Mozart a fraud?

[Florestan]

If this were true, this would be the only conspiracy in the world about which those involved in it or having knowledge of it kept absolute silence.

I reiterate my still unanswered questions: how come that not a single one of the composers whose careers have been sacrificed for the sake of Mozart never ever spoke about that even to the closest relatives or acquaintances; not a single one of them made any mention of that in their diaries; not a single one of them confessed taking part in a giant fraud even on their deathbed?

Actually, how come that you seem to be the only person in the world aware of this conspiracy?

[Herman]

We could dispense with this whole thread,) and just read this little essay by "the brilliant independent scholar G. Taboga" (pace Newman).

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4tabog.htm

My alarm bells start ringing when I hear the phrase "independent scholar". This usually means a guy who cannot cut it in the standard procedure of peer review and sometimes it just means whack job. Sometimes it means both.

I won't use the word plagiarism, but Mr Taboga is the origin of each and every one of Newman's theses. The only difference is English is Newman's first language, while Taboga's argument benefits from a rather iffy command of the language. So while Newman cleverly hides his lack of evidence, Taboga cloaks it in defective prose, so you can't even be certain what he's trying to say.

In Taboga's lecture we again find the all-important "theorem": there are no self-taught geniuses  -  which is particularly rich coming from an autodidact in musicology  -  and this notion should support the theory that Haydn and Mozart could not possibly have composed their works. (To a degree Haydn could be termed self-taught; however, Mozart obviously was trained by his dad.)

Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi is granted an all-important role in Taboga's story, just as in Newman's. We are awed Haydn wrote as much as he did, but how about the notion that Haydn didn't write his stuff at all? There was a guy called Luchesi who not only wrote most of Haydn's oeuvre, but also wrote the Mozart symphonies we love You know what? Throw in some Beethoven too. How about that!

The Modena library and its files of Bonn material are again crucial. And indeed it would be good if scholars with sufficient responsibility and no resentment agendas started working on this material (but maybe this has already been done. Who knows? Taboga or Newman wouldn't be telling us).

Two things I find rather intriguing. In many cases the question cui bono remains unanswered. Mozart steals a symphony or a concerto from another composer and then doesn't perform the piece at all. No fame, no fortune. This would only make sense if Mozart and his helpmates were sure his fame would only grow over the centuries. But that's our thinking, not Mozart's. Mozart and Haydn hoped to be famous in their day, and could only imagine an afterlife like J. S. Bach's whose chamber works circulated among congoscienti, but were never performed publicly 'till Mendelssohn revived Bach's public works. Newman's talk about the 'music industry' is one of his many anachronisms. There was no centralized music industry until much later. Nationalism has been an important issue in 19th and 20th century music; however the only classical composer who was unambiguously "German" is Beethoven, which is part of the reason why he became a German icon, along with Bach and Goethe. Haydn and Mozart were never part of this thing.

Bach brings me to the second point: apparently these amateur sleuths are not interested in the chamber music. Not just because Mozart's string quartets are not as well know by the gullible larger public, but also because the autograph for these works is, in many cases, available. The record is material and incontestable. So we're supposed to believe that Mozart could write these intensily sophisticated works for string quartet  -  even though he was supposedly inadequately schooled  -  but in the case of a rather straightforward piece like the Haffner Symphony the composer had to rely on plagiarism?

Sorry for the long post.

[robnewman]

If this were true, this would be the only conspiracy in the world about which those involved in it or having knowledge of it kept absolute silence.

I reiterate my still unanswered questions: how come that not a single one of the composers whose careers have been sacrificed for the sake of Mozart never ever spoke about that even to the closest relatives or acquaintances; not a single one of them made any mention of that in their diaries; not a single one of them confessed taking part in a giant fraud even on their deathbed?

Actually, how come that you seem to be the only person in the world aware of this conspiracy?

The very opposite is true. Conspiracies happen all the time. Every day of the year there are criminal prosecutions which show that crimes were planned as conspiracies. It's the very nature of conspiracy to be secret. How can you argue like this ? The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy. So were the crimes of 9/11. Do you believe that people who conspire place ads in local newspapers ?

