Mozart a fraud?

[robnewman]

Mr. Newman, can you produce here on GMG evidence for your claims?

Well, the best answer is to read my findings when they are finished. Since your question is very general and not specific.

Regards

[robnewman]

I think he's been doing that, and hitherto, the evidence has cinsisrted of several a priori assumptions about what Mozart could and could not have accomplished. And that other composers were doing good work at the time, which somehow proves that Mozart couldn't.

Joe Barron,

The thing about the Mozart story is that we hear only one side. Unlike that of virtually everything else. Don't you agree that things which are taught and widely believed in schools should be subjected to cross-examination ? I trust you do. But in this case the 'industry' has its own myths and they don't like being cross-examined. So it took a long time. But now, at last, we can form our own considered view, having heard both sides.

Regards

[Florestan]

Well, the best answer is to read my findings when they are finished. Since your question is very general and not specific.

Regards

Ok, here are two specific questions:

1. Of all 623 items in the Kochel catalogue, which are written by Mozart himself?

2. Who wrote those works that are not his?

[drogulus]

      I'm coming in late so this may have been covered, but doesn't the proponent of the extraordinary hypothesis, in this case that Mozart was not the author of Mozart's music, have the burden of proof, proof being in this case a preponderance of the evidence? Given that Mozart was taken to be the composer by all of his contemporaries (including Beethoven, who had reason to know), how do you meet that burden? It's the conspiracy problem: Everyone is in on it, no one talks, powerful forces in high places arrange to kill the real composer, the hijacked planes are sitting at an airport in Cleveland, the Mossad did it, etc.

[robnewman]

Ok, here are two specific questions:

1. Of all 623 items in the Kochel catalogue, which are written by Mozart himself?

2. Who wrote those works that are not his?

Florestan,

In my considered view the real Mozart wrote, at best, around half a dozen works in his entire lifetime of his own. The rest of them supplied by up to around 24 other composers. Sorry I cannot go into great detail here.

Regards

R Newman

[knight66]

Unlike the rest of you closed-minded people who uncritically accept the music establishment party line, I spent the morning investigating Mr. Newman's allegations and found some shocking facts on my own.  Why would a washed up child performer become the greatest composer in Western history?  It may make a good movie script, but it beggars logic.  Now what else do we know for a fact about WA Mozart?  His ties to the freemasons.  We also know how the tentacles of freemasonary reached all the way through 18th century society and its plots to subvert the Church.  I found one document that refers to a Masonic attempt to spark worldwide revolution through subliminally encoding subversive messages in music.  A cabal of freemason composers worked to create the music with Wolfgang serving at the frontman.  The signal for the launch of this program was in 1773 when the illuminati were finally successful in obtaining the Papal suppression of the Jesuits, who had been on the verge of discovering the plot.  With the way clear, Mozart was appointed that year to the Salzburg Court with the eventual goal of moving to the seat of the Holy Roman Empire itself, from that point a lethal delivery of cultural poison could be made.  The key points of the plot centered around creating subversive operas which could be performed for not only nobles, but bourgeois and commoners as well.  This we know was done.  The plot culminated with in 1789 with the French Revolution. 

I did in fact wonder when the shade of Dan Brown would somehow or other be invoked on this thread. Congratulations, go to the back of the class....but don't take your books, you won't be staying there long.

Mike

[DavidRoss]

This is either a brilliant parody or the steamiest pile of manure I have ever read. I'll go with the former. 

Nah...it's the plot of Dan Brown's next best seller.

Edit:  I see Mike beat me to the punch by 10 seconds.  Great minds, I suppose....

[Florestan]

I cannot go into great detail here.

But why? This is exactly what you should do. How can we study your evidence if you provide none?

[Josquin des Prez]

So we come full circle. There is not a shred of evidence that Mozart actually studied music. There is no more evidence of him studying composition than there is of my next door neighbour's cat qualifying to be a dental surgeon. Nor is there any evidence that Mozart was specially skilled in writing music. The living proof of this can be demonstrated in such works as that which he produced for Padre Martini during his entrance exam to the academy in Bologna Italy. This is filled with errors and is music that shows he had NO real knowledge of harmony or of the rudiments of music theory. And there are dozens of other examples.

There is no evidence Mozart actually studied music, yet, you cite an example of compositions which, while technically defective, are concrete proof he actually studied music at one point. The mind just boggles.

