Mozart a fraud?

[karlhenning]

Robert Newman
Author of, 'The Manufacture of Mozart' (2009)

PS for innocent readers "The Manufacture of Mozart (2009) is a non-existent book from a man who claims Mozart did not write his own music. Very funny

[Cato]

Cato forgot to mention that at the Music Library of Thurn and Taxis in Regensburg, Germany, is a copy of the symphony KV 297 with the name of Mozart written over that of its true composer, Andrea Luchesi !! And who discovered this ? It was the same Giorgio Taboga, brilliant researcher in Italy. The same Taboga who examined 10 'Mozart' symphonies in the library of Estense, Modena, which are today attributed to Mozart but which are not even listed as Mozart in 1784 at the library they came from. Namely, Bonn.

Oops ! Don't tell the children, will you ?

Bold A: I forgot nothing, thank you!

Bold B: Fascinating how nobody else has seen in the past 200+ years - or sees today - this obvious fraud except Signor Taboga!

[karlhenning]

Bold A: I forgot nothing, thank you!

Bold B: Fascinating how nobody else has seen in the past 200+ years - or sees today - this obvious fraud except Signor Taboga!

And that ink-stain which suspiciously appears to cover Luc . . . ?

The cat's eaten it.

[robnewman]

That is not a book. It is the product of a couple of non-musicologists angry with musicology. Just like the book you have been talking about for so long, it has not been accepted by any established publisher because it's no good. (Any publisher would love to have a controversial book on one of the most well-known composers in music history, as long as it's half good.)

Hildesheimer is one such book that deals and to a degree demolishes a couple of myths about Mozart, i.e. the ethereal prodigy. You may have heard of the book. Other books have long ago demolished the myth that Mozart composed all his music in his head while gadding about, and only had to write it down later at topspeed.

However I suspect what you're talking about is the myth that Mozart only wrote six works out of the 622 in the Kochel Verzeichnis. Now that book doesn't exist indeed, and the reason why is it is a myth indeed, invented by a couple of these Italian folks you keep referring to, and none of them are musicologists.


A couple pages ago you wrote you were not contibuting to this thread anymore. Somehow this hasn't happened yet. The GMG-etiquette however doesn't allow for folks to shoo members out, so I'd suggest you go back to your own words.

PS for innocent readers "The Manufacture of Mozart (2009) is a non-existent book from a man who claims Mozart did not write his own music. Very funny

Have you read the book on 'Figaro' ? I have many times read Hildesheimer. Have you studied Mozart, for 15 years ? Have you ? No, you do not know much about it, do you ?

We will see who laughs when the book ('The Manufacture of Mozart') is published and when people like yourself have to face the documentary evidence. For once.

Thanks

[karlhenning]

Rob, if your idea resided in the realm of responsible theory and history, it seems to me you would welcome criticism;  for either you will produce evidence and reason to support your claim, or your claim will collapse.  That is, if you are proposing it as a theory to test, rather than as the conclusion you have already arrived at (a situation which would invite a paraphrase of Churchill, as you would be "using" history the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than for illumination).

[karlhenning]

We will see who laughs when the book ('The Manufacture of Mozart') is published and when people like yourself have to face the documentary evidence. For once.

Oh, I am a-sweat with terror.

[karlhenning]

Care to name three mature works that you accept as written by Mozart?

Yet another direct question, which Rob cannot be troubled to answer.

[robnewman]

Bold A: I forgot nothing, thank you!

Bold B: Fascinating how nobody else has seen in the past 200+ years - or sees today - this obvious fraud except Signor Taboga!

Every truly remarkable achievement begins modestly. In this case with brilliant individual research by Giorgio Taboga. And matching my own line of research in many, many areas. Which I learned of around 5 years ago. The real credit is due to Taboga and to others of great talent. My role has been minor in comparison. Mr Taboga has done more for musicology and for the appreciation of music in Mozart and Haydn's time (even early Beethoven) than most people you will have ever read. I take my hat off to this great, independent Italian researcher. He and others associated with him have brilliantly cleared the way. The day is surely not far off when you will agree.

[karlhenning]

Yes, I do. And you ? It's one of 3 which Mozart is said to have composed in 6 weeks in the summer of 1788. But it's the result of all that good composition teaching from Leopold Mozart, back in Salzburg. Right ?

Rob, you're so entangled in conspiro-speak, you are incapable of a straight answer!

You say "Mozart is said to have composed [it]."

Did he, or didn't he?

[karlhenning]

Start with the 2008 book on 'Figaro' which I have freely offered and donated to some of the members here. It contains over 220 pages of evidence that this music is not by Mozart.

LOLOLOL

[robnewman]

Rob, you're so entangled in conspiro-speak, you are incapable of a straight answer!

You say "Mozart is said to have composed [it]."