[Florestan]

The very opposite is true. Conspiracies happen all the time. Every day of the year there are criminal prosecutions which show that crimes were planned as conspiracies. It's the very nature of conspiracy to be secret. How can you argue like this ? The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy. So were the crimes of 9/11. Do you believe that people who conspire place ads in local newspapers ?

Answering questions with questions, as usual...

[robnewman]

We could dispense with this whole thread,) and just read this little essay by "the brilliant independent scholar G. Taboga" (pace Newman).

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4tabog.htm

My alarm bells start ringing when I hear the phrase "independent scholar". This usually means a guy who cannot cut it in the standard procedure of peer review and sometimes it just means whack job. Sometimes it means both.

I won't use the word plagiarism, but Mr Taboga is the origin of each and every one of Newman's theses. The only difference is English is Newman's first language, while Taboga's argument benefits from a rather iffy command of the language. So while Newman cleverly hides his lack of evidence, Taboga cloaks it in defective prose, so you can't even be certain what he's trying to say.

In Taboga's lecture we again find the all-important "theorem": there are no self-taught geniuses  -  which is particularly rich coming from an autodidact in musicology  -  and this notion should support the theory that Haydn and Mozart could not possibly have composed their works. (To a degree Haydn could be termed self-taught; however, Mozart obviously was trained by his dad.)

Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi is granted an all-important role in Taboga's story, just as in Newman's. We are awed Haydn wrote as much as he did, but how about the notion that Haydn didn't write his stuff at all? There was a guy called Luchesi who not only wrote most of Haydn's oeuvre, but also wrote the Mozart symphonies we love You know what? Throw in some Beethoven too. How about that!

The Modena library and its files of Bonn material are again crucial. And indeed it would be good if scholars with sufficient responsibility and no resentment agendas started working on this material (but maybe this has already been done. Who knows? Taboga or Newman wouldn't be telling us).

Two things I find rather intriguing. In many cases the question cui bono remains unanswered. Mozart steals a symphony or a concerto from another composer and then doesn't perform the piece at all. No fame, no fortune. This would only make sense if Mozart and his helpmates were sure his fame would only grow over the centuries. But that's our thinking, not Mozart's. Mozart and Haydn hoped to be famous in their day, and could only imagine an afterlife like J. S. Bach's whose chamber works circulated among congoscienti, but were never performed publicly 'till Mendelssohn revived Bach's public works. Newman's talk about the 'music industry' is one of his many anachronisms. There was no centralized music industry until much later. Nationalism has been an important issue in 19th and 20th century music; however the only classical composer who was unambiguously "German" is Beethoven, which is part of the reason why he became a German icon, along with Bach and Goethe. Haydn and Mozart were never part of this thing.

Bach brings me to the second point: apparently these amateur sleuths are not interested in the chamber music. Not just because Mozart's string quartets are not as well know by the gullible larger public, but also because the autograph for these works is, in many cases, available. The record is material and incontestable. So we're supposed to believe that Mozart could write these intensily sophisticated works for string quartet  -  even though he was supposedly inadequately schooled  -  but in the case of a rather straightforward piece like the Haffner Symphony the composer had to rely on plagiarism?

Sorry for the long post.

My alarm bells start ringing when we see incubator chicken pupils who accept, wholesale, what is given to them by the corporate Mozart industry and its supporters.

Giorgio Taboga has done more for independent music research than most people alive today. He spent literally years studying these issues, along with various others. The article you are reading is poorly translated, of course. But yes, this field has some highly talented people in it. And Taboga is one of them. As many people now know.

His views are his own. I agree with them. Not all of them. Of course. But that's natural. We are independent music researchers. But I have other colleagues who act the same.  And I am in contact with him and various others. This too is completely normal. Independence is where the action really is. As usual. When I see the corporate dogmas of Mozarteans and the results of their teachings on music students my suspicions are instantly aroused too. That's fair, normal and routine. And we see their behaviour. Their education is challenged and they fill websites with insults, diversions and irrelevancies. That's the difference and people are starting to tell the difference.

[Herman]

The best thing you could do, since this is about getting attention and about some strange resentment about things that happened two centuries ago (Mozart wrote better music than Luchesi; that's not fair!), is hire someone who can help you write yet another Dan Brown me-too biblio-thriller. The material  definitely has potential.