[Lethevich]

It is silliness itself to disregard the clear and obvious genius of Mozart's music (not to support Josquin's usage in other contexts, but in this case the term genius is justified), just because we can't produce a record of which music school he may or may not have attended.  It's the same tired argument the anti-Stratfordians use -- we can't find records that Shakespeare ever studied Latin, therefore he couldn't have written Julius Caesar.  The logic doesn't hold.  Great artists in many fields have been able to master their craft without much formal education on the subject -- it's not the rule, certainly, but it happens.  Einstein noodled out the mysteries of the universe while sitting at the patent office -- who's to say that someone with great natural gifts couldn't write a symphony after learning the basics of music from his father and others, and using scores or other materials for personal study?

Another example is Elgar, who learnt a lot just from reading manuscripts in his father's shop.

[71 dB]

The thing is, of course, that Myslivececk in the early 1770's was writing phenomenal music - music almost unheard today. Just a single example. This is more than good. It's phenomenal. And it's just another example of how ignorant we have all been.

So you are just bitter about how unknown Myslivececk is? So you want to take away Mozart's genius? I am listening to Myslivececk on Spotify as I write this. Good music but I think Dittersdorf is better.

Mozart > Dittersdorf > Myslivececk

[knight66]

Yes, Elgar was self taught, I did think about throwing that one in; but thought certain others might claim it proved the contrary view.

Mike

[Josquin des Prez]

      I'm coming in late so this may have been covered, but doesn't the proponent of the extraordinary hypothesis, in this case that Mozart was not the author of Mozart's music, have the burden of proof, proof being in this case a preponderance of the evidence? Given that Mozart was taken to be the composer by all of his contemporaries (including Beethoven, who had reason to know), how do you meet that burden? It's the conspiracy problem: Everyone is in on it, no one talks, powerful forces in high places arrange to kill the real composer, the hijacked planes are sitting at an airport in Cleveland, the Mossad did it, etc.

I'm going to bring this to what i said before. This is not even a case of somebody believing in a conspiracy theory. What Newman is doing is intentionally fraudulent. This is why he cannot be beaten with logic. He has no interesting in reason for his purpose is clearly dishonest from the outset. Have you ever heard of a book called Black Athena?

[71 dB]

Another example is Elgar, who learnt a lot just from reading manuscripts in his father's shop.

In fact I think self-learning does good for originality. Perhaps part of Mozart's originality comes from the fact that he wasn't teached too much?

[Joe Barron]

Joe Barron,

The thing about the Mozart story is that we hear only one side. Unlike that of virtually everything else. Don't you agree that things which are taught and widely believed in schools should be subjected to cross-examination ? I trust you do.

Not when it consists of questionable assumptions and faulty reasoning. You sound like a creationist shouting "teach the controversy," when in fact there is  no controversy. At a certain point, some arguments are simply not worth considering. I wouldn't give a Holocaust denier the time of day, no matter how much he might insist I'm being closed-minded and that we need to look at "both sides." On some questions, there is no debate, and you have said nothing so far to convince me there is any other "side" about Mozart. Your attempts to create one have a pungent whiff of desperation. The fact that I'm talking to you now gives you more legitimacy than you deserve.

And so Mozart wrote a piece at 13 that was full of errors, and teenagers can't write good symphonies. So what? Nothing in either of those two statements prevents him from writing good music in his twenties and thirties. Like any artist, he would be capable of learning. And what about Schubert and Mendelssohn? They were writing great music in their teens. Or are they frauds too? Again, it's an if p, then q argument where the p is questionable, and the connection to q is nonexistent.

But I would like to read the book ...

[knight66]

71db, Well the point here was that he was perhaps not so very original......but my argument is that I am not aware of anyone who comes close to his quality over a large body of work, though their style may be similar.

Mike

[robnewman]

Ok, here are two specific questions:

1. Of all 623 items in the Kochel catalogue, which are written by Mozart himself?

2. Who wrote those works that are not his?

Florestan,

In reply to your second question (and I really cannot spend much more time here today), I suggest you examine for an example of the real Mozart the opening bars of the Symphony known till recently in the Koechel catalogue as KV444 (Symphony No. 37). Whose opening adagio is definitely by Mozart but the rest of that work is definitely not. And this slow introduction is musical rubbish. It comes from the 1780's.

Then there are various concertos so poor they are hardly ever performed. There are, altogether, a handful of such clumsy, crude works. Mozart was a provincial composer of no great talent.

