Mozart a fraud?

[Opus106]

You are, in fact, a couch potato - a person who believes in the FOX News version of music history. And despite this laughable ignorance you believe it..... because everyone else believes it. Is this true or not ?

Wow, you must've just come out of elementary school! Grow up, man.

Certainly ! The evidence says that Mozart never went to school. The evidence says he did not, at any time in his entire life, study harmony, orchestration or any of the technical requirements of a composer at any time during his lifetime. The evidence says he never associated with children of his own age. The evidence says he never wrote a single symphony up to the age of 16. The evidence says he was not the composer of virtually all the music attributed to him. And the evidence indicates you cannot provide any evidence to support what is widely believed of him and his musical 'genius'.

This is evidence enough for me that you don't understand the difference between evidence and the conclusion based upon said evidence.

[Holly]

Wow, you must've just come out of elementary school! Grow up, man.

This is evidence enough for me that you don't understand the difference between evidence and the conclusion based upon said evidence.

Wow indeed. You have come on a bit since Talk-Classical days when you left all the running to other members (one in particular) to combat Newman's nonsense, and thought that they were going over the top in pursuing him!!!

[Opus106]

Wow indeed. You have come on a bit since Talk-Classical days when you left all the running to other members (one in particular) to combat Newman's nonsense, and thought that they were going over the top in pursuing him!!!

Hey, Andy! Even here I left "all the running" to other members until the last page. It's a slow post day and I was feeling bored.

[greg]

Certainly ! The evidence says that Mozart never went to school. The evidence says he did not, at any time in his entire life, study harmony, orchestration or any of the technical requirements of a composer. The evidence says he never associated with children of his own age. The evidence says he never wrote a single symphony up to the age of 16. The evidence says he was not the composer of virtually all the music attributed to him. And you cannot provide any evidence to support what is widely believed of him and his musical 'genius'.
You are, in fact, a musical couch potato - a person who believes in the FOX News version of music history. And despite this laughable ignorance you believe it..... because, well, because...... everyone else believes it. Is this true or not ?

Um, it's not that hard to learn how to write music. He could get whatever books which were lying around that are about music theory, get whatever music scores which were lying around, and get some helpful tips from his dad whenever he had time. It really isn't that hard. I never studied music with anyone, ever, and yeah, I can read any score out there- if I can, I think Mozart could, much easier.
Does there really have to be concrete evidence that, maybe, one day, Mozart found some of Dad's music books and taught himself a few things?

[Holly]

This is logically inconsistent. If, as you seem to imply, the purpose was to elevate German / Austrian music to a status it did not deserved, why should twenty-four composers (who, according to your own admittance, were already embarked upon succesful careers, had great artistic merit and were all devout subject of the Empire) be forced to obliterate their own personality for the sake of a man whom (again according to you) almost nobody had heard of? Why would an Empire who could have boasted two dozens great composers chose instead to fabricate an extremely implausible one at the expense of all others?

This point has been made repeatedly both before he came to GMG, and here in various previous posts.  This is precisely the main issue I have been pursuing, together with seeking information on any proof of payment for such works either made by Mozart or paid by any of these 2 dozen odd alleged composers.  All we get is more and more BS as an answer.

Also, do you imply that Haydn and Beethoven were frauds, too?

Certainly as regards Haydn.  According to Newman, Haydn was just as guilty if not more so than Mozart.  He reckons that Luchesi started supplying symphonies to Haydn many years before Mozart came on the scene.  He has also claimed that some early Beethoven works may be mis-attributed, but I don't think he has alleged outright fakery, more the result of an accident. 

[Holly]

Hey, Andy! Even here I left "all the running" to other members until the last page. It's a slow post day and I was feeling bored.

Not quite right, but I'll leave you guessing a bit longer.  It's nice to say hello again.  T-C misses you.  They can't identify anything without you.

[Opus106]

I wonder if the world of classical music has a counterpart to the Crackpot Index in physics.

[robnewman]

The bottom line is this. You believe Mozart was a musical genius. Nobody can produce evidence in support of this when asked to do so. But that's OK since, you say, the onus is not on you but others to prove differently. You believe Mozart was a musical genius because, well, because everyone else believes it. And because it's part of your 'education'. And because your teachers learned it from others.  If we start to closely examine this belief (with obvious things like his supposed musical education, the truth or error of his musical output) the onus is still on others to show Mozart was a fraud. Since you, by faith, will faithfully believe him to be a genius. This is the equivalent of Mozart being a cult, or a religion.

Anyway, I am starting to get busy and can't spend much more time on this issue. Enough to say that in the real world of studies we examine things fairly, without imposing our dogmas on the subject. One day even the followers of 'Mozart' will learn this. And we will all witness the collapse of this cult.

[Florestan]

Show me evidence that we are not Chinese. Since most people in the world today are.

That has been your way of "arguing" and "proving" all the way up here. Answering questions with questions, diverting the discussion in directions which bear no relevance to the matter at hand, when they are not plainly absurd (as above), anouncing that you'll come up later with evidence (which obviously you wouldn't) and deferring it all to the alleged publication of your alleged book containing your alleged proof for your allegations.

