Mozart a fraud?

[karlhenning]

There's not much to fear if this is the worst he can do!!! Sort of comically bad evidence!

I knew from the outset that there was not the least to fear. Chap is a loon.

[karlhenning]

Asking questions 'stead of providing evidence.

One doesn't have to be familiar with C's music. Even if it were terrific, that doesn't mean he also wrote Mozart's terrific music.

Surgically done, sir.

[Joe Barron]

IOH

[greg]

Dude, get a life.

[Florestan]

No, I don't see any problem with these questions, since each of them is supported by a mass of evidence and each of them has been studied in great detail from all perspectives.

Oh, yes, especially the question of Clinton's heterosexuality, which has received the minutest and most multi-perspectivist study by that famous scholar of the field, Monica Lewinsky.

[Holly]

I wonder whether this book will actually materialise this September as he promises.  I know that he has been vaguely talking about a book for several years now but I never thought it was a likelihood.  Perhaps by now he has been goaded sufficiently to realise that this is perhaps all he can now do to advance his cause, as he appears to have run out of internet forums on which to set out his views.  

I don't know if anyone may have listened to his recent interviews with the Swedish radio station (flagged up by someone  in an earlier post), but I did so and was struck by the timidity of the interviewer.  I am trying to imagine how the radio/tv news media might react if and when this book comes out.   I guess there might possibly be some coverage by the BBC's Radio 3 "breakfast" programme, and it may give them something a bit more exciting to chat about than their usual reports of issues like lost Stradivari violins etc.  Robert Newman might tip off its main presenter, Rob Cowan, in advance.  He could become the hot news of September, and people start chucking out all their "Mozart" CDs, and ordering god knows what instead! But I suspect that pigs will fly first.

To be as fair as possible to Robert in this, his latest venture on a big internet classical music forum, he did stand his ground against quite a barrage of questioning.  Admittedly it was all the usual unconvincing material, but at least he delivers his responses quickly, some of which I found very humorous indeed.  He doesn't generally get "personal" unless he is severely provoked.  Having encountered Robert on several previous occasions, I would say that he is actually a very knowledgeable person about music of the period in question, and when he is not going on about various controversy issues is very interesting to chat with in respect of other composers with whom he has no quarrel (e.g. Bach, Handel, Schubert).  I would like to thank him for coming here and giving us (or me at least) one last chance to "repent" before he attempts to seek a wider public audience later this year.

[Florestan]

composers with whom he has no quarrel (e.g. Bach, Handel, Schubert).  

Do you mean he has quarrels with Haydn and Beethoven as well? 

[Herman]

Holly, did you come to GMG just for debating Mr Newman? Scrolling through this thread it's pretty obvious you are one of his main enablers. Members here have been advising to let this silly non-issue just die and let this thread be buried under more genuine discussion threads. And there you are bumping it with a gushing account of Mr Newman on "swedish radio".

Holly, about this 'book': every year tens of thousands books see the light. Including books on conspiracy theories such as Mr Newman's. Nutjobs no serious publisher wants to touch. I was kind of struck by the fact that no publisher has been mentioned so far. If a 300 pages or more book is placed (by an agent) with a major publisher, to be published in September, it would have been in production before now, Mr Newman would have been very busy with reading proofs rather than spending entire days posting and being banned on the internet. Marketing would be well underway. Books have a very long production time. However, maybe we're talking about a DIY type of publisher (IF the book exists at all), but then there is virtually no chance it will ever be noticed by any kind of media.

I suggest we let this topic die a peaceful death. Mr Newman has admitted he has no evidence, and that's it.

[Catison]

To be as fair as possible to Robert in this, his latest venture on a big internet classical music forum, he did stand his ground against quite a barrage of questioning.  Admittedly it was all the usual unconvincing material, but at least he delivers his responses quickly, some of which I found very humorous indeed.  He doesn't generally get "personal" unless he is severely provoked.  Having encountered Robert on several previous occasions, I would say that he is actually a very knowledgeable person about music of the period in question, and when he is not going on about various controversy issues is very interesting to chat with in respect of other composers with whom he has no quarrel (e.g. Bach, Handel, Schubert).  I would like to thank him for coming here and giving us (or me at least) one last chance to "repent" before he attempts to seek a wider public audience later this year.