You're wasting your time here. And ours too.

Go write a novel.

[robnewman]

Answering questions with questions, as usual...

Yes, but when your post is so silly it's time for you to reconsider what you have written. The fact that conspiracies are NOT publicised is about as basic a fact as anyone can learn.

[robnewman]

The best thing you could do, since this is about getting attention and about some strange resentment about things that happened two centuries ago (Mozart wrote better music than Luchesi; that's not fair!), is hire someone who can help you write yet another Dan Brown me-too biblio-thriller. The material  definitely has potential.

You're wasting your time here. And ours too.

Go write a novel.

Thanks for your suggestion. I am happy making music research and am busy writing on the manufactured career of W.A. Mozart. But if you don't like it you have millions of other options.

[Florestan]

The fact that conspiracies are NOT publicised is about as basic a fact as anyone can learn.

You misunderstood my post. It was not about publicising the conspiracy. Read again carefully, please.

[robnewman]

You misunderstood my post. It was not about publicising the conspiracy. Read again carefully, please.

But your posts are littered with errors. I am not the only person who is working in this field, as you yourself must surely realise. There are various others. And that's because the field of classical music is so filled with exaggerations, falsehoods, idolatry and downright errors. The subject of Mozart is itself riddled with falsehoods. And that's a plain fact. Insulting those who point this out does nothing. Why not actually read the material instead of defending what is really a fairy story ? Better still, read both, and free yourself from wasting time in posts that achieve nothing.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I have listened to (part of) your interview on Red Ice Creations, Mr. Newman, just to get as best a picture of what you are asserting as possible. Yes, I was wrong in saying you maintain Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's oeuvre, but what you do say in the interview is that Mozart hardly wrote anything ascribed to him.

For those (still) interested:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php

[Florestan]

Insulting those who point this out does nothing.

Where and how have I insulted you, pray tell?

[robnewman]

I have listened to (part of) your interview on Red Ice Creations, Mr. Newman, just to get as best a picture of what you are asserting as possible. Yes, I was wrong in saying you maintain Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's oeuvre, but what you do say in the interview is that Mozart hardly wrote anything ascribed to him.

For those (still) interested:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php

Yes Jezetha,

My findings (and others too) is that W.A. Mozart wrote very few of the musical works which are traditionally attributed to him. Saying this is rather easy. Showing this to be true far less easy, of course. And showing who DID write these works more difficult still. But yes, that is correct. That many composers are associated with 'Mozart's' music is indisputable. We only need to see the history of Mozart attributions over the past 200 years or so to see this clearly. With symphonies, masses, sonatas, concertos, and even operas etc. So the process of taking on a vast number of works takes time. Over the past decade and more it has become possible to narrow down the field. To the point where it's generally acknowledged already that of Mozart's childhood works few, if any, are really of his own composition. As we move in to the period of his youth and the period that ends with his ill fated trip to Paris of 1778 the situation continued, though with every attempt being made by his sponsors and supporters to hide the facts of the case. And specially so after his final arrival in Vienna, where he was to spend the last decade of his life.

The study of his performance history and of his reputation as a great virtuoso and performer is another subject that needed detailed study. But here too the same is true. So that what we have is really the manufacture of Mozart's reputation, much of it done in his lifetime but also, of course, in the decades which followed his death in December 1791. The affair of the Requiem is one well known case where exaggerations, falsehoods, errors and downright falsehood have featured in the story, virtually from the time of his death. And this is typical.

As far as the great concertos, symphonies and operas is concerned, well, by the time one starts to examine these in real detail one has the benefit of a track record. So it was possible to make real progress on each of these. I can say, honestly, that the operas of Mozart were not by Mozart. Though, of course, attributed to him. The full story of each being complex in each case.

So that, yes, we are dealing here with something quite unique in western music. With the rise of an industry and with the wholesale bending of truth. This at the cost of suppressing many, many musicians and their achievements from the official record. And the details of which are slowly, inevitably, coming in to wider recognition.

The motives of those involved (patrons and other composers) ranged from person to person. But the net effect is the same. The rise of a control on music and its history, of the development of iconic status for a handful of selected composers, and the exclusion (even the suppression) of the careers of many others. So that the teaching of music and its history, the control we see of music teaching itself, and of books on music history, have tended to become, slowly but surely, a reflection of a myth, a central part of which is the cult of Mozart, 'musical genius' and icon of western music.