Did he, or didn't he?

No, Mozart did not compose these 3 symphonies. (39, 40 and 41). Is that a straight enough answer for you ?

[karlhenning]

No, Mozart did not compose these 3 symphonies. (39, 40 and 41).

Your proof?

[robnewman]

Your proof?

Symphonies falsely attributed to Mozart from his Vienna years -

35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Read the book Karl.

//

[karlhenning]

Symphonies falsely attributed to Mozart from his Vienna years -

35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Read the book Karl.

For someone who slings mud at others for alleged obfuscation, you scarcely ever give anything like a straight answer.  "Read the book" is not an answer, Rob (that's a tag-line for Miss Cleo's ads on late-night cable).

Give us a brief summary of your proof.

If you cannot, then I doubt that "reading the book" will constitute "proof," either.

Come, come, Rob, play the man, and answer straight:  your proof?

[Herman]

Have you read the book on 'Figaro' ?

No. One of the dilletante mistakes you're making is the idea that one has to read everything. One doesn't. It is clear from your extensive posting you are a silly crank with a pathetic agenda. I have checked some stuff on the net about the Italians you're referring to constantly and it doesn't look good. In light of the fact that your hypothesis is totally off the wall, and goes against the grain of all research of the past 75 years, there is no need to investigate further, I'm sorry.

Have you studied Mozart, for 15 years ? Have you ?

Thirty years. And, as a plus, I don't have a resentment agenda the way you do.

We will see who laughs when the book ('The Manufacture of Mozart') is published and when people like yourself have to face the documentary evidence. For once.

We talked about this before. You have a habit of positing wishes as facts (including your theories about Mozart). The most simple fact, your "book" turned out to be no book, nor a fact, but more like a wish. I asked you whether you had an agent and a contact with a publisher. You had not. It turned out there is no prospect of your book ever being published as a book. You seem to have forgotten about this. It means there will be no showdown + last laugh. In all likelyhood you'll be talking about the showdown your book will cause till the end of time. But it will never happen,because there is no book. Just bluster on the net.

[karlhenning]

No. One of the dilletante mistakes you're making is the idea that one has to read everything. One doesn't. It is clear from your extensive posting you are a silly crank with a pathetic agenda. I have checked some stuff on the net about the Italians you're referring to constantly and it doesn't look good. In light of the fact that your hypothesis is totally off the wall, and goes against the grain of all research of the past 75 years, there is no need to investigate further, I'm sorry.

Considering the lack of evidence in his posts through dozens of pages of this thread, one has no confidence in his assertion that this current tome is in fact "220 pages of evidence."

I doubt there's a single page of evidence.

Nor do I hold out much hope that he can read the evidence properly.

[Herman]

Every truly remarkable achievement begins modestly. In this case with brilliant individual research by Giorgio Taboga. And matching my own line of research in many, many areas. Which I learned of around 5 years ago. The real credit is due to Taboga and to others of great talent. My role has been minor in comparison. Mr Taboga has done more for musicology and for the appreciation of music in Mozart and Haydn's time (even early Beethoven) than most people you will have ever read. I take my hat off to this great, independent Italian researcher. He and others associated with him have brilliantly cleared the way. The day is surely not far off when you will agree.

I will again point out that Mr Taboga is NOT a musicologist. He has a degree in Economics, I believe. "Independent scholar" is always a red flag, meaning someone with no training and / or expertise in the field, with predictably quixotic results.

[karlhenning]

I will again point out that Mr Taboga is NOT a musicologist. He has a degree in Economics, I believe. "Independent scholar" is always a red flag, meaning someone with no training and / or expertise in the field.

Mercy!  My officemates are wondering why I burst out laughing!

[karlhenning]

I mean, I like economists (my associates work with them all the time).  But when an economist takes it upon himself to act as a musicologist, it generally means:

1. He's a failure as a musicologist
2. He's a failure as an economist
3. He needs a new career path

[DavidW]

You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist. Full stop. Nor can anyone else.

Hildesheimer is one such book that deals and to a degree demolishes a couple of myths about Mozart, i.e. the ethereal prodigy.

I have many times read Hildesheimer.

Case 1: Newman has read Hildesheimer.
(a) Newman agrees with Herman that the book questions the myths of Mozart.  Then Newman is a liar, and thus conversing with him is a waste of time (since you can not trust what he has written).
(b) Newman disagrees with Herman that the book questions the myths of Mozart.  Then Newman fails to understand the book and since his reading skills are suspect that makes conversation with him by written correspondence a waste of time (since he will not understand what you've written).
Case 2: Newman has not read Hildesheimer.  Then Newman is a liar, and thus conversing with him is a waste of time.

Those are logically all possible cases, and thus we see that either Newman is a liar or he has poor reading skills, either of which means that no more time should be spent discussing Mozart with him.