Yes, I would agree as well.  This points to Newman's battle-scarred past and his incomparable rhetorical genius.  I have not seen questions dodged so artfully in a long time.  But I have a different question about this whole thing.

Why, again, is such a knowledgeable person wasting time here or on any internet forum?  Newman obviously sees enough evidence that he is quite sure Mozart composed almost none of his music.  That is legitimate.  Perhaps this evidence is easily attainable from the many sources available on Mozart.  How are we to know?  We are not Mozart scholars?  I am puzzled by this demand for evidence from an Internet forum.  This is a place to discuss an appreciation of Mozart, not the historicity of Mozart.  That is best left to experts, of which Newman might be one.  But this is a little like walking into a children's playground and demanding evidence for Newtonian physics.  Should he feel proud because we aren't experts?

I think we all know there are works falsely attributed to Mozart and that Mozart's autograph is missing from many of his works.  But it is quite rational to believe the overwhelming consensus, all, admittedly in a way I don't pretend to know, with the weight of historical and musicological scholarship behind it.  Until we see otherwise, there is absolutely no good reason for us to change our minds, why would we?

So, Mr. Newman, I would recommend against statements that tell us you see the facts the way they are, and instead try to convince us your perspective is right.

[robnewman]

Yes, I would agree as well.  This points to Newman's battle-scarred past and his incomparable rhetorical genius.  I have not seen questions dodged so artfully in a long time.  But I have a different question about this whole thing.

Why, again, is such a knowledgeable person wasting time here or on any internet forum?  Newman obviously sees enough evidence that he is quite sure Mozart composed almost none of his music.  That is legitimate.  Perhaps this evidence is easily attainable from the many sources available on Mozart.  How are we to know?  We are not Mozart scholars?  I am puzzled by this demand for evidence from an Internet forum.  This is a place to discuss an appreciation of Mozart, not the historicity of Mozart.  That is best left to experts, of which Newman might be one.  But this is a little like walking into a children's playground and demanding evidence for Newtonian physics.  Should he feel proud because we aren't experts?

I think we all know there are works falsely attributed to Mozart and that Mozart's autograph is missing from many of his works.  But it is quite rational to believe the overwhelming consensus, all, admittedly in a way I don't pretend to know, with the weight of historical and musicological scholarship behind it.  Until we see otherwise, there is absolutely no good reason for us to change our minds, why would we?

So, Mr. Newman, I would recommend against statements that tell us you see the facts the way they are, and instead try to convince us your perspective is right.

Thank you for this Catison. In answer to your question of why I am, 'wasting time here or on any internet forum' the simple answer is that I am no more wasting my time here than you are. Since we both have the choice to post on internet forums. And your views are as valuable as my own. Do you 'waste your time' on forums ? I think I never have. In my case, the objective is to share freely with others my considered views on the subject, to be accountable for them in advance of publishing a book on them, and to see on what grounds others may hold the contrary view. It would be a strange thing for a person to spend a long time in books without being touch in with his audience, and to make diligent enquiries from experts and ordinary people about these issues. So that the result can be better, and so that people can form their own judgements. Music forums have that value - that we can often talk to people whose views are very different from our own. And that we can, with mutual respect, profit from the experience of sharing these views. And so that we can, having discussed them, see things we perhaps had not seen before.

You write -

I think we all know there are works falsely attributed to Mozart and that Mozart's autograph is missing from many of his works.  But it is quite rational to believe the overwhelming consensus, all, admittedly in a way I don't pretend to know, with the weight of historical and musicological scholarship behind it.  Until we see otherwise, there is absolutely no good reason for us to change our minds, why would we?

Well, this is an interesting statement. You acknowledge there are works falsely attributed to Mozart. And that autographs are missing from 'many' of his works. In effect, you admit that these works may not be by him. And this without anyone imposing their views on you. This, however, does not influence you in throwing away the 'overwhelming consensus'. A consensus which you say exists 'admittedly in a way I don't pretend to know'. Well, what is the basis of this 'consensus' if it's unknown to you ? On what evidence is it based ? And how can we accept it if we don't know its basis ? Perhaps you are impressed by the fact that it's huge in scale ? That almost everyone tends to believe it. Though that doesn't help us know on what it is based, does it ? There must be some great secret, some justification for the popularity of their view. Which has, so far, been kept from you, and from me. But if we go in search of its basis (as I have) the strange thing is that it doesn't seem to exist.