He was the 'arranger' but not composer of the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in 1786 (arranged clumsily by him to Italian text from already existing music by others -i.e. a pre-existing German singspiel) for Vienna, with the assistance of Lorenzo da Ponte. But Mozart was NOT the composer of this opera. And so it goes on. The same is true of other 'Mozart' operas including Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, Cosi fan Tutte, Don Giovanni and Die Zauberflote. The Requiem is a well known fraud (composed after 1791 by several others) etc. etc. etc.

Regards

[Joe Barron]

He was the 'arranger' but not composer of the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in 1786 (arranged clumsily by him to Italian text from already existing music by others -i.e. a pre-existing German singspiel)

Cosi is not a singspiel. There is nothing singspiely about it in the least.

[drogulus]

Another example is Elgar, who learnt a lot just from reading manuscripts in his father's shop.

      He copied out a Mozart symphony as a template for his own effort.

I'm going to bring this to what i said before. This is not even a case of somebody believing in a conspiracy theory. What Newman is doing is intentionally fraudulent. This is why he cannot be beaten with logic. He has no interesting in reason for his purpose is clearly dishonest from the outset.

      No, I'd say logic and evidence have beaten him already. And his dishonest purpose, if that's what it is, doesn't really matter. The odds are he will never bring forth his case.

      No one who really had a case like that would operate this way: I have Earth-shaking evidence for the divinity fraudulence of Mozart but I left it at home. Of course he could...go...all...the...way, and claim it's a matter of faith.....That would be convincing to some, I guess. But not to the hard-headed rationalists here. 

[Christie]

So we come full circle. There is not a shred of evidence that Mozart actually studied music. There is no more evidence of him studying composition than there is of my next door neighbour's cat qualifying to be a dental surgeon. Nor is there any evidence that Mozart was specially skilled in writing music. The living proof of this can be demonstrated in such works as that which he produced for Padre Martini during his entrance exam to the academy in Bologna Italy. This is filled with errors and is music that shows he had NO real knowledge of harmony or of the rudiments of music theory. And there are dozens of other examples.

Let's stop this nonsense. Babies do not fly 747's. Nor do young boys write symphonies. Let alone good ones. For in both cases they require detailed study of the technical requirements involved. This Mozart never had. Nor did he spend even a single day in a school. That is the plain fact.

Genius ? Not at all. Roadshow ? Of course.

Mr. Newman.

I appreciate your obvious genius for intuition and common sense, but as we know, "common sense" is not always an indicator of the truth. After all Rodrigo was a great composer despite being too blind to see the page.

At the beginning of this thread I very politely introduced myself to you and I made it known that I, in fact, had reached some of the same conclusions as yourself. I have been carefully studying the scores of "Herr Mozart" in Salzburg and worldwide and have even used my position to explore some of the new "manuscripts" which are periodically "discovered" in the basements of clever people around Europe. I am also familiar not merely with Myslivecek and Vranicky but also F. J. Haydn, Paisiello, E.W. Wolf, Frantisek Richter, J.B. Vanhal, Salieri, Kraus, Cannabich, Dussek, Sperger, Pleyel, F. Ignaz von Beck, &c.

Here is my post:

Hello Rob.

I find your theory very interesting. I know you will be unable to supply all or even a great deal of your evidence to us here for the purposes of preserving the integrity of your forthcoming book, and also to avoid copyright issues with prospective publishers. However I hope you will be kind enough to give us some "teasers" so to speak with a few suggestions of your argument. The reason I say this is that I have actually, working independently (obviously we don't know each other) come to similar conclusions. My research has led me to the M. F. Shaffer wing of the Institute Library at the Mozarteum, Salzburg, where for the past several years I have been engaged in observation of primary materials related to Herr Mozart's alleged Life-work. I am not publishing my results, and certainly have not begun to incorporate them into anything like the body of work you are working on, but I am thrilled to hear that your research has led you to a similar conclusion. I hope that our exchange here can be mutually supportive and that we can compare records, so to speak, in this matter.

After all it is, as they say, better to have two Goliaths than One.

I hope to hear from you soon.

It would be very greatly appreciated if you could supply some of the evidence which backs up your intuitions and guesswork. This could ultimately be a mutual process to take place on this forum or another. My research is by no means comprehensive and I am still eagerly learning. I think it is only fair that you get a free hearing here, but it would be a shame for you to stoop to squabbling with some of these bickerers. What have you learned? I am curious to know and look forward to your fair reply here. A discussion with these people about both sides of the debate could be beneficial to all of us, especially to you and I.