You haven't answered in a concrete, specific and rational manner any of my questions., nor, for that matter, any other question you've been asked.

And you never will because you can't.

One final question, if I may, and I'm done: what are you by trade?

[Brian]

OK, well here we go again. How about the 'Haffner' Symphony ? Symphony No. 35. You believe this is by Mozart, don't you ?

Care to tell us why ?

[Brian]

By the way, Mr. Newman, if you start contacting publishers in September your book may not be ready for sale for another year, at a minimum.

[robnewman]

By the way, Mr. Newman, if you start contacting publishers in September your book may not be ready for sale for another year, at a minimum.

Well, I'm more optimistic !

Thanks

[robnewman]

Yes, but the timpani parts are actually by Leopold Mozart. This work came to Mozart from Salzburg. And this symphony is not by Mozart. Nor is the symphony KV444 which, up until the early 20th century was 'Mozart's Symphony No. 37'. You see, this requires a discussion - one I am happy to be involved in but only in the next few days. At which time I will present much evidence this work is NOT a symphony by W.A. Mozart despite being falsely performed by him in his name in Vienna in 1784.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Yes, but the timpani parts are actually by Leopold Mozart. This work came to Mozart from Salzburg. And this symphony is not by Mozart. Nor is the symphony KV444 which, up until the early 20th century was 'Mozart's Symphony No. 37'. You see, this requires a discussion - one I am happy to be involved in but only in the next few days. At which time I will present much evidence this work is NOT a symphony by W.A. Mozart despite being falsely performed by him in his name in Vienna in 1784.

Mr Newman, I trust you can read German? Here is a very relevant site with all the information about manuscript, parts, the sort of pencil which was used, everything:

http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nma_cont.php?vsep=106&l=1&p1=33

Re the contemporary timpani parts it reads, and I quote:

Das Hauptmaterial mit Str., den übrigen Hbls. und Cor. stammt von e i n e m Schreiber, Cl. und Timp. von zwei weiteren Händen (...)

What do you make of that? Where does it say that it was only Leopold Mozart?

Regards.

Johan

[robnewman]

Mr Newman, I trust you can read German? Here is a very relevant site with all the information about manuscript, parts, the sort of pencil which was used, everything:

http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nma_cont.php?vsep=106&l=1&p1=33

Re the contemporary timpani parts it reads, and I quote:

Das Hauptmaterial mit Str., den übrigen Hbls. und Cor. stammt von e i n e m Schreiber, Cl. und Timp. von zwei weiteren Händen (...)


Regards.

Johan

Yes, it doesn't say it was 'only' Leopold Mozart, does it ? And I never said it was 'only' Leopold Mozart, did I ? In fact if you read my post carefully I said the timpani parts are by Leopold Mozart.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Yes, it doesn't say it was 'only' Leopold Mozart, does it ? And I never said it was 'only' Leopold Mozart, did I ? In fact I said the timpani parts are by Leopold Mozart.

You said quite categorically the timpani parts were by Leopold Mozart, whereas the extant materials point to two, unspecified, 'hands'. That's all.

[robnewman]

You said quite categorically the timpani parts were by Leopold Mozart, whereas the extant materials point to two, unspecified, 'hands'. That's all.

These are the words that YOU used right here on this thread -

Where does it say that it was only Leopold Mozart?

Did you say this, or not ?

I NEVER said this manuscript is ONLY Leopold Mozart, did I ? I expressly said otherwise. The confusion has started with YOU. Since I never said this work is ONLY by Leopold Mozart, did I ?

The fact is (and you already agree with this fact) the TIMPANI parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart. Can we at least agree with this first fact ?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

These are the words that YOU used right here on this thread -

Where does it say that it was only Leopold Mozart?

Did you say this, or not ?

I NEVER said this manuscript is ONLY Leopold Mozart, did I ? I expressly said otherwise. The confusion has started with YOU. Since I never said this work is ONLY by Leopold Mozart, did I ?

The fact is (and you already agree with this fact) the TIMPANI parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart. Can we at least agree with this first fact ?

Yes. But we're talking about parts, not the score. For parts you could use copyists. Copyists don't compose.

[knight66]

Can I just get this straight? We are not talking about the score being in more than one hand, we are talking about the parts being in more than on hand, yes?

Was it normal for a busy composer to write out all the parts?

Mike

[robnewman]

Yes. But we're talking about parts, not the score. For parts you could use copyists. Copyists don't compose.

Yes, and once again, we need to step back from this. Just a moment. We are here discussing the 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385. Yes ? The symphony known generally as Symphony No. 35 of Mozart. Agreed ?

And the FACT is these TIMPANI parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.

The second FACT is they were sent TO Mozart in Vienna by LEOPOLD MOZART who was in Salzburg. Right ? That is the documentary fact. Right ? If you don't believe me I can produce evidence of this. But I told you at the start I would prefer to do so in a few days time. However, if you can't agree with these two basic FACTS just tell me and I will continue to show that both are true.

There are 5 parts to solving the question of this symphony and we are still at Part 1. Discussing these 2 FACTS. Do you agree with them or not ??