Now, you will readily agree that many textbooks are heavily dependent on earlier texbooks. That the quoting of previous writers is commonly found in textbooks in footnotes etc etc. A work being seen as 'authoritive' is it quotes dozens, even hundreds of publications. But this process, especially on such issues as Mozart and his career, tends to give us a false picture if, at the end of it, we still cannot say on what basis the 'overwhelming consensus' is actually based. We are forced, if we are honest, to go back, as close as we can, to the original, or to examine issues freshly, from a different perspective.

Which brings me to your second statement on changing your view, that -

Until we see otherwise, there is absolutely no good reason for us to change our minds, why would we ?

Fine. But you've just said you don't claim to know why you believe as you do. You've admitted that the overwhelming view is the one you accept. That it is the basis of what you believe. And so, I hope you agree, believe as you do because others believe as they do. And so on. Which is exactly where we started. With textbooks quoting other textbooks etc.

There is, within so much that we see and read today, a sort of 'safety' in going along with the popular view. Of seeing tradition as having its own virtue. But in the case of history, and especially of this subject of Mozart, we find very little cross-examination of the subject itself. Almost no criticism. Not like politics, or theories in science, or investigations generally. The subject is like a closed book. And since it's a closed book it seems strange when somebody actually criticises the dogmas. As we must.

Anyway, thanks for our exchanges.

Regards

Robert

[Catison]

Do you 'waste your time' on forums ?

This is entirely dependent upon our goals.  For me, it is to share an appreciation of music, not to unlock the secrets of a particular composer's life.  There is a different forum for that, namely the forum of music scholarship.  I am not here to change anyone's mind.

Well, this is an interesting statement. You acknowledge there are works falsely attributed to Mozart. And that autographs are missing from 'many' of his works. In effect, you admit that these works may not be by him. And this without anyone imposing their views on you. This, however, does not influence you in throwing away the 'overwhelming consensus'.

No it doesn't.  I wouldn't be surprised if many pieces attributed to Mozart were not by him.  The guy wrote a lot of stuff and his name sells music, so what is an unscrupulous music publisher to do?  The same thing was unearthed about Pergolesi.  But what I am not prepared to accept is that Mozart didn't write any of his music, especially the excepted masterpieces, without some substantial, easily discernible evidence or without a change in scholastic consensus.  Just because the Gallo trio sonatas were once attributed to Pergolesi (just ask Stravinsky) doesn't mean Pergolesi couldn't have written the Stabat Mater.

Now, you will readily agree that many textbooks are heavily dependent on earlier texbooks. That the quoting of previous writers is commonly found in textbooks in footnotes etc etc. A work being seen as 'authoritive' is it quotes dozens, even hundreds of publications. But this process, especially on such issues as Mozart and his career, tends to give us a false picture if, at the end of it, we still cannot say on what basis the 'overwhelming consensus' is actually based. We are forced, if we are honest, to go back, as close as we can, to the original, or to examine issues freshly, from a different perspective.

What do you suggest as an alternative?  Must each of us, in order to appreciate Mozart, consult the primary sources, or is it OK to read other literature?  If we are going to read other people's work on Mozart, isn't a book that cites many sources better, all else being equal, that one that cites nothing?  Of course the citation system can be abused, but that doesn't mean (again) that we throw the whole thing out.

But go ahead and write your book.  Go to the primary sources.  You have an audience eagerly awaiting all these supposed facts.  Keeping them from us is not doing you any good.

The subject is like a closed book. And since it's a closed book it seems strange when somebody actually criticises the dogmas. As we must.

Isn't this a little ironic.  You have basically closed the book on your own investigation.  Alternatively, doesn't the public, e.g., this forum, have the duty to question every crackpot theory that comes up?

[robnewman]

Well, this gets more and more surreal. You write -

''I wouldn't be surprised if many pieces attributed to Mozart were not by him'.

Er, isn't this what we are talking about on this thread ?

