Mozart a fraud?

[not edward]

I've answered your question. That's all.

No. You have failed to answer any questions whatsoever.

When you are pressed for evidence to support your ludicrous claims, you either ignore it or demand we produce evidence to support conventional scholarship--even though you have produced zero evidence whatsoever to impugn it.

When people do produce evidence that supports conventional scholarship, you either ignore it or pretend it doesn't apply.

There may have been people on this board who thought you were arguing in good faith when you started here. I will bet that there are none now.

[Scarpia]

Yes, as edward has mentioned, you find some absurd pretext to ignore every bit of the exhaustive evidence that contradicts your silly hypothesis.  Is there anyone on this board that has been convinced by anything you have posted or who does not recognize you as a self-deluded lunatic?

GMG members, perhaps we can show a modicum of collective will and STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD so it will sink to the depths and go away!  I volunteer to start.

[Josquin des Prez]

so it will sink to the depths and go away!

I think it's better that we archive this thread just in case failman is going to actually release his book.

[Herman]

STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD

let's do.

[Florestan]

we want to see some evidence from newspapers of the time during that entire Vienna decade for Mozart being a celebrated composer and performer of his own music.

How about the article by Ludwig August  Furstenbaum which appeared in Allgemeine Zeitschrift fuer Natuerwissenschaften und Kunsten, edited by Karl Johann Theodor Freiherr von Barnabowsky-Gnaustein, printed at Wilhelm Lubniczicz & Sons, 13 Schwangasse, Wien, July 14, 1785, pp. 3-4? Are you aware of it?

[Scarpia]

How about the article by Ludwig August  Furstenbaum which appeared in Allgemeine Zeitschrift fuer Natuerwissenschaften und Kunsten, edited by Karl Johann Theodor Freiherr von Barnabowsky-Gnaustein, printed at Wilhelm Lubniczicz & Sons, 13 Schwangasse, Wien, July 14, 1785, pp. 3-4? Are you aware of it?

Oh yes, I'm sure that'll convince him.   


Oooops.   

[robnewman]

Yes, as edward has mentioned, you find some absurd pretext to ignore every bit of the exhaustive evidence that contradicts your silly hypothesis.  Is there anyone on this board that has been convinced by anything you have posted or who does not recognize you as a self-deluded lunatic?

GMG members, perhaps we can show a modicum of collective will and STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD so it will sink to the depths and go away!  I volunteer to start.

The 'exhaustive evidence' you refer to. Well, I have been posting on this thread throughout most of today. In fact, I posted no less than 10 (THAT IS, TEN) successive requests for evidence from Vienna newspapers that Mozart, during this decade in Vienna (1781-1791) was a famous and celebrated composer and performer in the Austrian capital. I very patiently waited for replies. None came. I also showed, clearly and repeatedly, Lorenzo da Ponte (Mozart's colleague) said Mozart was UNKNOWN in Vienna and NEVER had such acclaim. Shall I repeat this ? HIS COLLEAGUE SAID, REPEATEDLY, THAT MOZART WAS 'UNKOWN' IN VIENNA AND NEVER ACHIEVED GREAT MUSICAL THINGS IN THE AUSTRIAN CAPITAL. An idiot can understand this and Lorenzo da Ponte said the same 3 times in a single paragraph. These things I myself repeated (4 times). Why, I even underlined them. I provided further evidence to the same effect by JN Forkel and by Heinrich Koch. And all of today we have been waiting for some evidence to the contrary from Vienna newspapers. It gets even more ridiculous. The only evidence that has been presented on this thread is nothing but a concert ADVERTISEMENT from 1784.

Now I know you are not the sharpest tool in the toolbox. But it seems what we need is an article, even a report, from Vienna of Mozart's famous musical and performance reputation there over that decade. And we still don't have even one. Do we ? We are STILL waiting for a single report, a single account, of his musical and compositional greatness. Of a concert which was raved about. Some evidence he was really (as you believe) a famous and well known celebrity in Vienna. But you don't have any, do you ?

Shall we go back to sleep ? Shall we tune in to FOX News again ?

And, finally, Mozart was NOT a Kapellmeister. He was NOT a Chapel Master. This TOO is a scam. He was NEVER, at any time in his entire lifetime qualified to call himself a Kapellmeister. Nor in 1781. Nor in 1782. Nor in 1783, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1790 or 1791. This is because Mozart was NEVER a Kapellmeister despite fraudulently claiming to be one. Get it yet ? This too you must put in to your memory banks so that you don't forget it. And if you find any evidence to the contrary please post it.

Now, will you unplug your television ? Stick it in the trash can. And start listening/reading about the FACTS of music history, rather than your nonsense fairy stories of Mozart and his iconic status ?

Thank you. Please don't forget to post if you come across evidence of him being a celebrated composer and performer of music in Vienna during the decade 1781-1791. Something better than an ad, that is.

Thank you so much, dear Student of Mozart ! Let's pretend you are doing all the presentation of evidence. LOL !!!!

