padre Martini in Italy by none other than Leopold Mozart himself.

Gee, it can't be more simple, can it, Karl ?