You ask what I suggest as an alternative to books quoting other books. Well, if books quote other books and nobody seems to know the basis on which the consensus view is based (including your goodself) we are close to absurdity, don't you agree ? My alternative is that books should continue to quote other books and that we, the people who read books, should learn the basis of the consensus view itself. It's a bit like learning the last secret of Fatima, it seems !

I promise not to keep any facts from you. Let me share with you here the principal fact. That the musical career of W.A. Mozart was almost entirely manufactured.

You ask -

'Doesn't the public, e.g. this forum, have the duty to question every crackpot theory that comes up' ?

Great question. Yes, of course it does. Let me as a member of the public question the crackpot theory that Mozart was a musical genius. Since nobody seems to know why this is universally believed. Including your goodself  

Regards

[Florestan]

Mr. Newman, you still haven't answered, not even at a very basic level,  questions that've been asked repeteadly: Who concocted this Mozart fraud? For what purpose? How did he (or they) manage to drag twenty-four composers with great merit on their own into this? Why did none of these composers disclose the fraud, not even to their closest relatives and friends, not even on their deathbeds, not even in their secret diaries?

[Herman]

Newman,

you claim you have written a book on this subject and it's due in September. That means it's in production now. I want you to tell us a couple of things about this book:

which publisher is publishing this book

what is the title.

how many pages.

A propos your discussion with Catison about who is wasting time on internet forums: Catison question was legit since you claim to be busy with your book, and yet you clearly spend ten hrs a day, if not more, monitoring this thread, posting lengthy rebuttals and non-proofs. Catison clearly posts for pleasure, when time allows. That's the difference between wasting one's time and having fun.

However, be so good as to answer the 3 above questions. It should be simple.

[robnewman]

Mr. Newman, you still haven't answered, not even at a very basic level,  questions that've been asked repeteadly: Who concocted this Mozart fraud? For what purpose? How did he (or they) manage to drag twenty-four composers with great merit on their own into this? Why did none of these composers disclose the fraud, not even to their closest relatives and friends, not even on their deathbeds, not even in their secret diaries?

Florestan,

Thank you for these questions. I must admit that, so far, we've talked about the Clarinet Quintet, the Clarinet Concerto, Cartellieri, and all kinds of questions about the Mozart industry. So you can perhaps understand why other questions have never really had a chance to be discussed.

In answer to your question, the manufacture of Mozart's reputation was a deliberate and wholesale project of falsification, rather like that which we find with William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. Since, in both cases, there are many, many reasons to say that he was not the true author of those plays which are traditionally atrributed to him. And people have been saying this for close to 300 years or so. A whole library of literature says so. But in the case of the Mozart the subject is fairly new. Yet it's the same sort of thing. In fact the parallels are striking.

The manufacture of the Mozart myth was one of many projects to obtain control. Control over the whole music industry. The same as we see forces controlling, say, banking, or finance, or politics, or the media, or the film industry, or almost all other aspects of our lives. The arts are no different. This happened at a time when publishing and books etc. were a sector that was rigidly controlled. All books and music publications had been vetted, for centuries, by the Jesuits of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, they had a monopoly in publishing which they enjoyed virtually up until 1773. (i.e. up until Mozart was around 16 years old). After 1773 the control of music promotion and publishing was secularised. But from that time onwards its control slipped in to the hands of the fraternities, such as the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and even the Bavarian Illuminati. A fact which every study of the subject confirms. By the time of Mozart's arrival in Vienna (1781/2) the whole industry was in their hands.