[robnewman]

How about the article by Ludwig August  Furstenbaum which appeared in Allgemeine Zeitschrift fuer Natuerwissenschaften und Kunsten, edited by Karl Johann Theodor Freiherr von Barnabowsky-Gnaustein, printed at Wilhelm Lubniczicz & Sons, 13 Schwangasse, Wien, July 14, 1785, pp. 3-4? Are you aware of it?

What about it ?

[Florestan]

What about it ?

You asked for a newspaper article in Vienna between 1718-1791 attesting to Mozart's celebrity and popularity. There you have it! Care to comment?

[robnewman]

You asked for a newspaper article in Vienna between 1718-1791 attesting to Mozart's celebrity and popularity. There you have it! Care to comment?

Florestan,

You are the celebrated composer of 50 symphonies, 12 operas, 27 piano concertos, dozens of sonatas,a  miraculous performer, a brilliant improviser and a legendary performer in the Austrian capital. In your 10 years there there are lots and lots of reports in the newspapers of the time (since television has not yet been invented) of your phenomenal talents.

And yet, contrary to our expectations (as we see today) there appears to be NOT a single newspaper report testifying to your wonderful skills, your great reputation, and your great celebrity. Which researcher after researcher (including Neil Zaslaw, editor of the Mozart catalogue and now R.E. Newman) are both telling you. This you deny. And so I spent all of today hoping that the idiots who believe differently can produce some.

Here in London the time is now 7.43 pm.

Will it be possible for you to accept that, so far, no such evidence has been presented of the kind that was asked for nearly 12 hours ago. That it is, remarkably, not to be found. ? And will you accept that the people saying this include Lorenzo da Ponte, JN Forkel, Heinrich Koch, Neil Zaslaw and the udersigned ? In fact, EVERYONE who has ever actually examined this subject in the last 200 years ?

Thank You

Robert Newman

[Scarpia]

Florestan,

You are the celebrated composer of 50 symphonies, 12 operas, 27 piano concertos, dozens of sonatas,a  miraculous performer, a brilliant improviser and a legendary performer in the Austrian capital. In your 10 years there there are lots and lots of reports in the newspapers of the time (since television has not yet been invented) of your phenomenal talents.

And yet, contrary to our expectations (as we see today) there appears to be NOT a single newspaper report testifying to your wonderful skills, your great reputation, and your great celebrity. Which researcher after researcher (including Neil Zaslaw, editor of the Mozart catalogue and now R.E. Newman) are both telling you. This you deny. And so I spent all of today hoping that the idiots who believe differently can produce some.

Here in London the time is now 7.43 pm.

Will it be possible for you to accept that, so far, no such evidence has been presented of the kind that was asked for nearly 12 hours ago. That it is, remarkably, not to be found.

Thank You

This is a transcript of what you would have heard just now if there were a microphone attached to my computer.


HaHaHaHaHa, what  a MORON!   

[Florestan]

Will it be possible for you to accept that, so far, no such evidence has been presented of the kind that was asked for nearly 12 hours ago. That it is, remarkably, not to be found.

Are you going to comment on the article I pointed, or not?

[robnewman]

Are you going to comment on the article I pointed, or not?

Are you going to present evidence to us or not ? We are STILL waiting. Why, I've even paid a night watchman to collect it if you want to submit it ! Got anything specific to offer yet

[Josquin des Prez]

And yet, contrary to our expectations (as we see today) there appears to be NOT a single newspaper report testifying to your wonderful skills, your great reputation, and your great celebrity.

Who's expectations? Ho wait, more fallacies.

[Florestan]

Are you going to present evidence to us or not ?

I just did. It's under your eyes several posts above, completely referred to.

[not edward]

Are you going to present evidence to us or not ? We are STILL waiting. Why, I've even paid a night watchman to collect it if you want to submit it ! Got anything specific to offer yet

Quite a bit of evidence has been presented to you. You've just chosen to ignore it.

Apparently you have no knowledge of the relevant primary and secondary sources: rather strange for a so-called Mozart scholar, no?

And by the way--you have still failed to present any evidence whatsoever of anything. And given that it's you who're making the controversial claims, it is *you* who needs to present evidence to show that you have any case whatsoever, not us.

[Dr. Dread]

I think I'll go piss in the wind.

[robnewman]

Who's expectations?

If Mozart was a celebrated composer and performer in Vienna for no less than 10 years (the years of his apparently greatest creations) we are entitled to expect (as many believe here) that some record of his celebrity, his renown, his achievements, will feature in the newspapers of that same time. But what we find, in fact, and even from his own colleagues, is that he was UNKNOWN.

This is NOT expected. Is it ?

And this version is confirmed by Professor Neil Zaslaw, by R.E. Newman, and by others who have taken the time and trouble to confirm this. Seems to me that you should agree this is NOT what you or others expect. And, just to make this certain, we have spent all today waiting for evidence to the contrary and are still waiting.

[Herman]

STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD

[robnewman]

I just did. It's under your eyes several posts above, completely referred to.

Then why don't you present this evidence again, right here ? I am waiting NOW to see it.