Regards

[robnewman]

Where and how have I insulted you, pray tell?

Florestan,

If your posts could focus on Mozart and his official career I'm sure we could all have the benefit of a conversation that would be of real value.

The object of the exercise in manufacturing Mozart's career was control. The control we see today in the music industry, the teaching of music, and our ideas of music history itself.

Anything that we (you and I) can do to explore this area with regard to Mozart is highly relevant.

Regards

[Florestan]

The motives of those involved (patrons and other composers) ranged from person to person.

Please give us the motives of just two persons out of many:

1. Luchesi
2. Cartellieri

It shouldn't be difficult since you've studied them extensively.

[Lethevich]

The subject of Mozart is itself riddled with falsehoods. And that's a plain fact.

Then why haven't you been able to convince any of the numerous sensible people on this board of it? So far your evidence has hardly come close to facts.

[Lethevich]

Please give us the motives of just two persons out of many:

1. Luchesi
2. Cartellieri

It shouldn't be difficult since you've studied them extensively.

Indeed - and make sure that it is sourced from somewhere other than "my friend said this".

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I think I'm reaching a conclusion here - I think, Mr Newman, you'll simply have to write your book and publish it. GMG is not the right forum, and that's why I won't be reacting anymore, if only to keep you chained to the desk where you ought to be writing your magnum opus.

I am not interested in the question whether you are a 'crank', 'nutcase' or what have you. Those epithets are meaningless and beside the point. You think you (and a few others) have discovered something of major importance. Okay. Give us the definitive proof in a book that will shock the musical establishment.

It's your life, it's your conviction, it's your endeavour. And you are nothing if not tenacious.

I wish you luck and await your revolutionary book.

Ciao!

[Herman]

We are independent music researchers. [...] Independence is where the action really is. As usual. [...] Their education is challenged and they fill websites with insults, diversions and irrelevancies.

The irony seems to elude you. You claim indepedence from academic musicology is where it's at. And yet the central tenet of your attack on Mozart is he was self-taught (which he wasn't, but that's beyond you) and thus incapable of composing the Mozart works.

Intellectual indepedence in academic life is vouchsafed by tenure. Not by opting out. And certainly not by autodidacticism. Academic research in the humanities is an unglamorous incremental business in which very few researchers can claim big discoveries. Generations build on each other's incremental progress. This is something autodidacts typically have no patience for. They want to make a big splash, also to show up academics, who took the long hard road. The stuff in the Modena library looks interesting, and, as I said, maybe it has already been researched by bonafide scholars (you wouldn't tell us if they had). However it's likely this material will fit into the mainstream corpus, rather than totally reverse what we know so far.

You can be an independent scholar and still submit to peer review. However, addressing a 'musicological' paper to a math dept is rather different.

[DavidRoss]

I am not interested in the question whether you are a 'crank', 'nutcase' or what have you. Those epithets are meaningless and beside the point.

Nope, Jezetha, recognizing that "Newman" is a nutcase is the point.  If he were not, this thread would not even exist.  If he were not, intelligent discussion of his thesis would be possible.  He would recognize that extraordinary claims contradicting well-established facts require extraordinary evidence.  He would offer verifiable evidence to support his claims.

However, he offers no evidence.  He does not even respond directly with answers to reasonable questions raised by his claims, but raises smokescreens of childish rhetorical tricks in pathetic attempts to evade accountability.  Instead of publishing his "findings" in legitimate journals that would require real evidence and sources, he skulks internet bulletin boards in a desperate bid for attention, where he has a history of making himself so obnoxious that he gets banned time and again.

Those who are slow to recognize that "Newman" is a nut are apt to be drawn in by him and to expect reasonable behavior.  He is not reasonable and it is a mistake to expect him to be...and foolish to demand it of him.  His command of language is adequate to suggest he's not stupid, but deranged.  Knowing that he's a nutcase--and not a normal human being attempting to be rational within the limits of his aptitude and training--is essential to knowing what to expect of him and how to deal with him.  The poor fellow needs to be helped, not humored.