A second factor was, of course, that it's much easier to deal with a few superstars than a dozen poor composers. So the idea of musical superman had lots of appeal. Thirdly, the idea of Vienna, the 'city of music' required just such iconic composers. And so Haydn, then Mozart, and finally Beethoven fitted the bill exactly. In the case of Mozart the most fantastic exaggerations were made. These protected by the elites who sponsored music at that time. So that Mozart's reputation (which was almost entirely that of private, not a public composer) became a 'legend'. Though most people, most ordinary people, had never seen or heard of him. It became so ridiculous that musicians themselves (including writers on music and composers) failed to notice 'Mozart's' own works in his own lifetime. Take two examples. The great German music writer Forkel. In his Alamanac of music and musicians of 1789 he fails to refer to 'Mozart's' famous operas of 'Figaro' or 'Don Giovanni'. This because, in fact, Mozart was widely credited with these only later. The fraternities, of course, were loud in their praise of Mozart. Take one example. The Marriage of Figaro. This was premiered in Vienna as a Mozart opera but it was hissed and booed because it was such poor standard music. What really happened was that this music of Figaro was only an arrangement made by Mozart of great music that already existed. By others. He arranged it for Vienna and Lorenzo da Ponte changed its original German text into an Italian opera. The one we know today. Later it was improved again (in Prague). And has been falsely known ever since as Mozart's opera. And many, many of 'his' works were completely unknown. Then there was a famous writer on music theory, Heinrich Koch. He wrote a 2 volume book on music in 1793, and he discusses the subject of Piano Concertos. But he never once mentions Mozart. The scam continued. Especially after Mozart's own life ended. The manufacture of his iconic status. The closer we study this the more clear it is that this whole subject is a great publicity stunt.

Yes, much of this music (though not all of it) is beautiful. But it's by other composers. All the operas. All the symphonies. All the concertos etc. And this, until now, is said to be 'the genius of Mozart'.

To achieve this scam, of course, the talents of many composers were recruited. Because the 'mission' was deemed to be a sacred one. It involved many composers whose loyalty was to the Holy Roman Empire. Men who were prepared to sacrifice their time and talents to the project. And did so. Even to the point of their own names becoming almost unknown.

We are able to know these things only by detailed study of manuscripts, of contemporary evidence, of seeing the track record of 'his' music over the past 200 years. By examining in close detail the correspondence, the diaries of others, etc etc. A big job, for sure.

It wasn't so much money. That wasn't really the motive. It was a mission of the fraternities of that time. And, over the next decades the reputation of Mozart grew, so that it finally started to dominate performance, publishing, and even textbooks on music history. Few have, until now, started to ask the basic questions all over again.

Regards

[Herman]

Newman,

you claim you have written a book on this subject and it's due in September. That means it's in production now. I want you to tell us a couple of things about this book:

which publisher is publishing this book

what is the title.

how many pages.

strange, eerie silence...

[robnewman]

Newman,

you claim you have written a book on this subject and it's due in September. That means it's in production now. I want you to tell us a couple of things about this book:

which publisher is publishing this book

what is the title.

how many pages.

A propos your discussion with Catison about who is wasting time on internet forums: Catison question was legit since you claim to be busy with your book, and yet you clearly spend ten hrs a day, if not more, monitoring this thread, posting lengthy rebuttals and non-proofs. Catison clearly posts for pleasure, when time allows. That's the difference between wasting one's time and having fun.

However, be so good as to answer the 3 above questions. It should be simple.

Herman,

The name of the book is to be 'The Manufacture of Mozart'.

I don't know the name of the publisher. I don't have a publisher and have not spent a second thinking about it. But friends of mine (some of which are musicologists) have suggested a publisher in France. Others suggested a publisher in Italy. The idea that we have time to publicise it is fiction. We don't. I've months and months of work to do and am working slowly to finish a manuscript. Which I estimate I will finish by late September.

How many pages ? I don't know. There will be sections dealing with the works themselves. The concertos, the symphonies, the operas, the church music, etc. And others dealing with biography, with the history of Mozart publications, with the massive discrepancies in the story, with suggestions and with discussions on other, lesser known people who played a role in the story. I would suppose there will be around 400 pages minimum. I just don't know. But I can tell you I have literally hundreds of files on virtually all aspects of the subject. So these posts to this forum are my last contacts on the subject. And since I work at my desk I naturally keep in contact with others by email and internet. Which allows me these posts, for example.

I respect anyone's right to hold their own views. That's great.

Regards

[robnewman]

strange, eerie silence...

Why ? 5 minutes and you feel like that ? 

[Herman]

What a load of twaddle. The funny thing is it would be much more persuasive if this was about Beethoven, who indeed achieved iconic status for extra-musical reasons, being the big 19th century German musical genius.

There is no reason why Mozart should be made an icon, not for the comfort of musicologists (there was no formal musicology until much later), not for the benefit of 19th C musicians, who were performing contemporary composers rather than the like sof Mozart (except in chamber music circumstances) and not for the record industry because there was none untill recently. What use would it be to steal symphonies nr 39, 40 and 41 from other composers? It took ages before these works became part of the symphonic repertoire.

So even the question cui bono turns out to be a dead end: there were very few people who benefited from this sinister business of creating a Mozart icon.

Florestan,

Thank you for these questions. I must admit that, so far, we've talked about the Clarinet Quintet, the Clarinet Concerto, Cartellieri, and all kinds of questions about the Mozart industry. So you can perhaps understand why other questions have never really had a chance to be discussed.

In answer to your question, the manufacture of Mozart's reputation was a deliberate and wholesale project of falsification, rather like that which we find with William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. Since, in both cases, there are many, many reasons to say that he was not the true author of those plays which are traditionally atrributed to him. And people have been saying this for close to 300 years or so. A whole library of literature says so. But in the case of the Mozart the subject is fairly new. Yet it's the same sort of thing. In fact the parallels are striking.

The manufacture of the Mozart myth was one of many projects to obtain control. Control over the whole music industry. The same as we see forces controlling, say, banking, or finance, or politics, or the media, or the film industry, or almost all other aspects of our lives. The arts are no different. This happened at a time when publishing and books etc. were a sector that was rigidly controlled. All books and music publications had been vetted, for centuries, by the Jesuits of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, they had a monopoly in publishing which they enjoyed virtually up until 1773. (i.e. up until Mozart was around 16 years old). After 1773 the control of music promotion and publishing was secularised. But from that time onwards its control slipped in to the hands of the fraternities, such as the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and even the Bavarian Illuminati. A fact which every study of the subject confirms. By the time of Mozart's arrival in Vienna (1781/2) the whole industry was in their hands.

A second factor was, of course, that it's much easier to deal with a few superstars than a dozen poor composers. So the idea of musical superman had lots of appeal. Thirdly, the idea of Vienna, the 'city of music' required just such iconic composers. And so Haydn, then Mozart, and finally Beethoven fitted the bill exactly. In the case of Mozart the most fantastic exaggerations were made. These protected by the elites who sponsored music at that time. So that Mozart's reputation (which was almost entirely that of private, not a public composer) became a 'legend'. Though most people, most ordinary people, had never seen or heard of him. It became so ridiculous that musicians themselves (including writers on music and composers) failed to notice 'Mozart's' own works in his own lifetime. Take two examples. The great German music writer Forkel. In his Alamanac of music and musicians of 1789 he fails to refer to 'Mozart's' famous operas of 'Figaro' or 'Don Giovanni'. This because, in fact, Mozart was credited with these only later. And many, many of 'his' works were completely unknown. Then there was a famous writer on music theory, Heinrich Koch. He wrote a 2 volume book on music in 1793, and he discusses the subject of Piano Concertos. But he never once mentions Mozart. The scam continued. Especially after Mozart's own life ended. The manufacture of his iconic status. The closer we study this the more clear it is that this whole subject is a great publicity stunt.

Yes, much of this music (though not all of it) is beautiful. But it's by other composers. All the operas. All the symphonies. All the concertos etc. And this, until now, is said to be 'the genius of Mozart'.

To achieve this scam, of course, the talents of many composers were recruited. Because the 'mission' was deemed to be a sacred one. It involved many composers whose loyalty was to the Holy Roman Empire. Men who were prepared to sacrifice their time and talents to the project. And did so. Even to the point of their own names becoming almost unknown.

We are able to know these things only by detailed study of manuscripts, of contemporary evidence, of seeing the track record of 'his' music over the past 200 years. By examining in close detail the correspondence, the diaries of others, etc etc. A big job, for sure.

It wasn't so much money. That wasn't really the motive. It was a mission of the fraternities of that time. And, over the next decades the reputation of Mozart grew, so that it finally started to dominate performance, publishing, and even textbooks on music history. Few have, until now, started to ask the basic questions all over again.

Regards

[Florestan]

To achieve this scam, of course, the talents of many composers were recruited. Because the 'mission' was deemed to be a sacred one. It involved many composers whose loyalty was to the Holy Roman Empire. Men who were prepared to sacrifice their time and talents to the project. And did so. Even to the point of their own names becoming almost unknown.

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?

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